Introduction Human Factors and Ergonomics in Practice - BOOK 2 Flashcards
THE DIVERSITY OF HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN PRACTICE
Human factors and ergonomics (HF/E), as a professional activity, has now been introduced to almost all economic sectors.
In the primary sector, HF/E helps to improve human involvement in mining, oil and gas extraction, agriculture, and forestry.
In the secondary sector, HF/E is embedded in manufacturing and construction to produce finished products.
In the tertiary (service) sector, hospitals and health-care organiza- tions, telecommunication, wholesale and distribution organizations, and governments all employ or contract HF/E services.
In the quaternary (knowledge-based) sector, HF/E practitioners are employed in information and technology, media, education, research and development (R&D), and consultancy organizations.
While some professionals work in one or a small number of industries, HF/E practitioners work in most industries.
From toothbrushes to trains, smartphone apps to flight deck displays, farms to production lines, and warehouses to nuclear power control rooms, the idea of designing to optimize well-being and performance is just as relevant.
In practice, this means optimizing several goals related to the effectiveness of a purposeful activity (such as efficiency, productivity, maintainability) and particular human values (such as safety, security, comfort, acceptance, job satisfaction, and joy).
For particular applications, some goals generally have higher priority than others, but these goals can also (and frequently do) conflict and compete.
This means that HF/E must retain a holistic view, but trade-offs and compromises are nearly always required.
HF/E specialists—practitioners and researchers—are from various academic backgrounds (e.g., psychology, engineering, design, biological science, as well as ergonomics) and increasingly come from a wide variety of professional backgrounds and industries (e.g., health care, aviation).
They work with all types of people at all levels: consumers and service users, frontline and support staff, supervisors and senior management, regulators, and policy makers.
In fact, one word that might best characterize HF/E in practice is diversity. This diversity is evident from the HF/E literature, for instance considering the contents page of a typical book of conference proceedings (e.g., Sharples and Shorrock, 2014) and the many HF/E books and journals, including the leading journals Ergonomics, Applied Ergonomics, and Human Factors.
However, the literature only hints at the diversity of practice. H HF/E works on a day-to-day basis in real environments—not just as the application of theory and method—is not often written about.
It is difficult to integrate insights and reflections from practice into regular textbooks for several reasons that we will discuss later.
As a result, there is a lack of reports from practitioners on practice in industry, along with a risk of a gap between literature (what we might call “HF/E-as-imagined” or “HF/E-as-prescribed”) and practice (what we might call “HF/E-as-done”) (of course, there are exceptions such as Broberg and Hermund, 2004; Whysall et al., 2004; Dul and Neumann, 2009).
This book aims to locate HF/E in the various settings of application, capture some of the realities of practice, and celebrate its diversity.
BUT WHAT IS HF/E ANYWAY?
Before we go on, it is worth clarifying what we mean by “human factors” and “ergonomics,” and why both? These terms are understood in many different ways, especially in industry and among the general public.
The definition of the International Ergonomics Association—the umbrella association for national HF/E societies and associations—is as follows:
Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the under- standing of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profes- sion that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.
This definition makes several points—explicit and implicit—that are worth exploring in a little more detail.
It refers to some abstract terms such as interac- tions, system, and elements.
For our purposes, interactions are kinds of action between two or more elements of a system that have an effect upon one another. The elements may be human, technical, informational, social, political, economic, organizational (Wilson, 2014), and physical. A system can be defined as “a set of elements or parts that is coherently organized and interconnected in a pattern or structure that produces a characteristic set of behaviors, often classified as its ‘function’ or ‘purpose’” (Meadows, 2009, p. 188).
A system can be conceived on several dimensions: from simple to complex, hard to soft, closed to open, concep- tual to practical, static to dynamic, deterministic to probabilistic, and linear to nonlinear.
