the discipline of ergonomics and human factors

CHAPTER 1THE DISCIPLINE OF ERGONOMICSAND HUMAN FACTORS

Waldemar KarwowskiUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville, Kentucky

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 HUMAN–TECHNOLOGYINTERACTIONS 5

3 HFE AND ECOLOGICALCOMPATIBILITY 8

4 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THECONTEMPORARY HFE DISCIPLINEAND PROFESSION 13

5 PARADIGMS FOR THE ERGONOMICSDISCIPLINE 15

6 ERGONOMICS COMPETENCY ANDLITERACY 17

7 ERGONOMICS DESIGN 18

7.1 Axiomatic Design 19

7.2 Theory of Axiomatic Design inErgonomics 21

7.3 Applications of Axiomatic Design 22

8 THEORETICAL ERGONOMICS:SYMVATOLOGY 23

9 CONGRUENCE BETWEENMANAGEMENT AND ERGONOMICS 24

10 INTERNATIONAL ERGONOMICSASSOCIATION 26

11 FUTURE CHALLENGES 28

REFERENCES 28

The purpose of science is mastery over nature.

F. Bacon (Novum Organum, 1620 )

1 INTRODUCTION

Ergonomics (Gr. ergon + nomos), the study of work,was originally defined and proposed by the Polish sci-entist B. W. Jastrzebowski (1857a–d), as a scientificdiscipline with a very broad scope and a wide rangeof interests and applications, encompassing all aspectsof human activity, including labor, entertainment, rea-soning, and dedication (Karwowski, (1991, 2001). Inhis paper published in the journal Nature and Indus-try, Jastrzebowski (1857) divided work into two maincategories: useful work, which brings improvementsfor the common good, and harmful work, which bringsdeterioration (discreditable work). Useful work, whichaims to improve things and people, is classified intophysical, aesthetic, rational, and moral work. Accord-ing to Jastrzebowski, such work requires utilization ofmotor forces, sensory forces, forces of reason (thinkingand reasoning), and spiritual forces. He lists the fourmain benefits of useful work as being exemplified byproperty, ability, perfection, and felicity.

The contemporary ergonomics discipline, intro-duced independently by Murrell in 1949 (Edholm andMurrell, 1973), was viewed at that time as an appliedscience, a technology, and sometimes both. British

scientists founded the Ergonomics Research Societyin 1949. According to Kuorinka (2000), the develop-ment of ergonomics internationally can be linked to aproject initiated by the European Productivity Agency(EPA), a branch of the Organization for EuropeanEconomic Cooperation, which established a HumanFactors Section in 1955. Under the EPA project, in1956 specialists from European countries visited theUnited States to observe human factors research. In1957 the EPA organized a technical seminar, “Fittingthe Job to the Worker,” at the University of Leiden,The Netherlands, during which a set of proposals waspresented to form an international association of workscientists. A Steering Committee consisting of H. S.Belding, G. C. E. Burger, S. Forssman, E. Grand-jean, G. Lehman, B. Metz, K. U. Smith, and R. G.Stansfield, was charged with developing specific pro-posals for such an association. The committee decidedto adopt the name International Ergonomics Associa-tion. At a meeting in Paris in 1958, it was decidedto proceed with forming the new association. TheSteering Committee designated itself the Committeefor the International Association of Ergonomic Scien-tists and elected G. C. E. Burger as its first president,

3

COPYRIG

HTED M

ATERIAL

4 THE HUMAN FACTORS FUNCTION

K. U. Smith as treasurer, and E. Grandjean as secre-tary. The Committee for the International Associationof Ergonomic Scientists met in Zurich in 1959 dur-ing a conference organized by EPA, and decided toretain the name International Ergonomics Association.On April 6, 1959, at a meeting in Oxford, England,Grandjean declared the founding of the InternationalErgonomics Association (IEA). The committee metagain in Oxford later in 1959 and agreed on a set ofbylaws for the IEA. These were formally approvedby the IEA General Assembly at the first Interna-tional Congress of Ergonomics, held in Stockholmin 1961.

Over the last 50 years, ergonomics, a term that isused here synonymously with human factors (denotedHFE), has been evolving as a unique and independentdiscipline that focuses on the nature of human–artifactinteractions, viewed from the unified perspective of thescience, engineering, design, technology, and manage-ment of human-compatible systems, including a vari-ety of natural and artificial products, processes, andliving environments (Karwowski, 2005). The variousdimensions of the ergonomics discipline are shown inFigure 1.

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA,2003) defines ergonomics (human factors) as the sci-entific discipline concerned with the understanding ofthe interactions among humans and other elementsof a system, and the profession that applies theory,principles, data, and methods to design in order to

optimize human well-being and overall system per-formance. Ergonomists contribute to the design andevaluation of tasks, jobs, products, environments, andsystems to make them compatible with the needs,abilities, and limitations of people. Ergonomics dis-cipline promotes a holistic, human-centered approachto work systems design that considers physical, cogni-tive, social, organizational, environmental, and otherrelevant factors (Grandjean, 1986; Wilson and Cor-lett, 1990; Sanders and McCormick, 1993; Chapa-nis, 1999; Salvendy, 1997; Karwowski, 2001; Vicente,2004; Stanton et al., 2004).

Traditionally, the domains of specialization withinHFE cited most often are physical, cognitive, andorganizational ergonomics. Physical ergonomics isconcerned primarily with human anatomical, anthro-pometric, physiological, and biomechanical charac-teristics as they relate to physical activity (Chaffinand Anderson, 1993; Pheasant, 1986; Kroemer et al.,1994; Karwowski and Marras, 1999; NRC, 2001).Cognitive ergonomics focuses on mental processessuch as perception, memory, information process-ing, reasoning, and motor response as they affectinteractions among humans and other elements ofa system (Vicente, 1999; Hollnagel, 2003; Diaperand Stanton, 2004). Organizational ergonomics (alsoknown as macroergonomics) is concerned with theoptimization of sociotechnical systems, includingtheir organizational structures, policies, and pro-cesses (Reason, 1999; Holman et al., 2003; Nemeth,

PHILOSOPHY(SOCIALNEEDS)

PRACTICEAND

EDUCATION

THEORY

MANAGEMENT

ERGONOMICSDISCIPLINE

DESIGN

TECHNOLOGY/ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1 General dimensions of the HFE discipline. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

THE DISCIPLINE OF ERGONOMICS AND HUMAN FACTORS 5

Table 1 Exemplary Domains of the Disciplines of Medicine, Psychology, and Ergonomics

Medicine Psychology Ergonomics

Cardiology Applied psychology Affective ergonomicsCommunity medicine Child psychology Cognitive ergonomicsDermatology Clinical psychology Community ergonomicsEndocrinology Cognitive psychology Consumer ergonomicsGastroenterology Community psychology Ecological ergonomicsGerontology Counseling psychology Ergonomics of agingInternal medicine Developmental psychology Forensic ergonomicsNephrology Educational psychology Human–computer interactionNeurology Environmental psychology Human–system integrationNeuroscience Experimental psychology Information ergonomicsOncology Forensic psychology Knowledge ergonomicsOphthalmology Health psychology MacroergonomicsPhysical medicine Organizational psychology NanoergonomicsPsychiatry Positive psychology NeuroergonomicsPulmonology Participatory ergonomicsRadiology Quantitative psychology Physical ergonomicsUrology Social psychology Rehabilitation ergonomics

Source: Karwowski (2005).

Table 2 Objectives of the HFE Discipline

Basic operational objectivesReduce errorsIncrease safetyImprove system performance

Objectives bearing on reliability, maintainability,availability and integrated logistic support

Increase reliabilityImprove maintainabilityReduce personnel requirementsReduce training requirements

Objectives affecting users and operatorsImprove the working environmentReduce fatigue and physical stressIncrease ease of useIncrease user acceptanceIncrease aesthetic appearance

Other objectivesReduce losses of time and equipmentIncrease economy of production

Source: Chapanis (1995).

2004). Examples of relevant topics include commu-nication, crew resource management, design of work-ing times, teamwork, participatory work design, com-munity ergonomics, computer-supported cooperativework, new work paradigms, virtual organizations,telework, and quality management. The traditionaldomains noted above, together with new domains, arelisted in Table 1.

According to the discussion above, the paramountobjective of HFE is to understand interactions betweenpeople and everything that surrounds us, and basedon such knowledge to optimize human well-beingand overall system performance. Table 2 providesa summary of specific HFE objectives as dis-cussed by Chapanis (1995). As pointed out by the

National Academy of Engineering in the United States(NAE, 2004), in the future, ongoing developmentsin engineering will expand toward tighter connectionsbetween technology and the human experience, includ-ing new products customized to the physical dimensionsand capabilities of the user, and the ergonomic designof engineered products.

2 HUMAN–TECHNOLOGY INTERACTIONSWhereas in the past, ergonomics has been drivenby technology (reactive design approach), in thefuture, ergonomics should drive technology (proactivedesign approach). Technology can be defined as theentire system of people and organizations, knowledge,processes, and devices that go into creating andoperating technological artifacts, as well as the artifactsthemselves (NRC, 2001). Technology is a product anda process involving both science and engineering.Science aims to understand the “why” and “how”of nature (through a process of scientific inquirythat generates knowledge about the natural world).Engineering represents “design under constraints” ofcost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, easeof use, available human and material resources,manufacturability, government regulations, laws, andpolitics (Wulf, 1988). Engineering seeks to shape thenatural world to meet human needs and wants: a bodyof knowledge of design and creation of human-madeproducts and a process for solving problems.

Contemporary HFE discovers and applies informa-tion about human behavior, abilities, limitations, andother characteristics to the design of tools, machines,systems, tasks, jobs, and environments for productive,safe, comfortable, and effective human use (Sandersand McCormick, 1993; Helander, 1997b). In this con-text, HFE deals with a broad scope of problemsrelevant to the design and evaluation of work sys-tems, consumer products, and working environments,in which human–machine interactions affect human


Table 3 Classification Scheme for HumanFactors/Ergonomics

1. General

Human Characteristics

2. Psychological aspects3. Physiological and anatomical aspects4. Group factors5. Individual differences6. Psychophysiological state variables7. Task-related factors

Information Presentation and Communication

8. Visual communication9. Auditory and other communication modalities

10. Choice of communication media11. Person–machine dialogue mode12. System feedback13. Error prevention and recovery14. Design of documents and procedures15. User control features16. Language design17. Database organization and data retrieval18. Programming, debugging, editing, and

programming aids19. Software performance and evaluation20. Software design, maintenance, and reliability

Display and Control Design

21. Input devices and controls22. Visual displays23. Auditory displays24. Other modality displays25. Display and control characteristics

Workplace and Equipment Design

26. General workplace design and buildings27. Workstation design28. Equipment design

Environment

29. Illumination30. Noise31. Vibration32. Whole body movement33. Climate34. Altitude, depth, and space35. Other environmental issues

System Characteristics

36. General system features

Table 3 (continued)

Work Design and Organization

37. Total system design and evaluation38. Hours of work39. Job attitudes and job satisfaction40. Job design41. Payment systems42. Selection and screening43. Training44. Supervision45. Use of support46. Technological and ergonomic change

Health and Safety

47. General health and safety48. Etiology49. Injuries and illnesses50. Prevention

Social and Economic Impact of the System

51. Trade unions52. Employment, job security, and job sharing53. Productivity54. Women and work55. Organizational design56. Education57. Law58. Privacy59. Family and home life60. Quality of working life61. Political comment and ethical considerations

Methods and Techniques

62. Approaches and methods63. Techniques64. Measures

Source: EIAC (2004).

performance and product usability. The wide scopeof issues addressed by the contemporary HFE dis-cipline is presented in Table 3. Figure 2 illustratesthe evolution of the scope of HFE with respect tothe nature of human–system interactions. Originally,HFE focused on local human–machine interactions,whereas today, the primary focus is on broadly definedhuman–technology interactions. In this view the HFEcan also be called the discipline of technologicalecology. Tables 4 and 5 present the taxonomy ofhuman- and technology-related components, respec-tively, which are of great importance to HFE disci-pline.