The definition also talks about human well-being and overall system performance. Some argue that this joint “and” purpose characterizes the holis- tic nature of HF/E (e.g., see Wilson, 2014). There are difficulties in defining well-being, and this “optimization” is far from straightforward. It is, however, dependent on prior understanding, of human work and of the system within which work takes place.
The definition uses the form “Ergonomics (or human factors),” seemingly treat- ing the two as equivalent—one being a synonym for the other (and you may notice that we use a slash between “HF” and “E” throughout this book). The HF/E dis- cipline does indeed treat them as equivalent. This is reflected in many books on HF/E, even where one term or the other is used. Despite this, there is a growing tendency in industry and by some in the profession to see human factors and ergo- nomics as somewhat different. This is similar to how many people think “coun- seling” is different to “psychotherapy.” Like “human factors” and “ergonomics” (see Chapter 3), the terms “counseling” and “psychotherapy” have different ori- gins, but the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) states: “BACP sees no evidence of any difference between the functions of counseling and psychotherapy” (BACP, 2010). Another example of confusion, but where there is a substantive difference, is between “dietetics” and “nutritionism,” the former requiring a degree qualification, and is regulated and governed by a code of ethics in the United Kingdom. We will come back to this later and it comes up again in other chapters, but for the purpose of this book, we treat human factors and ergo- nomics collectively as “HF/E” to denote equivalence and also to avoid confusion with the more specific “human factors engineering.” In some cases, authors may use one term or the other, depending on the industry (for instance some industries, standards, and organizations only use one term).
The IEA definition highlights explicitly that HF/E is both a discipline (“a branch of knowledge, typically one studied in higher education,” oxforddictionaries.com) and a profession (“a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged train- ing and a formal qualification,” oxforddictionaries.com). Specifically, the IEA calls HF/E a scientific discipline. This is a matter for discussion, which we will come to later in the Introduction and which Patrick Waterson deals with extensively in Chapter 3. The nature of the profession of HF/E is not often discussed in books, which focus overwhelmingly on discipline aspects. As such, professional issues such as ethics, roles, contexts, competency, communication, and so on, receive less atten- tion than theoretical and methodological issues. But such issues are becoming ever more pertinent, as HF/E becomes embraced by far more than “professional” HF/E specialists, as we will see later. There are many other definitions. The late John
Wilson defined HF/E as follows in 2000:
The theoretical and fundamental understanding of human behaviour and performance in purposeful interacting sociotechnical systems, and the application of that under- standing to the design of interactions in the context of real systems. (p. 560)
He later defined “systems ergonomics and human factors” as follows (extract):
Understanding the interactions between people and all other elements within a system, and design in light of this understanding.
(Wilson, 2014, p. 12)
Wilson’s more specific emphasis on human behavior and performance and socio- technical systems in his earlier definition will be familiar to most who have encoun- tered HF/E, though the emphasis on human behavior and performance is a common lay interpretation at the expense of the wider system and design.
From Wilson’s definitions, we might see HF/E as a design discipline, since the purpose of HF/E is achieved via design; it is design-driven (Dul et al., 2012). Wilson (2000) argued that HF/E blends craft, science, and engineering, but as the purpose of HF/E (human well-being and overall system performance) is achieved via design, it seems sensible to view HF/E as a design discipline. But remember that we are designing interactions (among human, physical/technical, informational, social, political, economic, and organizational elements of a system), not just “stuff”— physical artifacts. The interactions may be experienced physically, cognitively, and emotionally from different perspectives: micro (e.g., interactions with a telephone panel in a control room), meso (e.g., communication and coordination between team members), and macro (e.g., organizational communication). HF/E in practice may move between these various perspectives, but still adopting a holistic and systems perspective, with purpose in mind. Wilson’s early definition also emphasizes that the domain of application is “real systems.” This is the emphasis of this book: practice in the context of real systems.
THE REALITIES OF HF/E IN PRACTICE
HF/E in PracticE Exists in a Fast-cHanging and MEssy World
The context of economic activity around the world is changing fast and, in many respects, might be described as “messy.”