Human–Technology Relationships

Technology–System Relationships

Human–System Relationships

Human–Machine Relationships

Figure 2 Expanded view of the human–technologyrelationships. (Modified from Meister, 1999.)

According to Meister (1987), the traditional con-cept of a human–machine system is an organizationof people and the machines they operate and main-tain in order to perform assigned jobs that implementthe purpose for which the system was developed.In this context, system is a construct whose char-acteristics are manifested in physical and behavioralphenomena (Meister, 1991). The system is critical toHFE theorizing because it describes the substance ofthe human–technology relationship. General systemvariables of interest to HFE discipline are shown inTable 6.

The human functioning in human–machine systemscan be described in terms of perception, information

Table 5 Taxonomy of HFE Elements: Technology

Technology elements Effects of technology on theComponents humanTools Changes in human roleEquipments Changes in human behaviorSystems Organization–technology

Degree of automation relationshipsMechanization Definition of organizationComputerization Organizational variablesArtificial intelligence

System characteristicsDimensionsAttributesVariables

Source: Meister (1999).

processing, decision making, memory, attention,feedback, and human response processes. Further-more, the human work taxonomy can be used todescribe five distinct levels of human functioning,ranging from primarily physical tasks to cognitivetasks (Karwowski, 1992a). These basic but univer-sal human activities are (1) tasks that produce force(primarily, muscular work), (2) tasks of continu-ously coordinating sensory-monitoring functions (e.g.,assembling or tracking tasks), (3) tasks of convert-ing information into motor actions (e.g., inspectiontasks), (4) tasks of converting information into out-put information (e.g., required control tasks), and(5) tasks of producing information (primarily cre-ative work) (Luczak et al., 1999). Any task in ahuman–machine system requires processing of infor-mation that is gathered based on perceived and inter-preted relationships between system elements. Theinformation processed may need to be stored by eithera human or a machine for later use.

Table 4 Taxonomy of HFE Elements: The Human Factor

Human elements Effects of the human on technologyPhysical/sensory Improvement in technology effectivenessCognitive Absence of effectMotivational/emotional Reduction in technological effectiveness

Human conceptualization Human–technological relationshipsStimulus–response orientation (limited) Controller relationshipStimulus–conceptual–response orientation (major) Partnership relationshipStimulus–conceptual–motivational–response orientation (major) Client relationship

Effects of technology on the human Human operations in technologyPerformance effects Equipment operation

Goal accomplishment Equipment maintenanceGoal nonaccomplishment System managementError/time discrepancies Type/degree of human involvementFeeling effect Direct (operation)Technology acceptance Indirect (recipient)Technology indifference ExtensiveTechnology rejection Minimal

Demand effects NoneResource mobilizationStress/trauma



Table 6 General System Variables

1. Requirements constraints imposed on thesystem

2. Resources required by the system3. Nature of its internal components and processes4. Functions and missions performed by the

system5. Nature, number, and specificity of goals6. Structural and organizational characteristics of

the system (e.g., its size, number of subsystemsand units, communication channels, hierarchicallevels, and amount of feedback)

7. Degree of automation8. Nature of the environment in which the system

functions9. System attributes (e.g., complexity, sensitivity,

flexibility, vulnerability, reliability, anddeterminancy)

10. Number and type of interdependencies(human–machine interactions) within the systemand type of interaction (degree of dependency)

11. Nature of the system’s terminal output(s) ormission effects


The scope of HFE factors that need to be con-sidered in the design, testing, and evaluation of anyhuman–system interactions is shown in Table 7 in theform of an exemplary ergonomics checklist. It shouldbe noted that such checklists also reflect practicalapplication of the discipline. According to the Boardof Certification in Professional Ergonomics (BCPE), apractitioner of ergonomics is a person who (1) has amastery of a body of ergonomics knowledge, (2) hasa command of the methodologies used by ergonomistsin applying that knowledge to the design of a prod-uct, system, job, or environment, and (3) has appliedhis or her knowledge to the analysis, design testing,and evaluation of products, systems, and environments.The areas of current practice in the field can best bedescribed by examining the focus of the TechnicalGroups of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,as illustrated in Table 8.

3 HFE AND ECOLOGICAL COMPATIBILITY

HFE discipline advocates systematic use of knowledgeconcerning relevant human characteristics to achievecompatibility in the design of interactive systemsof people, machines, environments, and devices ofall kinds to ensure specific goals [Human Factorsand Ergonomics Society (HFES), 2003]. Typically,such goals include improved (system) effectiveness,productivity, safety, ease of performance, and the

Table 7 Examples of Factors to Be Used in Ergonomics Checklists

I. Anthropometric, Biomechanical, and Physiological Factors

1. Are the differences in human body size accounted for by the design?2. Have the right anthropometric tables been used for specific populations?3. Are the body joints close to neutral positions?4. Is the manual work performed close to the body?5. Are any forward-bending or twisted trunk postures involved?6. Are sudden movements and force exertion present?7. Is there a variation in worker postures and movements?8. Is the duration of any continuous muscular effort limited?9. Are the breaks of sufficient length and spread over the duration of the task?

10. Is the energy consumption for each manual task limited?

II. Factors Related to Posture (Sitting and Standing)

1. Is sitting/standing alternated with standing/sitting and walking?2. Is the work height dependent on the task?3. Is the height of the worktable adjustable?4. Are the height of the seat and backrest of the chair adjustable?5. Is the number of chair adjustment possibilities limited?6. Have good seating instructions been provided?7. Is a footrest used where the work height is fixed?8. Has work above the shoulder or with hands behind the body been avoided?9. Are excessive reaches avoided?


Table 7 (continued)

10. Is there enough room for the legs and feet?11. Is there a sloping work surface for reading tasks?12. Have combined sit–stand workplaces been introduced?13. Are handles of tools bent to allow for working with the straight wrists?

III. Factors Related to Manual Materials Handling (Lifting, Carrying, Pushing and Pulling Loads)

1. Have tasks involving manual displacement of loads been limited?2. Have optimum lifting conditions been achieved?3. Is anybody required to lift more than 23 kg?4. Have lifting tasks been assessed using the NIOSH (Waters et al., 1993) method?5. Are handgrips fitted to the loads to be lifted?6. Is more than one person involved in lifting or carrying tasks?7. Are there mechanical aids for lifting or carrying available and used?8. Is the weight of the load carried limited according to recognized guidelines?9. Is the load held as close to the body as possible?

10. Are pulling and pushing forces limited?11. Are trolleys fitted with appropriate handles and handgrips?

IV. Factors Related to the Design of Tasks and Jobs

1. Does the job consist of more than one task?2. Has a decision been made about allocating tasks between people and machines?3. Do workers performing the tasks contribute to problem solving?4. Are difficult and easy tasks performed interchangeably?5. Can workers decide independently on how the tasks are carried out?6. Are there sufficient possibilities for communication between workers?7. Is sufficient information provided to control the tasks assigned?8. Can the group take part in management decisions?9. Are shift workers given enough opportunities to recover?

V. Factors Related to Information and Control Tasks

Information

I. Has an appropriate method of displaying information been selected?2. Is the information presentation as simple as possible?3. Has the potential confusion between characters been avoided?4. Has the correct character/letter size been chosen?5. Have texts with capital letters only been avoided?6. Have familiar typefaces been chosen?7. Is the text/background contrast good?8. Are the diagrams easy to understand?9. Have the pictograms been used properly?

10. Are sound signals reserved for warning purposes?

Control

1. Is the sense of touch used for feedback from controls?2. Are differences between controls distinguishable by touch?3. Is the location of controls consistent, and is sufficient spacing provided?4. Have the requirements for control–display compatibility been considered?5. Is the type of cursor control suitable for the intended task?6. Is the direction of control movements consistent with human expectations?7. Are the control objectives clear from the position of the controls?8. Are controls within easy reach of female workers?

(continued overleaf)


Table 7 (continued)

9. Are labels or symbols identifying controls used properly?10. Is the use of color in controls design limited?

Human–computer interaction

1. Is the human–computer dialogue suitable for the intended task?2. Is the dialogue self-descriptive and easy to control by the user?3. Does the dialogue conform to the expectations on the part of the user?4. Is the dialogue error-tolerant and suitable for user learning?5. Has command language been restricted to experienced users?6. Have detailed menus been used for users with little knowledge and experience?7. Is the type of help menu fitted to the level of the user’s ability?8. Has the QWERTY layout been selected for the keyboard?9. Has a logical layout been chosen for the numerical keypad?

10. Is the number of function keys limited?11. Have the limitations of speech in human–computer dialogue been considered?12. Are touch screens used to facilitate operation by inexperienced users?

VI. Environmental Factors

Noise and vibration

1. Is the noise level at work below 80 dBA?2. Is there an adequate separation between workers and source of noise?3. Is the ceiling used for noise absorption?4. Are acoustic screens used?5. Are hearing conservation measures fitted to the user?6. Is personal monitoring to noise/vibration used?7. Are the sources of uncomfortable and damaging body vibration recognized?8. Is the vibration problem being solved at the source?9. Are machines regularly maintained?

10. Is the transmission of vibration prevented?

Illumination

1. Is the light intensity for normal activities in the range 200 to 800 lux?2. Are large brightness differences in the visual field avoided?3. Are the brightness differences between task area, close surroundings, and wider surroundings limited?4. Is the information easily legible?5. Is ambient lighting combined with localized lighting?6. Are light sources properly screened?7. Can light reflections, shadows, or flicker from the fluorescent tubes be prevented?

Climate

1. Are workers able to control the climate themselves?2. Is the air temperature suited to the physical demands of the task?3. Is the air prevented from becoming either too dry to too humid?4. Are drafts prevented?5. Are the materials/surfaces that have to be touched neither too cold nor too hot?6. Are the physical demands of the task adjusted to the external climate?7. Are undesirable hot and cold radiation prevented?8. Is the time spent in hot or cold environments limited?9. Is special clothing used when spending long periods in hot or cold environments?

Source: Based on Dul and Weerdmeester (1993).


Table 8 Subject Interests of Technical Groups of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Technical Group Description/Areas of Concern

I. Aerospace systems Applications of human factors to the development, design, operation, andmaintenance of human–machine systems in aviation and space environments(both civilian and military).

II. Aging Human factors applications appropriate to meeting the emerging needs of olderpeople and special populations in a wide variety of life settings.

III. Cognitive engineeringand decision making

Research on human cognition and decision making and the application of thisknowledge to the design of systems and training programs. Emphasis is onconsiderations of descriptive models, processes, and characteristics of humandecision making, alone or in conjunction with other people or with intelligentsystems; factors that affect decision making and cognition in naturalistic tasksettings; technologies for assisting, modifying, or supplementing human decisionmaking; and training strategies for assisting or influencing decision making.

IV. Communications All aspects of human-to-human communication, with an emphasis oncommunication mediated by telecommunications technology, includingmultimedia and collaborative communications, information services, andinteractive broadband applications. Design and evaluation of enablingtechnologies and infrastructure technologies in education, medicine, businessproductivity, and personal quality of life.

V. Computer systems Human factors aspects of (1) interactive computer systems, especiallyuser-interface design issues; (2) the data-processing environment, includingpersonnel selection, training, and procedures; and (3) software development.

VI. Consumer products Development of consumer products that are useful, usable, safe, and desirable.Application of the principles and methods of human factors, consumer research,and industrial design to ensure market success.