This messiness is associated with the vary- ing interrelated features of organizations, economies, and societies that create uncer- tainty, unpredictability, flux, complications, and “systems of problems” (Ackoff, 1974).
Problems, possible solutions, and opportunities are often ambiguous and intractable, and can be viewed and approached in various (possibly contradictory) ways.
Different people and groups have different values and perspectives concerning them, and there is great resistance to change among some and great appetite for change among oth- ers.
The consequences of intervention are unclear and interventions often create new problems.
Those in charge of solving problems (e.g., politicians, policy makers, and managers) may be ill-equipped to do so, lacking knowledge or power or both.
This messiness necessarily affects HF/E practice.
We can examine the sources of mess in various ways, none of which is really adequate or can be comprehensive.
But for this introductory chapter, we will consider a few aspects of the messy world, starting at a macro level.
At an economic level, markets have changed quickly over the recent years.
These changes affect organizations in a variety of ways and also affect the demand for HF/E services.
Over the past 20 years, the world’s manufacturing base has become geographically more diverse, with production chains expanding to include some of the least developed countries in Asia (e.g., Cambodia) and a number of European countries following European Union (EU) expansion (e.g., Poland, Hungary), for example (World Trade Organization [WTO], 2015).
The so-called BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have more than doubled their world export share, from 8% in 2000 to 19% in 2014 (WTO, 2015).
China has risen to become the world’s top exporter.
From the early 2000s, there has also been signifi- cant growth in the transport sector.
This growth has brought challenges for HF/E in manufacturing, transportation, raw materials, and energy sectors.
In the midst of this growth, there have been crises and complications.
The years from 2000 have seen the collapse of the dotcom bubble (1999–2001), the global financial crisis (2007–2008), the European sovereign debt crisis (from late 2009), the Russian financial crisis (2008–2009, 2014–), the Chinese stock market crash (2015), continuing fears of another financial crisis in 2016, and the energy crisis (2000s) and ongoing energy price volatility.
In fewer than 20 years, crude oil prices per barrel (West Texas Intermediate) went from a low of $16.28 (December 1998) to a high of $144.78 in (June 2008) and down again to $32.60 (January 2016).
The situation has changed rapidly for particular sectors, countries, and regions.
The global economic crisis severely affected transport and finance; in 2009, world transport exports plunged by 22% (WTO, 2015).
Conflict in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine, for instance, affected industrial activity, whereas improved situations in some countries (e.g., Iran) triggered a boost in exports.
Such economic volatility can affect HF/E in various ways. HF/E activity could be curtailed in some sectors; new opportunities may open in other sectors (e.g., renew- able energy).
In response to economic conditions, changes can come about from major national projects that may be announced, cancelled, or put into an uncertain state (e.g., new nuclear power plants, runways, and railways).
The world can change even more quickly and unpredictably, with implications for HF/E, in response to sudden unwanted events, such as natural disasters, acci- dents, technological incidents, and terrorist attacks.
The Brussels airport terrorist attack (March 2016) raised question over security screening in airports, with secu- rity checks moving temporarily to airport entrances in some airports following the attack.
The German wings tragedy (March 2015) raised questions over cockpit secu- rity and reinforced cockpit doors. The Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down questions about automation and pilot training and experience. Many more frequent nonfatal incidents occur, which have short- and long-term HF/E implica- tions. For instance, Belgian airspace was closed and the skies cleared after a power surge (May 2015), and interference on radio frequencies in Scottish airspace led to many flight delays (October 2015). Only a few years earlier, controlled airspace was closed in several European countries following the eruptions of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland (April 2010). These are just a few examples of events in one sector that raise questions for HF/E, questions that may need answers in a short timescale. There are of course many other events in other sectors with implications for HF/E, including the Fukushima Daiichi power plant disaster (March 2011), and the Mid Staffs hospital scandal (Francis report published in February 2013).
Politics, laws, and regulations (e.g., health and safety, major hazard safety, public safety, accessibility) interact with economic and social constraints and opportunities, partly by influencing the focus of attention (e.g., compliance needs) of industry. In occupational health and safety, the phrases “ergonomics” and an “ergonomic approach” have been enshrined in guidance to the UK legislation on display screen equipment and manual handling, keeping HF/E on the agenda for these issues way beyond the expec- tations of most practitioners. Changes in political parties and policies, and statements by political figures, can bring about changes in attitudes to certain human values (e.g., “health and safety”), which may affect corporate decision-making and public attitudes. Political uncertainty, for instance concerning “Brexit” or Scottish independence, or uncertainty over major infrastructure decisions (e.g., airport runways and high-speed rail) may also affect investment behavior and demand for HF/E services.
Of course there are many technological advancements, the most visible in every- day life being improved internet access, digital technology, and associated prod- ucts and services. This is bringing about changes in our everyday relationship with, and dependence upon, technology, as well as changes in work (e.g., teleworking and remote communication), health care (e.g., electronic records), and citizen behavior (e.g., access to government services, quantified self, online shopping), all of which has wider implications (e.g., increased small parcel distribution). Other develop- ments exist in most industrial sectors. Some are specific to certain sectors (e.g., agri- culture, transport, energy), others cross sectors and seep into everyday life, or will in the future (e.g., artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing, internet of things, augmented reality, drones, exoskeletons). But generally, there is more technology, more technology performing functions previously performed by humans, and dis- ruptive technology fundamentally changing human interaction within systems and disrupting markets.
There are also various slower changes that affect us. These include aging popula- tions and rising obesity in some countries (see Dul et al., 2012), mass migration and more multicultural communities, and population growth, with impacts on agricul- ture (see Chapter 27), transport, energy, and other sectors.
Overall, the changes that we are observing can be seen as opportunities for HF/E (e.g., to promote user-centered design principles; to attract new students) and threats to HF/E (e.g., diluting principles; misapplication of methods; neglect of theory; competition). Whatever happens, HF/E must adapt. It will need to become even more agile, more integrative, and more participative. We will have to make compromises, while sticking to the core features of what defines us as a discipline and profession.
THE REALITIES OF HF/E IN PRACTICE
HF/E in PracticE is EMbEddEd PriMarily in organizations
Most practitioners of HF/E are employed in organizations: consultancies, primary producers, manufacturers, service providers, and organizations that interface with industry [e.g., government (including regulators), intergovernmental organizations and nongovernment organizations, and universities]. Throughout this book, the authors describe the context of HF/E in practice and the embedded nature of HF/E in organizations and industry (especially Chapter 8 and Part III).
The organizational context is a great source of mess that affects possibilities for HF/E integration. Resources are far from optimal, and there are many constraints and influences that make any plans to “optimize human well-being and overall sys- tem performance” seem like a pipe dream. HF/E in practice is constrained by many factors, which interact to affect possibilities for practitioners. Staffing levels and competencies are often overstretched, and sometimes inadequate to meet demand. Many countries publish lists of skill shortages [e.g., nurses, dentists, and aircraft technicians in Australia (2015)], and organizations may struggle with staffing due to rates of pay, work locations and conditions, the nature of demand, and training con- straints, for example. Since HF/E usually requires participation of system actors (Dul et al., 2012), the conditions for HF/E interventions are variable. People may or may not be available to work with HF/E professionals. Participation (e.g., in workshops or simulations) can take months to arrange and can change at short notice. Even where staff are available, competencies may be variable, patchy, or absent. For instance, some industries are experiencing a shortage of competencies in older programming languages, and are bringing retired software engineers back as contractors.