VII. Education Design of educational systems, environments, interfaces, and technologies, as wellas human factors education. Improvement in educational design and addressingeducational needs of those seeking to increase their knowledge and skills in thehuman factors/ergonomics field.

VIII. Environmental design Ergonomic and macroergonomic aspects of the constructed physical environment,including architectural and interior design aspects of home, office, and industrialsettings. Promotion of the use of human factors principles in environmentaldesign.

IX. Forensics professional Application of human factors knowledge and technique to ‘‘standards of care’’ andaccountability established within legislative, regulatory, and judicial systems.Emphasis on providing a scientific basis to issues being interpreted by legaltheory.

X. Industrial ergonomics Application of ergonomics data and principles for improving safety, productivity,and quality of work in industry. Concentration on service and manufacturingprocesses, operations, and environments.

XI. Internet Human factor aspects of user-interface design of Web content, Web-basedapplications, Web browsers, Webtops, Web-based user assistance, and Internetdevices; behavioral and sociological phenomena associated with distributednetwork communication; human reliability in administration and maintenance ofdata networks; and accessibility of Web-based products.

XII. Macroergonomics Improving productivity and quality of work life and integrating psychosocial, cultural,and technological factors with human–machine performance interface factors inthe design of jobs, workstations, organizations, and related management systems.

XIII. Medical systems andfunctionally impairedpopulations

All aspects of the application of human factors principles and techniques toward theimprovement of medical systems, medical devices, and the quality of life forfunctionally impaired user populations.

XIV. Perception andperformance

The relationship between vision and human performance, including (1) the nature,content, and quantification of visual information and the context in which it isdisplayed; (2) the physics and psychophysics of information display;(3) perceptual and cognitive representation and interpretation of displayedinformation; (4) workload assessment using visual tasks; and (5) actions andbehaviors that are consequences of visually displayed information.

XV. Safety Research and applications concerning human factors in safety and injury control inall settings and attendant populations, including transportation, industry, military,office, public building, recreation, and home improvements.

(continued overleaf)


Table 8 (continued)

Technical Group Description/Areas of Concern

XVI. System development Concerned with research and exchange of information for integrating human factorsinto the development of systems. Integration of human factors activities intosystem development processes in order to provide systems that meet userrequirements.

XVII. Surface transportation Human factor aspects of mechanisms for conveying humans and resources:(1) passenger, commercial, and military vehicles, on- and off-road; (2) masstransit; maritime transportation; (3) rail transit, including vessel traffic services;(4) pedestrian and bicycle traffic; (5) and highway and infrastructure systems,including intelligent transportation systems.

XVIII. Test and evaluation A forum for test and evaluation practitioners and developers from all areas of humanfactors and ergonomics. Concerned with methodologies and techniques thathave been developed in their respective areas.

XIX. Training Fosters information and interchange among people interested in the fields oftraining and training research.

XX. Virtual environment Human factors issues associated with human–virtual environment interaction,including (1) maximizing human performance efficiency in virtual environments;(2) ensuring health and safety; and (3) circumventing potential social problemsthrough proactive assessment.

contribution to overall human well-being and qualityof life. Although the term compatibility is a keyword in the definition above, it has been usedprimarily in a narrow sense only, often in the contextof the design of displays and controls, includingstudies of spatial (location) compatibility or theintention–response–stimulus compatibility related tothe movement of controls (Wickens and Carswell,1997). Karwowski and his co-workers (Karwowskiet al., 1988; Karwowski, 1985, 1991) advocated theuse of compatibility in a greater context of theergonomics system. For example, Karwowski (1997)introduced the term human-compatible systems tofocus on the need for comprehensive treatment ofcompatibility in the human factors discipline.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage (Morris, 1978) defines compatible as(1) capable of living or performing in harmonious,agreeable, or congenial combination with another orothers; and (2) capable of orderly, efficient integra-tion and operation with other elements in a sys-tem. From the beginning of contemporary ergonomics,measurements of compatibility between the systemand the human, and evaluation of the results ofergonomics interventions, were based on the mea-sures that best suited specific purposes (Karwowski,2001). Such measures included the specific psy-chophysiological responses of the human body (e.g.,heart rate, electromyography, perceived human exer-tion, satisfaction, comfort or discomfort), as well asa number of indirect measures, such as the inci-dence of injury, economic losses or gains, sys-tem acceptance, or operational effectiveness, qual-ity, or productivity. The lack of a universal matrixto quantify and measure human-system compatibilityis an important obstacle in demonstrating the valueof ergonomics science and profession (Karwowski,1998). However, even though 20 years ago ergonomicswas perceived by some (see, e.g., Howell, 1986)

as a highly unpredictable area of human scien-tific endeavor, today HFE has positioned itself asa unique, design-oriented discipline, independent ofengineering and medicine (Moray, 1994; Sanders andMcCormick, 1993; Helander, 1997a; Karwowski,1991, 2003).

Figure 3 illustrates the human-system compatibil-ity approach to ergonomics in the context of qualityof working life and system (an enterprise or busi-ness entity) performance. This approach reflects thenature of complex compatibility relationships amonga human operator (human capacities and limitations),technology (in terms of products, machines, devices,processes, and computer-based systems), and broadlydefined environment (business processes, organiza-tional structure, the nature of work systems, and theeffects of work-related multiple stressors). The oper-ator’s performance is an outcome of the compatibil-ity matching between individual human characteristics(capacities and limitations) and the requirements andaffordances of both the technology and environment.The quality of working life and system (enterprise)performance is affected by matching of the positiveand negative outcomes of the complex compatibilityrelationships among the human operator, technology,and the environment. Positive outcomes include suchmeasures as work productivity, performance times,product quality, and subjective psychological (desir-able) behavioral outcomes such as job satisfaction,employee morale, human well-being, and commit-ment. The negative outcomes include both human andsystem-related errors, loss of productivity, low quality,accidents, injuries, physiological stresses, and subjec-tive psychological (undesirable) behavioral outcomessuch as job dissatisfaction, job/occupational stress, anddiscomfort.


PHILOSOPHY PRACTICE

PHILOSOPHY DESIGN

PHILOSOPHY PRACTICE PHASE II

PHILOSOPHY DESIGN

THEORY

THEORY PHASE III

PHILOSOPHY PRACTICETHEORY

THEORY DESIGNPRACTICE

CONTEMPORARY STATUS

THEORY PRACTICEDESIGN

EARLY DEVELOPMENTS

PHASE IV

PHASE I

Figure 3 Evolution in development of the HFE discipline. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

4 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THECONTEMPORARY HFE DISCIPLINEAND PROFESSION

The main focus of the HFE discipline in the twenty-first century is on the design and management ofsystems that satisfy customer demands in terms ofhuman compatibility requirements. Karwowski (2005)has discussed 10 characteristics of contemporaryHFE discipline and profession. These distinguishingfeatures are as follows:

1. HFE is very ambitious in its goals, but poorlyfunded compared to other contemporary disciplines.

2. HFE experiences continuing evolution of its“fit” philosophy, including diverse and ever-expandinghuman-centered design criteria (from safety to com-fort, productivity, usability, or affective needs such asjob satisfaction or life happiness).

3. HFE has yet to establish its unique disciplinaryidentity and credibility among other sciences, engi-neering, and technology.

4. HFE covers extremely diverse subject mattersin a manner similar to medicine, engineering, andpsychology (see Table 1).

5. HFE deals with very complex phenomena thatare not easily understood and cannot be simplifiedby making nondefendable assumptions about theirnature.

6. Historically, HFE has been developing fromthe “philosophy of fit” toward practice. Today, HFEis developing a sound theoretical basis for design andpractical applications (Figure 4).

7. HFE attempts to “by-step” the need for funda-mental understanding of human–system interactions,without separation from a consideration of knowledgeutility for practical applications, in the quest for imme-diate and useful solutions (Figure 5).

8. HFE enjoys limited recognition by decisionmakers, the general public, and politicians as to thevalue that it can bring to a global society at large,especially in the context of facilitating socioeconomicdevelopment.

9. HFE has relatively weak and limited profes-sional educational base.

10. HFE is adversely affected by the ergonomicsilliteracy of students and professionals in other disci-plines, the mass media, and the public at large.

Theoretical ergonomics is interested in the fun-damental understanding of the interactions betweenpeople and their environments. Also central to HFEinterests is an understanding of how human–systeminteractions should be designed. On the other hand,HFE also falls under the category of applied research.Taxonomy of research efforts with respect to thequest for fundamental understanding and the con-sideration of use, originally proposed by Stokes(1997), allows for differentiation of main cate-gories of research dimensions as follows: (1) purebasic research, (2) use-inspired basic research, and(3) pure applied research. Figure 5 illustrates inter-pretation of these categories for HFE theory, design,and applications. Table 9 presents relevant special-ties and subspecialties in HFE research as outlinedby Meister (1999), who classified them into three maincategories: (1) system/technology-oriented specialties,


Note: – Matching of compatibility relationships

BUSINESSPROCESSES

ORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURE

WORK SYSTEMS WORK-RELATED

STRESSORS

HUMAN OPERATOR

EnvironmentalRequirements

HumanPerformance

NEGATIVEOUTCOMES

PERCEPTUAL PROCESSES MOTOR PROCESSES

COGNITIVE PROCESSES AFFECTIVE PROCESSES

OTHER

TECHNOLOGY:

PRODUCTSDEVICES

MACHINESPROCESSESCOMPUTER-

BASED SYSTEMS

OTHER SYSTEMS Human

CapabilitiesHuman

Limitations

QUALITY OF WORKING LIFE SYSTEM (ENTERPRISE) PERFORMANCE

EnvironmentalAffordances

TechnologicalRequirements

TechnologicalAffordances

POSITIVEOUTCOMES

ENVIRONMENTALSYSTEM

TECHNOLOGY

Figure 4 Human–system compatibility approach to ergonomics. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

THEORETICAL ERGONOMICSQUEST FOR

Pure applied researchAPPLIED ERGONOMICSNO

Use-inspiredbasic research

ERGONOMICS DESIGN

Pure basic research SYMVATOLOGYYES

FUNDAMENTALUNDERSTANDING?

YESNO

CONSIDERATIONS OF USE?

Figure 5 Considerations of fundamental understanding and use in HFE research. (After Karwowski, 2005.)


Table 9 Specialties and Subspecialties in HFE Research

System/Technology-Oriented Specialties

1. Aerospace: civilian and military aviation and outer-space activities.2. Automotive: automobiles, buses, railroads, transportation functions (e.g., highway design, traffic signs, ships).3. Communication: telephone, telegraph, radio, direct personnel communication in a technological context.4. Computers: anything associated with the hardware and software of computers.5. Consumer products: other than computers and automobiles, any commercial product sold to the general public (e.g.,

pens, watches, TV sets).6. Displays: equipment used to present information to operators (e.g., HMO, HUD, meters, scales).7. Environmental factors/design: the environment in which human–machine system functions are performed (e.g.,

offices, noise, lighting).8. Special environment: this turns out to be underwater.

Process-Oriented Specialties

1. Biomechanics: human physical strength as it is manifested in such activities as lifting and pulling.2. Industrial ergonomics (IE): related primarily to manufacturing; processes and resultant problems (e.g., carpal tunnel

syndrome).3. Methodology/measurement: ways of answering HFE questions or solving HFE problems.4. Safety: closely related to IE but with a major emphasis on analysis and prevention of accidents.5. System design/development: processes of analyzing, creating, and developing systems.6. Training: how personnel are taught to perform functions/tasks in a human–machine system.

Behaviorally Oriented Specialties

1. Aging: the effect of this process on technological performance.2. Human functions: emphasizes perceptual-motor and cognitive functions. The latter differs from training in the sense

that training also involves cognition but is the process of implementing cognitive capabilities. (The HFES specialtycalled cognitive ergonomics/decision making has been categorized.)

3. Visual performance: how people see; differs from displays in that the latter relate to equipment for seeing, whereasthe former deals with the human capability and function of seeing.

Source: Adapted from Meister (1999).

(2) process-oriented specialties, and (3) behaviorallyoriented specialties. In addition, Table 10 presents alist of contemporary HFE research methods that can beused to advance knowledge, discovery, and utilizationthrough its practical applications.

5 PARADIGMS FOR THE ERGONOMICSDISCIPLINE

The paradigms for any scientific discipline includetheory, abstraction, and design (Pearson and Young,2002). Theory is a foundation of the mathematical sci-ences. Abstraction (modeling) is a foundation of thenatural sciences, where progress is achieved by formu-lating hypotheses and following the modeling processsystematically to verify and validate them. Design asthe basis for engineering, where progress is achievedprimarily by posing problems and systematically fol-lowing the design process to construct systems thatsolve them.

In view of the above, Karwowski (2005) dis-cussed the following paradigms for HFE disci-pline: (1) ergonomics theory, (2) ergonomics abstrac-tion, and (3) ergonomics design. Ergonomics theoryis concerned with the ability to identify, describe,and evaluate human–system interactions. Ergonomicsabstraction is concerned with the ability to use thoseinteractions to make predictions that can be comparedwith the real world. Ergonomics design is concernedwith the ability to implement knowledge about thoseinteractions and use them to develop systems that sat-isfy customer needs and relevant human compatibilityrequirements.

Furthermore, the pillars for any scientific disci-pline include a definition, a teaching paradigm, andan educational base (NRC, 2001). A definition ofergonomics discipline and profession adopted by IEA(2003) emphasizes fundamental questions and sig-nificant accomplishments, recognizing that the HFEfield is constantly changing. A teaching paradigm forergonomics should conform to established scientific


Table 10 Contemporary HFE Research Methods

Physical Methods

PLIBEL: method assigned for identification of ergonomic hazards Musculoskeletal discomfortsurveys used at NIOSH

Dutch musculoskeletal questionnaireQuick exposure checklist for the assessment of workplace risks for work-related musculoskeletal

disordersRapid upper limb assessmentRapid entire body assessmentStrain indexPosture checklist using personal digital assistant technologyScaling experiences during work: perceived exertion and difficultyMuscle fatigue assessment: functional job analysis techniquePsychophysical tables: lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling, and carryingLumbar motion monitorOccupational repetitive action (OCRA) methods: OCRA index and OCRA checklistAssessment of exposure to manual patient handling in hospital wards: MAPO (movement and

assistance of hospital patients) index

Psychophysiological Methods

Electrodermal measurementElectromyographyEstimating mental effort using heart rate and heart rate variabilityAmbulatory methods and sleepinessAssessing brain function and mental chronometry with event-related potentialsMEG and fMRI Magnetoencephalography and magnetic resonance imaging.Ambulatory assessment of blood pressure to evaluate workloadMonitoring alertness by eyelid closureMeasurement of respiration in applied human factors and ergonomics research

Behavioral and Cognitive Methods

ObservationHeuristicsApplying interviews to usability assessmentVerbal protocol analysisRepertory grid for product evaluationFocus groupsHierarchical task analysisAllocation of functionsCritical decision methodApplied cognitive work analysisSystematic human error reduction and prediction approachPredictive human error analysisHierarchical task analysisMental workloadMultiple resource time sharingCritical path analysis for multimodal activitySituation awareness measurement and the situation awarenesskeystroke level modelGOMS (Goals, operators, methods, and selection rules)Link analysisGlobal assessment technique

Team Methods

Team trainingDistributed simulation training for teamsSynthetic task environments for teamsEvent-based approach to trainingTeam buildingMeasuring team knowledgeTeam communications analysisQuestionnaires for distributed assessment of team mutual awareness


Table 10 (continued)

Team decision requirement exercise: making team decision requirements explicitTargeted acceptable responses to generated events or tasksBehavioral observation scalesTeam situation assessment training for adaptive coordinationTeam task analysisTeam workloadSocial network analysis

Environmental Methods

Thermal conditions measurementCold stress indicesHeat stress indicesThermal comfort indicesIndoor air quality: chemical exposuresIndoor air quality: biological/particulate-phase contaminantExposure assessment methodsOlfactometry: human nose as a detection instrumentContext and foundation of lighting practicePhotometric characterization of the luminous environmentEvaluating office lightingRapid sound-quality assessment of background noiseNoise reaction indices and assessmentNoise and human behaviorOccupational vibration: a concise perspectiveHabitability measurement in space vehicles and earth analogs

Macroergonomic Methods

Macroergonomic organizational questionnaire surveyInterview methodFocus groupsLaboratory experimentField study and field experimentParticipatory ergonomicsCognitive walk-through methodKansei engineeringHITOP analysis TMTOP-Modeler CCIMOP system CAnthropotechnologySystems analysis toolMacroergonomic analysis of structureMacroergonomic analysis and design

Source: Based on Stanton et al. (2004).

standards, emphasize the development of compe-tence in the field, and integrate theory, experimen-tation, design, and practice. Finally, an introductorycourse sequence in ergonomics should be based onthe curriculum model and the disciplinary descrip-tion.

6 ERGONOMICS COMPETENCY ANDLITERACY

As pointed out by the National Academy of Engi-neering (Pearson and Young, 2002), many consumerproducts and services promise to make people’s liveseasier, more enjoyable, more efficient, or healthier, butvery often do not deliver on this promise. Design ofinteractions with technological artifacts and work sys-tems requires involvement of ergonomically competentpeople: people with ergonomics proficiency in a certain

area, although not generally in other areas of applica-tion, similar to medicine or engineering.

One of the critical issues in this context is theability of users to understand the utility and limita-tions of technological artifacts. Ergonomics literacyprepares people to perform their roles in the workplaceand outside the working environment. Ergonomicallyliterate people can learn enough about how technolog-ical systems operate to protect themselves by makinginformed choices and making use of beneficial affor-dances of the artifacts and environment. People trainedin ergonomics typically possess a high level of knowl-edge and skill related to one or more specific areaof ergonomics application. Ergonomics literacy is aprerequisite to ergonomics competency. The followingcan be proposed as dimensions for ergonomics literacy(Figure 6):


PracticalErgonomics

ErgonomicsKnowledge

Ergonomics Ways of Thinking and Acting

Highapplicability

HighlyDeveloped

Extensive

Figure 6 Desired goals for ergonomics literacy. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

1. Ergonomics knowledge and skills. A personhas a basic knowledge of the philosophy of human-centered design and principles for accommodatinghuman limitations.

2. Ways of thinking and acting. A person seeksinformation about benefits and risks of artifactsand systems (consumer products, services, etc.) andparticipates in decisions about purchasing and useand/or development of artifacts/ systems.

3. Practical ergonomics capabilities. A person canidentify and solve simple task (job)-related designproblems at work or home and can apply basicconcepts of ergonomics to make informed judgmentsabout usability of artifacts and the related risks andbenefits of their use.

Finally, Table 11 presents a list of 10 standardsfor ergonomics literacy, which were proposedby Karwowski (2005) in parallel to a model oftechnological literacy reported by National Academyof Engineering (Pearson and Young, 2002). Eightof these standards are related to developing anunderstanding of the nature, scope, attributes, andthe role of HFE discipline in modern society; twostandards refer to the need for developing the abilitiesto apply the ergonomics design process and evaluatethe impact of artifacts on human safety and well-being.

7 ERGONOMICS DESIGN

Ergonomics is a design-oriented discipline. However,as discussed by Karwowski (2003), ergonomists donot design systems; rather, HFE professionals designthe interactions between artifact systems and humans.A fundamental problem involved in such a design

Table 11 Standards for Ergonomics Literacy:Ergonomics and Technology

An understanding of:Standard 1: characteristics and scope of

ergonomicsStandard 2: core concepts of ergonomicsStandard 3: connections between ergonomics

and other fields of study, andrelationships among technology,environment, industry, and society

Standard 4: cultural, social, economic, andpolitical effects of ergonomics

Standard 5: role of society in the developmentand use of technology

Standard 6: effects of technology on theenvironment

Standard 7: attributes of ergonomics designStandard 8: role of ergonomics research,

development, invention, andexperimentation

Abilities to:Standard 9: apply the ergonomics design

processStandard 10: assess the impact of products and

systems on human health,well-being, system performance,and safety

Source: Karwowski (2005).

is that typically there are multiple functional sys-tem–human compatibility requirements that must besatisfied at the same time. To address this issue, struc-tured design methods for complex human–artifact sys-tems are needed. In such a perspective, ergonomics


design can be defined in general as mapping fromthe human capabilities and limitations to system(technology–environment) requirements and affor-dances (Figure 7), or, more specifically, from thesystem–human compatibility needs to the relevanthuman–system interactions.

Suh (1990, 2001) proposed a framework foraxiomatic design, which utilizes four different domainsthat reflect mapping between the identified needs(“what one wants to achieve”) and the ways toachieve them (“how to satisfy the stated needs”):(1) customer requirements (customer needs or desiredattributes), (2) functional domain (functional require-ments and constraints), (3) physical domain (physicaldesign parameters), and (4) processes domain (pro-cesses and resources). Karwowski (2005) conceptu-alized the foregoing domains for ergonomics designpurposes, as illustrated in Figure 8, using the conceptof compatibility requirements and compatibility map-pings between the domains of (1) HFE requirements(goals in terms of human needs and system perfor-mance), (2) functional requirements and constraintsexpressed in terms of human capabilities and lim-itations, (3) physical domain in terms of design ofcompatibility, expressed through human–system inter-actions and specific work system design solutions, and(4) processes domain, defined as management of com-patibility (see Figure 9).

7.1 Axiomatic Design

Axiomatic design process is described by the mappingprocess from functional requirements (FRs) to designparameters (DPs). The relationship between the two

vectors FR and DP is as follows:

{FR} = [A]{DP}

where [A] is the design matrix that characterizes theproduct design. The design matrix [A] for three FRsand three DPs is

[A] =[

A11 A12 A13A21 A22 A23A31 A32 A33

]

The following two design axioms, proposed by Suh(1990), are the basis for a formal methodology ofdesign.

Axiom 1: Independence Axiom This axiom stip-ulates a need for independence of the FRs, which aredefined as the minimum set of independent require-ments that characterize the design goals (definedby DPs).

Axiom 2: Information Axiom This axiom stipulatesminimizing the information content of the design.Among those designs that satisfy the independenceaxiom, the design that has the smallest informationcontent is the best design.

According to the second design axiom, the infor-mation content of the design should be minimized. Theinformation content Ii for a given functional require-ment (FRi ) is defined in terms of the probability Pi ofsatisfying FRi :

Ii = log2(1/Pi) = − log2 Pi bits

SYSTEM-HUMAN COMPATIBILITY

NEEDS

TECHNOLOGY- ENVIRONMENT COMPATIBILITYREQUIREMENTS

AND AFFORDANCES

g

DESIGN PARAMETERS

HUMANCAPABILITIES

ANDLIMITATIONS

FUNCTIONALREQUIREMENTS

TECHNOLOGY-ENVIRONMENT

REQUIREMENTSAND

AFFORDANCES

COMPATIBILITY MAPPING

f

Figure 7 Ergonomics design process: compatibility mapping. (After Karwowski, 2005.)


Customerdomain

Functionaldomain

Physicaldomain

Processdomain

HHUUMMAANN WWEELLLL--BBEEIINNGG

PPEERRFFOORRMMAANNCCEE

PPRROODDUUCCTTIIVVIITTYY

UUSSAABBIILLIITTYY

SSAAFFEETTYY AANNDD HHEEAALLTTHH

Compatibility Mapping



CA FR DP PV

HHUUMMAANNCCAAPPAABBIILLIITTIIEESSAANNDD LLIIMMIITTAATTIIOONNSS

DDEESSIIGGNN OOFFCCOOMMPPAATTIIBBIILLIITTYY

PPRROOCCEESSSS DDEESSIIGGNNAANNDD MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT

MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT OOFFCCOOMMPPAATTIIBBIILLIITTYY

WWOORRKKPPLLAACCEE,,PPRROODDUUCCTTSS,, WWOORRKKSSYYSSTTEEMM DDEESSIIGGNNSSOOLLUUTTIIOONNSS

PPHHYYSSIICCAALLCCOOGGNNIITTIIVVEEAAFFFFEECCTTIIVVEEOORRGGAANNIIZZAATTIIOONNAALL

Figure 8 Four domains of axiomatic HFE design. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

Practical workplaceimprovements

Development of principles of work

design

TECHNOLOGY OF DESIGN SCIENCE OF DESIGN

Axiomatic design Optimal design of products and systems

SCIENCE OF DESIGN TECHNOLOGY OF DESIGN

Ergonomics science Methodologies forergonomics design

Figure 9 Axiomatic approach to ergonomics design. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

The information content will be additive when thereare many functional requirements that must be satisfiedsimultaneously. In the general case of m FRs, theinformation content for the entire system,

Isys = − log2 P{m}

where P{m} is the joint probability that all m FRs aresatisfied.

The axioms above can be adapted for ergonomicsdesign purposes as follows.

Axiom 1: Independence Axiom This axiom stip-ulates a need for independence of the functional com-patibility requirements (FCRs), which are defined asthe minimum set of independent compatibility require-ments that characterize the design goals [defined byergonomics design parameters (EDPs)].


Axiom 2: Human Incompatibility Axiom Thisaxiom stipulates a need to minimize the incompati-bility content of the design. Among those designs thatsatisfy the independence axiom, the design that has thesmallest incompatibility content is the best design.

As discussed by Karwowski (2001, 2003), inergonomics design, axiom 2 can be interpreted asfollows. The human incompatibility content of thedesign Ii for a given functional requirement (FRi )is defined in terms of the compatibility Ci indexsatisfying FRi :

Ii = log2(1/Ci) = − log2 Ci ints

where I denotes the incompatibility content of adesign.

7.2 Theory of Axiomatic Design in Ergonomics

As discussed by Karwowski (1985, 1991, 1999, 2001,2005), a need to remove the system–human incom-patibility (or ergonomics entropy) plays the centralrole in ergonomics design. In view of this, the sec-ond axiomatic design axiom can be adopted for thepurpose of ergonomics theory as follows.

The incompatibility content of the design Ii for agiven functional compatibility requirement (FCRi ) isdefined in terms of the compatibility Ci index thatsatisfies this FCRi :

Ii = log2(1/Ci) = − log2 Ci ints

where I denotes the incompatibility content of adesign, and the compatibility index Ci(0 < C < 1) isdefined depending on the specific design goals (i.e.,the applicable or relevant ergonomics design criterionused for system design or evaluation).

To minimize system–human incompatibility, onecan either (1) minimize exposure to the negative(undesirable) influence of a given design parameter onthe system–human compatibility, or (2) maximize thepositive influence of the desirable design parameter(adaptability) on system–human compatibility. Thefirst design scenario [i.e., a need to minimize exposureto the negative (undesirable) influence of a givendesign parameter (Ai)] typically occurs when Ai

exceeds some maximum exposure value of Ri : forexample, when the compressive force on the humanspine (lumbosacral joint) due to manual lifting of loadsexceeds the accepted (maximum) reference value. Itshould be noted that if Ai < Ri , then C can be setto 1, and the related incompatibility due to considereddesign variable will be zero.

The second design scenario [i.e., a need to maxi-mize positive influence (adaptability) of the desirablefeature (design parameter Ai) on system human com-patibility], typically occurs when Ai is less than orbelow some desired or required value of Ri (i.e., min-imum reference value): for example, when the range ofchair height adjustability is less than the recommended(reference) range of adjustability to accommodate 90%of the mixed (male/female) population. It should be

noted that if Ai > Ri , then C can be set to 1 andthe related incompatibility due to considered designvariable will be zero. In both of the cases describedabove, the human–system incompatibility content canbe assessed as discussed below.

1. Ergonomics design criterion: minimize exposurewhen Ai > Ri . The compatibility index Ci is definedby the ratio Ri/Ai , where Ri is the maximum exposure(standard) for design parameter i and Ai is the actualvalue of a given design parameter i:

Ci = Ri/Ai

and hence

Ii = − log2 Ci

= − log2(Ri/Ai) = log2(Ai/Ri) ints

Note that if Ai < Ri , then C can be set to 1 andthe incompatibility content Ii is zero.

2. Ergonomics design criterion: maximize adapt-ability when Ai < Ri . The compatibility index Ci isdefined by the ratio Ai/Ri , where Ai is the actualvalue of a given design parameter i, and Ri is thedesired reference or required (ideal) design parameterstandard: i:

Ci = Ai/Ri

and hence

Ii = − log2 Ci

= − log2(Ai/Ri) = log2(Ri/Ai) ints

Note that if Ai > Ri , then C can be set to 1 andthe incompatibility content Ii is zero.

As discussed by Karwowski (2004), the proposedunits of measurement for system–human incompatibil-ity (ints) are parallel and numerically identical to themeasure of information (bits). The information contentof the design in expressed in terms of the (ergonomics)incompatibility of design parameters with the optimal,ideal, or desired reference values, expressed in terms ofergonomics design parameters, such as range of tableheight or chair height adjustability, maximum accept-able load of lift, maximum compression on the spins,optimal number of choices, maximum number of handrepetitions per cycle time on a production line, mini-mum required decision time, and maximum heat loadexposure per unit of time.

The general relationships between technology ofdesign and science of design are illustrated in Figure 9.Furthermore, Figure 10 depicts such relationships forthe HFE discipline. In the context of axiomaticdesign in ergonomics, the functional requirementsare the human–system compatibility requirements,


Practice of ergonomic sTheoretical basis

of ergonomic s

TECHNOLOGY OF ERGONOMICS SCIENCE OF ERGONOMICS

Theoretical basis of ergonomic s

Practice of ergonomic s

SCIENCE OF ERGONOMICS

Axiomatic design in ergonomic s

Human-compatible products and sy stem s

??Practice of ergonomics

Theoretical basis of ergonomics

Theoretical basis of ergonomics

Practice of ergonomics

TECHNOLOGY OF ERGONOMICS

Axiomatic design in ergonomics

Human-compatible products and systems

??

Figure 10 Science, technology, and design of human-compatible systems. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

while the design parameters are the human–systeminteractions. Therefore, ergonomics design can bedefined as mapping from human–system compatibilityrequirements to human–system interactions. Moregenerally, HFE can be defined as the science ofdesign, testing, evaluation, and management of humansystem interactions according to the human–systemcompatibility requirements.

7.3 Applications of Axiomatic DesignHelander (1995) was first to provide a conceptualiza-tion of the second design axiom in ergonomics byconsidering selection of a chair based on the infor-mation content of specific chair design parameters.Recently, Karwowski (2003) introduced the concept ofsystem incompatibility measurements and the measureof incompatibility for ergonomics design and evalu-ation. Furthermore, Karwowski (2003) has also illus-trated an application of the first design axiom adaptedto the needs of ergonomics design, using an exampleof the design of the rear lighting system utilized toprovide information about application of brakes in apassenger car. The rear lighting system is illustratedin Figure 11. In this highway safety–related example,the FRs of the rear lighting (braking display) systemwere defined in terms of FRS and DPs as follows:

FR1 = provides early warning to maximize

the lead response time(MLRT)|(information about the car in

front that is applying brakes)

FR2 = assures safe braking (ASB)

The traditional (old) design solution is based on twodesign parameters (DPs):

DP1 = two rear brake lights on the sides (TRLS)

DP2 = efficient braking mechanism (EBM)

AdditionalCenter Light

TraditionalSide Lights

Figure 11 Redesigned rear light system of an automo-bile. (After Karwowski, 2005.)

The design matrix of the traditional rear lightingsystem (TRLS) is as follows:

{FR1FR2

}=

[X 0X X

]{DP1DP2

}

MLRT X 0 TRLS

ASB X X EBM

This rear lighting warning system (old solution) canbe classified as a decoupled design and is not anoptimal design. The reason for such classification isthat even with the efficient braking mechanism, onecannot compensate for the lack of time in the driver’sresponse to braking of the car in front due to a suddentraffic slowdown. In other words, this rear lightingsystem does not provide early warning that wouldallow the driver to maximize his or her lead responsetime (MLRT) to braking.


The solution that was implemented two decadesago utilizes a new concept for the rear lighting ofthe braking system (NRLS). The new design is basedon addition of the third brake light, positioned in thecenter and at a height that allows this light to be seenthrough the windshields of the car preceding the carimmediately in front. This new design solution has twodesign parameters:

DP1 = a new rear lighting system (NRLS)

DP2 = efficient braking mechanism(EBM)(the same as before)

The formal design classification of the new solutionis uncoupled design. The design matrix for this newdesign is as follows:

{FR1FR2

}=

[X 00 X

]{DP1DP2

}

MLRT X 0 NRLS

ASB 0 X EBM

It should be noted that the original (traditional) rearlighting system (TRLS) can be classified as decoupleddesign. This old design (DP1,O ) does not compensatefor the lack of early warning that would make itpossible to maximize the driver’s lead response time(MLRT) whenever braking is needed, and thereforeviolates the second functional requirement (FR2) fora safe braking requirement. The design matrix fornew system (NRLS) is an uncoupled design thatsatisfies the independence of functional requirements(independence axiom). This uncoupled design (DP1,N )fulfills the requirement of maximizing lead responsetime (MLRT) whenever braking is needed and doesnot violate the FR2 (safe braking requirement).

8 THEORETICAL ERGONOMICS:SYMVATOLOGY

It should be noted that the system–human interactionsoften represent complex phenomena with dynamiccompatibility requirements. The are often nonlinearand can be unstable (chaotic) phenomena, modelingof which requires a specialized approach. Karwowski(2001) indicated a need for symvatology as a corrobo-rative science to ergonomics that can help in develop-ing solid foundations for the ergonomics science. Theproposed subdiscipline is symvatology, the science ofthe artifact–human (system) compatibility. Symvatol-ogy aims to discover the laws of artifact–human com-patibility, propose theories of artifact–human compat-ibility, and develop a quantitative matrix for measure-ment of such compatibility. Karwowski (2001) coinedthe term symvatology by joining two Greek words:symvatotis (compatibility) and logos (logic, or reason-ing about). Symvatology is the systematic study (whichincludes theory, analysis, design, implementation, and

application) of interaction processes that define, trans-form, and control compatibility relationships betweenartifacts (systems) and people. An artifact system isdefined as a set of all artifacts (meaning objects madeby human work) as well as natural elements of theenvironment and their interactions occurring in timeand space afforded by nature. A human system isdefined as a human (or humans) with all the char-acteristics (physical, perceptual, cognitive, emotional,etc.) that are relevant to an interaction with the artifactsystem.

To optimize both the human and system well-being and performance, system–human compatibilityshould be considered at all levels, including the physi-cal, perceptual, cognitive, emotional, social, organiza-tional, managerial, environmental, and political. Thisrequires a way to measure the inputs and outputsthat characterize the set of system–human interac-tions (Karwowski, 1991). The goal of quantifying arti-fact–human compatibility can be realized only if weunderstand its nature. Symvatology aims to observe,identify, describe, perform empirical investigations,and produce theoretical explanations of the naturalphenomena of artifact–human compatibility. As such,symvatology should help to advance the progress ofergonomics discipline by providing methodology fordesign for compatibility, as well as design of com-patibility between the artificial systems (technology)and humans. In the perspective described above, thegoal of ergonomics should be to optimize both humanand system well-being and their mutually dependentperformance. As pointed out by Hancock (1997), it isnot enough to assure the well-being of humans; onemust also optimize the well-being of systems (i.e.,artifact-based technology and nature) to make properuses of life.

Due to the nature of the interactions, an artifactsystem is often a dynamic system with a high levelof complexity, that exhibits nonlinear behavior. TheAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language(1978) defines complex as consisting of intercon-nected or interwoven parts. Karwowski et al. (1988)and Karwowski and Jamaldin (1995) proposed repre-senting an artifact–human system as a construct thatcontains a human subsystem, an artifact subsystem,an environmental subsystem, and a set of interac-tions occurring between the various elements of thesesubsystems over time. In the framework above, com-patibility is a dynamic, natural phenomenon that isaffected by the artifact–human system structure, itsinherent complexity, and its entropy or the level ofincompatibility between the system’s elements. Sincethe structure of system interactions determines thecomplexity and related compatibility relationships ina given system, compatibility should be considered inrelation to the system’s complexity.

The system space, denoted here as an ordered set[(complexity, compatibility)], is defined by four pairs:(high, high), (high, low), (low, high), (low, low).Under the best scenario (i.e., the most optimal stateof system design), the artifact–human system exhibitshigh compatibility and low complexity levels. It should


be noted that the transition from a high to a lowlevel of system complexity does not necessarily leadto an improved (higher) level of system compatibility.Also, it is often the case in most of artifact–humansystems that improved (higher) system compatibilitycan be achieved only at the expense of increasingsystem complexity.

As discussed by Karwowski and Jamaldin (1995)lack of compatibility, or ergonomics incompatibility(EI), defined as degradation (disintegration) of an arti-fact–human system, is reflected in the system’s mea-surable inefficiency and associated human losses. Toexpress the innate relationship between the systems’scomplexity and compatibility, Karwowski et al. (1988,1994a) proposed the complexity–incompatibility prin-ciple, which can be stated as follows: As arti-fact–human system complexity increases, the incom-patibility between system elements, as expressedthrough their ergonomic interactions at all systemlevels, also increases, leading to greater ergonomic(nonreducible) entropy of the system and decreasingthe potential for effective ergonomic intervention.

The foregoing principle was illustrated by Kar-wowski (1995) using as examples design of a chair (seeFigure 12) and design of a computer display, two com-mon problems in the area of human–computer inter-action. In addition, Karwowski and Jamaldin (1996)discussed the complexity–compatibility paradigm inthe context of organizational design. It should be notedthat the principle reflects the natural phenomena that

others in the field have described in terms of difficul-ties encountered when humans interact with consumerproducts and technology in general. For example,according to Norman (1989), the paradox of technol-ogy is that adding functionality to an artifact typi-cally comes with the trade-off of increased complex-ity. These added complexities often lead to increasedhuman difficulty and frustration when interacting withthese artifacts. One reason for the above is that technol-ogy, which has more features, also has less feedback.Moreover, Norman noted that added complexity can-not be avoided when functions are added, and canbe minimized only with good design, which followsnatural mapping between system elements (i.e., con-trol–display compatibility). Following Ashby’s (1964)law of requisite variety, Karwowski and Jamaldin(1995) proposed a corresponding law, called the lawof requisite complexity, which states that only designcomplexity can reduce system complexity. This meansthat only added complexity of the regulator, expressedby system compatibility requirements, can be used toreduce ergonomics system entropy (i.e., reduce overallartifact–human system incompatibility).

9 CONGRUENCE BETWEEN MANAGEMENTAND ERGONOMICS

Advanced technologies with which humans inter-act toady constitute complex systems that requirea high level of integration from both the designand management perspectives. Design integration

DESIGN:REGULATORENTROPY E(R)

ERGONOMICINTERVENTION(COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS)

SIMPLE CHAIR [1]

E(H1)

E(R1)

E(R2)

E(H2)

< <

SYSTEM ENTROPY

DESIGN:REGULATORENTROPY E(R)

ERGONOMICINTERVENTION(COMPATIBILITY REQUIREMENTS)

COMPLEX CHAIR [2]

E(S1)

E(S2)

COMPLEXITY1 COMPLEXITY2

E(S) ≥ E(H) − E(R)

Figure 12 System entropy determination: example of chair design. (After Karwowski, 2002.)


typically focuses on the interactions between hard-ware (computer-based technology), organization (orga-nizational structure), information system, and people(human skills, training, and expertise). Managementintegration refers to interactions among various systemelements across process and product quality, work-place and work system design, occupational safety andhealth programs, and corporate environmental protec-tion polices.

Scientific management originated with the workof Frederick W. Taylor (1911), who studied, amongother problems, how jobs were designed and howworkers could be trained to perform these jobs. Thenatural congruence between contemporary manage-ment and HFE can be described in the context of therespective definitions of these two disciplines. Man-agement is defined today as a set of activities, includ-ing (1) planning and decision making, (2) organizing,(3) leading, and (4) controlling, directed at an orga-nization’s resources (human, financial, physical, andinformation) with the aim of achieving organizationalgoals in an efficient and effective manner (Griffin,2001). The main elements of the management def-inition presented above and central to ergonomicsare (1) organizing, (2) human resource planning, and(3) effective and efficient achievement of organiza-tional goals. In the description of these elements, theoriginal terms proposed by Griffin (2001) are appliedto ensure precision of the concepts and terminologyused. Organizing is deciding which method of organi-zational element grouping is best. Job design is thebasic building block of organization structure. Jobdesign focuses on identification and determination ofthe tasks and activities for which the particular workeris responsible.

It should be noted that the basic ideas of manage-ment (i.e., planning and decision making, organizing,leading, and controlling) are also essential to HFE.Specifically, common to management and ergonomicsare the issues of job design and job analysis. Job designis widely considered to be the first building block of anorganizational structure. Job analysis as a systematicanalysis of jobs within an organization allows deter-mination of a person’s work-related responsibilities.Human resource planning is an integral part of humanresource management. The starting point for this busi-ness function is a job analysis : a systematic analysisof the workplaces in an organization. Job analysisconsists of job description and job specification. Jobdescription should include description of task demandsand work environment conditions, such as work tools,materials, and machines needed to perform specifictasks. Job specification determines abilities, skills, andother worker characteristics necessary for effective andefficient task performance in particular jobs.

The discipline of management also considersimportant human factors that play a role in achiev-ing organizational goals in an effective and efficientway. Such factors include work stress in the contextof individual worker behavior and human resourcemanagement in the context of safety and heath man-agement. Work stress may be caused by the four

categories of organizational and individual factors:(1) decision related to task demands ; (2) work envi-ronment demands, including physical, perceptional,and cognitive task demands, as well as quality ofthe work environment (i.e., adjustment of tools andmachines to human characteristics and capabilities);(3) role demands related to relations with supervisorand co-workers; and (4) interpersonal demands, whichcan cause conflict between workers (e.g., managementstyle, group pressure). Human resource managementincludes the provision of safe work conditions andenvironment at each workstation, workplace, and inthe entire organization.

It should also be noted that the elements of manage-ment discipline described above, such as job design,human resource planning (job analysis and job specifi-cation), work stress management, and safety and healthmanagement, are essential components of an HFE sub-discipline often called industrial ergonomics. Industrialergonomics investigates human–system relationshipsat the individual workplace (workstation) level or at thework system level, embracing knowledge that is alsoof central interest to management. From this point ofview, industrial ergonomics, in congruence with man-agement, is focusing on organization and managementat the workplace level (work system level) through thedesign and assessment (testing and evaluation) of jobtasks, tools, machines, and work environments in orderto adapt these to the capabilities and needs of workers.

Another important subdiscipline of HFE withrespect to the central focus of management disci-pline is macroergonomics. According to Hendrick andKleiner (2001), macroergonomics is concerned withthe analysis, design, and evaluation of work systems.Work denotes any form of human effort or activ-ity. System refers to sociotechnical systems, whichrange from a single person to a complex multina-tional organization. A work system consists of peopleinteracting with some form of (1) job design (workmodules, tasks, knowledge, and skill requirements),(2) hardware (machines or tools) and/or software,(3) internal environment (physical parameters and psy-chosocial factors), (4) external environment (political,cultural, and economic factors), and (5) organizationaldesign (i.e., the work system’s structure and processesused to accomplish desired functions).

The unique technology of human factors/ergono-mics is the human–system interface technology.Human–system interface technology can be classi-fied into five subparts, each with a related designfocus (Hendrick, 1997; Hendrick and Kleiner, 2001):

1. Human–machine interface technology: hard-ware ergonomics

2. Human–environment interface technology: en-vironmental ergonomics

3. Human–software interface technology: cogni-tive ergonomics

4. Human–job interface technology: work designergonomics

5. Human–organization interface technology:macroergonomics


In this context, as discussed by Hendrick andKleiner (2001), the HFE discipline discovers knowl-edge of human performance capabilities, limitations,and other human characteristics in order to develophuman–system interface (HSI) technology, whichincludes interface design principles, methods, andguidelines. Finally, the HFE profession applies HSItechnology to the design, analysis, test and evaluation,standardization, and control of systems.

10 INTERNATIONAL ERGONOMICSASSOCIATIONOver the past 20 years, ergonomics as a scientificdiscipline and as a profession has grown rapidlyby expanding the scope and breadth of theoretical

inquiries, methodological basis, and practical appli-cations (Meister 1997, 1999; Chapanis, 1999; Stantonand Young, 1999; Kuorinka, 2000; Karwowski, 2001;IEA, 2003). As a profession, the field of ergonomicshas seen the development of formal organizationalstructures (i.e., national and cross-national ergonomicssocieties and networks) in support of HFE profes-sionals internationally. As of 2004, the InternationalErgonomics Association (www.iea.cc), a federation of42 ergonomics and human factors societies aroundthe world, accounted for over 14,000 HFE membersworldwide (see Table 12). The main goals of the IEAare to elaborate and advance the science and prac-tice of ergonomics at the international level and toimprove the quality of life by expanding the scope

Table 12 Membership by Federated Societies

Federated society Name Initials Members

Australia Ergonomics Society of Australia ESA 536Austria Osterreichische Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Ergonomie OAE 32Belgium Belgian Ergonomics Society BES 176Brazil Brazilian Ergonomics Society ABERGO 140Canada Association of Canadian Ergonomists ACE 545Chile Sociedad Chileana de Ergonomia SOCHERGO 30China Chinese Ergonomics Society ChES 450Colombia Sociedad Colombiana de Ergonomia SCE 30Croatia Croatian Ergonomics Society CrES 40Czech Republic Czech Ergonomics Society CzES 33Francophone Society Societe d’Ergonomie Langue Francaise SELF 680Germany Gesellschaft fur Arbeitswissenschaft GfA 578Greece Hellenic Ergonomics Society HES 34Hong Kong Hong Kong Ergonomics Society HKES 33Hungary Hungarian Ergonomics Society MES 70India Indian Society of Ergonomics ISE 53Iran Iranian Ergonomics Society IES 30Ireland Irish Ergonomics Society IrES 35Israel Israeli Ergonomics Society IES 38Italy Societa Italiana di Ergonomia SIA 191Japan Japan Ergonomics Society JES 2,155Mexico Sociedad de Ergonomistas de Mexico SEM 30Netherlands Nederlandse Vereniging Voor Ergonomie NVVE 444New Zealand New Zealand Ergonomics Society NZES 115Nordic countries Nordic Ergonomics Society NES 1,510Poland Polish Ergonomics Society PES 373Portugal Associacao Portuguesa de Ergonomia APERGO 101Russia Inter-Regional Ergonomics Association IREA 207Slovakia Slovak Ergonomics Association SEA 27South Africa Ergonomics Society of South Africa ESSA 60South Korea Ergonomics Society of Korea ESK 520Southeast Asia Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society SEAES 64Spain Association Espanola de Ergonomia AEE 151Switzerland Swiss Society for Ergonomics SSE 128Taiwan Ergonomics Society of Taiwan EST 98Turkey Turkish Ergonomics Society TES 50Ukraine All-Ukrainian Ergonomics Association AUEA 107United Kingdom Ergonomics Society ES 1,024United States Human Factors and Ergonomics Society HFES 3,655Yugoslavia Ergonomics Society of F. R. of Yugoslavia ESFRY 50Affiliated society Human Ergology Society (Japan) HES(J) 222Total 14,845

Source: IEA, http://www.iea.cc/newsletter/nov2003.cfm.


of ergonomics applications and contributions to globalsociety (Table 13).

Past and current IEA activities focus on the devel-opment of programs and guidelines to facilitate thediscipline and profession of ergonomics worldwide.Examples of such activities include:

• International directory of ergonomics programs• Core competencies in ergonomics• Criteria for IEA endorsement of certifying

bodies in professional ergonomics• Guidelines for the process of endorsing a

certification body in professional ergonomics• Guidelines on standards for accreditation of

ergonomics education programs at the tertiary(university) level

• Ergonomics quality in design (EQUID) pro-gram

More information about these programs can befound on the IEA Web site: www.ie.cc. In additionto the above, the IEA endorses scientific journals inthe field. A list of the core HFE journals is shownin Table 14. A complete classification of the coreand related HFE journals was proposed by Dul andKarwowski (2004).

IEA has also developed several actions for stimu-lating development of HFE in industrially developingcountries (IDCs). Such actions include the followingelements:

• Cooperating with international agencies suchas the ILO (International Labour Organisation),WHO (World Health Organisation), and pro-fessional scientific associations with which theIEA has signed formal agreements

• Working with major publishers of ergonomicsjournals and texts to extend their access tofederated societies, with particular focus ondeveloping countries

• Development of support programs for develop-ing countries to promote ergonomics and extendergonomics training programs

• Promotion of workshops and training programsin developing countries through educational kitsand visiting ergonomists

• Extending regional ergonomics networks ofcountries to countries with no ergonomicsprograms in their region

• Support to non-IEA member countries in apply-ing for affiliation to IEA in conjunction with theIEA Development Committee

Table 13 IEA Technical Committees

Aging Human–Computer InteractionAgriculture Human ReliabilityAuditory Ergonomics Musculoskeletal DisordersBuilding and Architecture Organizational Design and ManagementBuilding and Construction Process ControlConsumer Products Psychophysiology in ErgonomicsCost-Effective Ergonomics Quality ManagementErgonomics for Children and Educational Environments Rehabilitation ErgonomicsHospital Ergonomics Safety and HealthHuman Aspects of Advanced Manufacturing Standards

Table 14 Core HFE Journals

Official IEA journal Ergonomicsa

IEA-endorsed journals Applied Ergonomicsa

Ergonomia: An International Journal of Ergonomics and Human FactorsHuman Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturinga

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomicsa

International Journal of Human–Computer Interactiona

International Journal of Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsTheoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

Other core journals Human Factorsa

Le Travail Humana

Non-ISI journals Asian Journal of ErgonomicsJapanese Journal of ErgonomicsOccupational ErgonomicsTijdschrift voor ErgonomieZeitschrift fur ArbeitswissenschaftZentralblatt fur Arbeirsmedizin, Arbeitsschurz und Ergonomie

Source: Based on Dul and Karwowski (2004).aISI-ranked journal.


11 FUTURE CHALLENGES

Contemporary HFE discipline exhibits rapidly expand-ing application areas, continuing improvements inresearch methodologies, and increased contributions tofundamental knowledge as well as important applica-tions to the needs of the society at large. For example,the subfield of neuroergonomics focuses on the neu-ral control and brain manifestations of the percep-tual, physical, cognitive, emotional, etc. interrelation-ships in human work activities (Parasuraman, 2003).As the science of brain and work environment, neu-roergonomics aims to explore the premise of design ofwork to match the neural capacities and limitations ofpeople. The potential benefits of this emerging branchof HFE are improvements in medical therapies andapplications of more sophisticated workplace designprinciples. The near future will also see developmentof an entirely new HFE domain that could be callednanoergonomics. The idea of building machines at themolecular scale, once fulfilled, will affect every facetof our lives: medicine, health care, computer, infor-mation, communication, environment, economy, andmany more (Henry T. Yang, Chancellor, Universityof California–Santa Barbara). Nanoergonomics willaddress issues of humans interacting with devices andmachines of extremely small dimensions, and in gen-eral with nanotechnology.

Developments in technology and the socioeco-nomic dilemmas of the twenty-first century pose sig-nificant challenges for the discipline and professionof HFE. According to the report “Major Predictionsfor Science and Technology in the Twenty-First Cen-tury, published by the Japan Ministry of Education,Science and Technology (MITI, 2001), the followingissues will affect the future of our civilization:

• Developments in genetics (DNA, human evo-lution, creation of an artificial life, extensiveouter-space exploration, living outside Earth)

• Developments in cognitive sciences (humancognitive processes through artificial systems)

• Revolution in medicine (cell and organ regen-eration, nanorobotics for diagnostics and ther-apy, super-prostheses, artificial photosynthesisof foods)

• Elimination of starvation and malnutrition (arti-ficial photosynthesis of foods, safe geneticfoods manipulation)

• Full recycling of resources and reusable energy(biomass and nanotechnology)

• Changes in human habitat (outer-space cities,100% underground industrial manufacturing,separation of human habitat from natural envi-ronments, protection of diversity of life-formson Earth)

• Cleanup of the negative effects of the twentiethcentury on the environment (organisms forenvironmental cleaning, regeneration of theozone)

• Communication (nonverbal communicationtechnology, new three-dimensional projectionssystems)

• Politics (computerized democracy)• Transport and travel (natural sources of clean

energy, automated transport systems, revolutionin supersonic small aircraft and supersonictravel, underwater ocean travel)

• Safety and control over one’s life (preventionof crime by brain intervention, human erroravoidance technology, control of the forces ofnature, intelligent systems for safety in all formsof transport)

The issues listed above will also affect futuredirections in development of the science, engineer-ing, design, technology, and management of human-compatible systems.

REFERENCESAshby, W. R. (1964), An Introduction to Cybernetics,

Methuen, London.Awad, E., and Ghaziri, H. M. (2004), Knowledge Manage-

ment, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Baber, C. (1996), “Repertory Grid Theory and Its Application

to Product Evaluation,” in Usability Evaluation in Indus-try, P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, andI. L. McClelland, Eds., Taylor & Francis, London,pp. 157–166.

Card, S., Moran, T., and Newell, A. (1983), The Psychologyof Human–Computer Interaction, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ.

Chaffin, D. B., and Anderson, G. B. J. (1993), OccupationalBiomechanics, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.

Chapanis, A. (1995), Human Factors in System Engineering,Wiley, New York.

Chapanis, A. (1999), The Chapanis Chronicles: 50 Yearsof Human Factors Research, Education, and Design,Aegean, Santa Barbara, CA.

Conrad, M. (1983), Adaptability, Plenum Press, New York.Diaper, D., and Stanton, N. A. (2004), The Handbook of Task

Analysis for Human–Computer Interaction, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., and Beale R. (1993),Human–Computer Interaction, Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ.

Dul, J., and Karwowski, W. (2004), “An Assessment Systemfor Rating Scientific Journals in the Field of Ergonomicsand Human Factors,” Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 35 No.4, pp. 301–310.

Dul, J., and Weerdmeester, B. (1993), Ergonomics for Begin-ners: A Quick Reference Guide, Taylor & Francis, Lon-don.

Dzissah, J., Karwowski, W., and Yang, Y. N. (2001), “Inte-gration of Quality, Ergonomics, and Safety ManagementSystems,” in International Encyclopedia of Ergonomicsand Human Factors, W. Karwowski, Ed., Taylor &Francis, London, pp. 1129–1135.

Edholm, O. G., and Murrell, K. F. H. (1973), The Ergono-mics Society: A History, 1949–1970, Ergonomics Re-search Society, London.

EIAC (2000), Ergonomics Abstracts, Ergonomics Informa-tion Analysis Centre, School of Manufacturing and


Mechanical Engineering, University of Birmingham,Birmingham England.

Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., and Preiss, K. (1995), AgileCompetitors and Virtual Organizations, Van NostrandReinhold, New York.

Gould, J. D., and Lewis, C. (1983), “Designing for Usability:Key Principles and What Designers Think,” in Proceed-ings of the CHI ’83 Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems, ACM, New York, pp. 50–53.

Grandjean, E. (1986), Fitting the Task to the Man, Taylor &Francis, London.

Griffin, R. W. (2001), Management, 7th ed., HoughtonMifflin, Boston.

Hancock, P. (1997), Essays on the Future of Human–MachineSystems, BANTA Information Services Group, EdenPrairie, MN.

Harre, R. (1972), The Philosophies of Science, OxfordUniversity Press, London.

Helander, M. G. (1995), “Conceptualizing the Use of Axio-matic Design Procedures in Ergonomics,” in Proceed-ings of the IEA World Conference, Associacao Brasileirade Ergonomia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp. 38–41.

Helander, M. G. (1997a), “Forty Years of IEA: Some Reflec-tions on the Evolution of Ergonomics,” Ergonomics,Vol. 40, pp. 952–961.

Helander, M. G. (1997b), “The Human Factors Profession,”in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nded., G. Salvendy, Ed., Wiley, New York, pp. 3–16.

Helander, M. G., and Lin, L. (2002), “Axiomatic Designin Ergonomics and Extension of Information Axiom,”Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 13, No. 4,pp. 321–339.

Helander, M. G., Landaur, T. K., and Prabhu, P. V., Eds.(1997), Handbook of Human–Computer Interaction,Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Hendrick, H. W. (1997), “Organizational Design and Macro-ergonomics,” in Handbook of Human Factors andErgonomics, G. Salvendy, Ed., Wiley, New York, pp.594–636.

Hendrick, H. W. and Kleiner, B. M. (2001), Macroergono-mics—An Introduction to Work System Design TheHuman Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica,CA.

Hendrick, H. W., and Kleiner, B. W. (2002a), Macroer-gonomics: An Introduction to Work Systems Design,Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica,CA.

Hendrick, H. W., and Kleiner, B. M., Eds. (2002b), Macroer-gonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Hollnagel, E., Ed. (2003), Handbook of Cognitive TaskDesign, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Holman, D., Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W., Sparrow, P., andHoward, A. (2003), New Workplace: A Guide to theHuman Impact of Modern Working Practices, Wiley,Chichester, West Sussex, England.

HFES (2003), Directory and Yearbook, Human Factors andErgonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.

Iacocca Institute (1991), 21st Century Manufacturing Enter-prise Strategy: An Industry-Led View, Vol. 1 and 2,Iacocca Institute, Bethlehem, PA.

IEA (2003), IEA Triennial Report, 2000–2003, IEA Press,Santa Monica, CA.

Jamaldin, B., and Karwowski, W. (1997), “Quantification ofHuman–System Compatibility (HUSYC): An Applica-tion to Analysis of the Bhopal Accident,” in From Expe-rience to Innovation: Proceedings of the 13th TriennialCongress of the International Ergonomics Association,P. Seppala, T. Luopajarvi, C.-H. Nygard, and M. Mat-tila, Eds., Tampere, Finland, Vol. 3, pp. 46–48.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857a), “An Outline of Ergonomics,or the Science of Work Based upon the Truths Drawnfrom the Science of Nature, Part I,” Nature and Industry,Vol. 29, pp. 227–231.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857b), “An Outline of Ergonomics,or the Science of Work Based upon the Truths Drawnfrom the Science of Nature, Part II,” Nature andIndustry, Vol. 30, pp. 236–244.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857c), “An Outline of Ergonomics,or the Science of Work Based upon the Truths Drawnfrom the Science of Nature, Part III,” Nature andIndustry, Vol. 31, pp. 244–251.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857d), “An Outline of Ergonomics,or the Science of Work Based upon the Truths Drawnfrom the Science of Nature, Part IV,” Nature andIndustry, Vol. 32, pp. 253–258.

Karwowski, W. (1985), “Why Do Ergonomists Need FuzzySets?” in Ergonomics International 85, Proceedingsof the 9th Congress of the International ErgonomicsAssociation, Bernemouth, England, I.D. Brown, R.Goldsmith, K. Coombes and M.A. Sinclair, Eds.,London, Taylor & Francis, pp. 409–411.

Karwowski, W. (1991), “Complexity, Fuzziness and Ergono-mic Incompatibility Issues: The Control of DynamicWork Environments,” Ergonomics, Vol. 34, No. 6,pp. 671–686.

Karwowski, W. (1992a), “The Complexity–CompatibilityParadigm in the Context of Organizational Design ofHuman–Machine Systems,” in Human Factors in Orga-nizational Design and Management, V. O. Brown andH. Hendrick, Eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 469–474.

Karwowski, W. (1992b), “The Human World of Fuzziness,Human Entropy, and the Need for General FuzzySystems Theory,” Journal of the Japan Society for FuzzyTheory and Systems, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 591–609.

Karwowski, W., (1994), “A General Modelling Frameworkfor the Human-Computer Interaction Based on thePrinciples of Ergonomic Compatibility Requirementsand Human Entropy,” in Fourth International Scien-tific Conference Book of Short Papers, Molteni, G.,Occhipinti, E. and Piccoli, B., Eds., Institute of Occu-pational Health, University of Milan, October 2–5, Vol.1, pp. A12–A19.

Karwowski, W. (1995), “A General Modeling Framework forthe Human–Computer Interaction Based on the Prin-ciples of Ergonomic Compatibility Requirements andHuman Entropy,” in Work with Display Units, Vol. 94,A. Grieco, G. Molteni, E. Occhipinti, and B. Piccoli,Eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 473–478.

Karwowski, W. (1997), “Ancient Wisdom and FutureTechnology: The Old Tradition and the New Scienceof Human Factors/Ergonomics,” in Proceedings of theHuman Factors and Ergonomics Society 4th AnnualMeeting, Albuquerque, NM, Human Factors andErgonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 875–877.

Karwowski, W., (1998), “Selected Directions and Trendsin Development of Ergonomics in USA” (in Polish),Ergonomia, Vol. 21, No. 1–2, pp. 141–155.


Karwowski, W. (2000), “Symvatology: The Science of anArtifact–Human Compatibility,” Theoretical Issues inErgonomics Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 76–91.

Karwowski, W., Ed. (2001), International Encyclopedia ofErgonomics and Human Factors, Taylor & Francis,London.

Karwowski, W., (2005), “Ergonomics and Human Factors:The Paradigms for Science, Engineering, Design, Tech-nology, and Management of Human-Compatible Sys-tems,” Ergonomics, (in press).

Karwowski, W. (2006), “On Measure of the Human–SystemCompatibility,” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Sci-ence (in press).

Karwowski, W., and Jamaldin, B. (1995), “The Scienceof Ergonomics: System Interactions, Entropy, andErgonomic Compatibility Measures,” in Advancesin Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, Vol. VII,A. C. Bittner, Jr., and P. C. Champney, Eds., Taylor &Francis, London, pp. 121–126.

Karwowski, W., and Jamaldin, B. (1996), “New Method-ological Framework for Quantifying Compatibility ofComplex Ergonomics Systems,” Proceedings of the 6thPan Pacific Conference on Occupational Ergonomics,Taipei, Taiwan, Vol. 10, pp. 676–679.

Karwowski, W., and Marras, W. S., Eds. (1999), The Occu-pational Ergonomics Handbook, CRC Press, BocaRaton, FL.

Karwowski, W., and Mital, A., Eds. (1986), Applications ofFuzzy Set Theory in Human Factors, Elsevier Science,Amsterdam.

Karwowski, W., and Rodrick, D. (2001), “Physical Tasks:Analysis, Design and Operation,” in Handbook of Indus-trial Engineering, 3rd ed., G. Salvendy, Ed., Wiley, NewYork, pp. 1041–1110.

Karwowski, W., and Salvendy, G., Eds. (1994), Organizationand Management of Advanced Manufacturing, Wiley,New York.

Karwowski, W., Marek, T., and Noworol, C. (1988), “The-oretical Basis of the Science of Ergonomics,” in Pro-ceedings of the 10th Congress of the InternationalErgonomics Association, Sydney, Australia, August,Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 756–758.

Karwowski, W., Marek, T., and Noworol, C. (1994a), “TheComplexity–Incompatibility Principle in the Science ofErgonomics,” in Advances in Industrial Ergonomics andSafety, Vol. VI, F. Aghazadeh, Ed., Taylor & Francis,London, pp. 37–40.

Karwowski, W., Salvendy, G., Badham, R., Brodner, P.,Clegg, C., Hwang, L., Iwasawa, J., Kidd, P. T., Koba-yashi, N., Koubek, R., Lamarsh, J., Nagamachi, M.,Naniwada, M., Salzman, H., Seppala, P., Schallock, B.,Sheridan, T., and Warschat, J. (1994b), “IntegratingPeople, Organization and Technology in AdvanceManufacturing,” Human Factors and Ergonomics inManufacturing, Vol. 4, pp. 1–19.

Karwowski, W., Kantola, J., Rodrick, D., and Salvendy, G.(2002a), “Macroergonomics Aspects of Manufactur-ing,” in Macroergonomics: An Introduction to WorkSystem Design, H. W. Hendrick and B. M. Kleiner,Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,pp. 223–248.

Karwowski, W., Rizzo, F., and Rodrick, D. (2002b), “Ergo-nomics in Information Systems,” in Encyclopedia ofInformation Systems, H. Bidgoli Ed., Academic Press,San Diego, CA, pp. 185–201.

Karwowski, W., Siemionow, W., and Gielo-Perczak, K.(2003), “Physical Neuroergonomics: The Human Brainin Control of Physical Work Activities,” TheoreticalIssues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 4, No. 1–2,pp. 175–199.

Kroemer, K., and Grandjean, E. (1997), Fitting the Task tothe Human, 5th ed., Taylor & Francis, London.

Kroemer, K., Kroemer, H., and Kroemer-Elbert, K. (1994),Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease and Efficiency,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kuorinka, I., Ed. (2000), History of the Ergonomics Associ-ation: The First Quarter of Century, IEA Press, SantaMonica, CA.

Luczak, H., Schlick, C., and Springer, J. (1999), “A Guideto Scientific Sources of Ergonomics Knowledge,” TheOccupational Ergonomics Handbook, W. Karwowskiand W. S. Marras, Eds., CRC Press, London, S. 27–50.

Meister, D. (1987), “Systems Design, Development andTesting,” in Handbook of Human Factors, G. Salvendy,Ed., Wiley, New York, pp. 17–42.

Meister, D. (1991), The Psychology of System Design, Else-vier, Amsterdam.

Meister, D. (1997), The Practice of Ergonomics, Board ofCertification in Professional Ergonomics, Bellingham,WA.

Meister, D. (1999), The History of Human Factors andErgonomics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.

MITI (2001), “Major Predictions for Science and Technologyin the Twenty First Century,” Japan Ministry ofEducation, Science and Technology, Tokyo, unpublishedreport.

Moray, M. (1994), “The Future of Ergonomics: The Needfor Interdisciplinary Integration,” in Proceedings of theIEA Congress, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1791–1793.

Morris, W., Ed. (1978), The American Heritage Dictionaryof the English Language, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

NAE (National Academy of Engineering) (2004), TheEngineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the NewCentury, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Nemeth, C. (2004), Human Factors Methods for Design.,CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Nielsen, J. (1997), “Usability Engineering,” in The ComputerScience and Engineering Handbook, A. B. Tucker, Jr.,Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 1440–1460.

Nielsen, J. (2000), Designing Web Usability: The Practice ofSimplicity, New Readers, Indianapolis, IN.

Norman, D. (1988), The Design of Everyday Things, Double-day, New York.

Norman, D. A. (1993), Things That Make Us Smart, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.

NRC (National Research Council) (2001), MusculoskeletalDisorders and the Workplace: Low Back and UpperExtremities, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Opperman, R. (1994), “Adaptively Supported Adaptability,”International Journal of Human–Computer Studies,Vol. 40, pp. 455–472.

Parasuraman, R. (2003), “Neuroergonomics: Research andPractice,” Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science,Vol. 4, No. 1–2, pp. 5–20.

Pearson, G., and Young, T., Ed. (2002), Technically Speak-ing: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Tech-nology, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Pheasant, S. (1986), Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomicsand Design, Taylor & Francis, London.


Putz-Anderson, V., Ed. (1988), Cumulative Trauma Disor-ders: A Manual for Musculoskeletal Diseases of theUpper Limbs, Taylor & Francis, London.

Reason, J. (1999), Managing the Risk of OrganizationalAccidents, Ashgate, Aldershot, Hampshire, England.

Rouse, W., Kober, N., and Mavor, A., Eds. (1997), The Caseof Human Factors in Industry and Government: Reportof a Workshop, National Academy Press, Washington,DC.

Salvendy, G., Ed. (1997), Handbook of Human Factors andErgonomics, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.

Sanders, M. M., and McCormick, E. J. (1993), Human Fac-tors in Engineering and Design, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill,New York.

Silver, B. L. (1998), The Ascent of Science, Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford.

Stanton, N. A., and Young, M. (1999), A Guide to Method-ology in Ergonomics: Designing for Human Use, Taylor& Francis, London.

Stanton, N., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., and Hen-drick, H. W. (2004), Handbook of Human Factors andErgonomics Methods, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Stokes, D. E. (1997), Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science andTechnological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press,Washington, DC.

Suh, N. P. (1990), The Principles of Design, Oxford Univer-sity Press, New York.

Suh, N. P. (2001), Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applica-tions, Oxford University Press, New York.

Taylor, F. W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Manage-ment Harper Bros., New York.

Vicente, K. J. (1999), Cognitive Work Analysis: TowardsSafe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Vicente, K. J. (2004), The Human Factor, Routledge, NewYork.

Waters, T. R., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., and Fine, L. J.(1993), “Revised NIOSH Equation for the Designand Evaluation of Manual Lifting Tasks,” Ergonomics,Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 749–776.

Wickens, C. D., and Carswell, C. M. (1997), “InformationProcessing,” in Handbook of Human Factors andErgonomics, 2nd ed., G. Salvendy, Ed., Wiley, NewYork, pp. 89–129.

Wilson, J. R., and Corlett, E. N., Eds. (1995), Evaluationof Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology,2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, London.

Woodson, W. E., Tillman, B., and Tillman, P. (1992), HumanFactors Design Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, NewYork.

Womack, J., Jones, D., and Roos, D. (1990), The MachineThat Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York.

Wulf, W. A. (1988), “Tech Literacy: Letter to the WhiteHouse,” National Academy of Engineering Website.Available online at: www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nse/web-links/NAEW-4NHM87.

the discipline of ergonomics and human factors

Documents