Similarly, there is a shortage of qualified HF/E professionals, and many countries lack HF/E education (see Chapter 2). For instance, of more than 40 organizations that provide air navigation services in Europe, only a few have one or more qualified HF/E professionals (e.g., eligible for certification as a European Ergonomist with the Centre for Registration of European Ergonomists). In some organizations, this has been partially offset by other practitioners, sometimes operating under the labels of “ergonomist” (e.g., physiotherapists), “human factors specialist” (e.g., psychologists), “human factors trainer” (e.g., pilots with crew resource management training), and “UX specialist,” “usability specialist.” “interaction designer” and a plethora of other terms (many varieties of software and computing specialists). This has, of course, created new problems, as previously predicted (see Corlett, 2000, also Chapter 24). Related to the availability and competencies of staff, it is also worth mentioning that employment patterns are changing with more contractors and short-term contract staff fulfilling roles previously undertaken by “permanent” staff. This has a range of implications, and the same pattern can be seen with HF/E.
Equipment in organizations is also both a constraint and an opportunity. HF/E practitioners in many industries find themselves in environments that are a mix of old, legacy technology, installed over time, and newer technology, both commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) and bespoke. COTS software may be amenable to local adaptation (e.g., colors) but not fundamental change (e.g., scrolling behavior), which may well affect the software deployed across several units and organizations. Equipment frequently varies in operation, sometimes in fundamental ways even within the same working environment (e.g., hospitals). Some is close to unusable, or in various states of disrepair. Tools may be missing or not fit for purpose, forcing workers to adapt their method of work (“violate the rules”) to compensate. Spare parts may be lacking; it is not unusual to hear of organizations using eBay to obtain certain parts. Innovation cycles are getting shorter, and equipment is replaced more frequently than before. Consequently, workers (especially technical/maintenance staff) spend much more time in training to understand the technology.
Procedures and work processes are often over- or under-specified, sometimes unworkable. An airport tower control unit may have 1,000 or more pages of opera- tional procedures, plus tens of temporary procedures that make everyday work a challenge (this can be even worse on the railways). Procedures are often designed from afar—policies almost always—and may not reflect reality. Working relation- ships may be strained. The organization may be in a continual state of reorganization and change. There are new threats to human values (e.g., security).
Still other constraints exist in our organizational structures, goals, finances, pro- cesses, measures, and incentive systems. It makes a significant difference whether an HF/E practitioner is located in engineering, operations, safety, occupational health, or other divisions, for instance (see Kirwan, 2000; Wilson, 2014). Organizations are reorganized, HF/E teams are split and scattered, and key decision makers change, along with attitudes to HF/E. Company systems and standards (e.g., safety manage- ment systems, internal standards) are developed, sometimes in response to regula- tions and national or international standards, which can cement how HF/E is (or is not) integrated into organizational functioning. Integrating new concepts and approaches faces many barriers and can take years (see Shorrock, 2013). Subcultures (e.g., along geographical and professional lines) can also vary markedly within orga- nizations, as well as the diversity of staff members’ national cultural backgrounds and primary languages. Company incentive systems, punishments, performance tar- gets, and measures can encourage unwanted behaviors. All of these factors have implications for HF/E practitioners, often working against HF/E solutions.
People have to work around the mess, through the mess, despite the mess. This is also the context for HF/E practitioners. HF/E practitioners need to work in an agile and resilient way, to adjust, adapt, and learn in response to demands, opportunities, and con- straints. Like the people we work with, HF/E practitioners must manage trade-offs (e.g., between thoroughness and efficiency [Hollnagel, 2009]; between tasks and relation- ships), balance conflicting goals (e.g., safety, security, health, productivity, efficiency, usability, pleasure, satisfaction), with limited time and resources and under various con- straints (e.g., regulatory, organizational, economic, political). Yet HF/E interventions often come with emergent properties—both positive and negative—which must also be detected, understood, and handled. In our experience of working with HF/E practitio- ners in industry, their success is often less about the latest knowledge of HF/E theory and tools, and more about the ability to reflect, compromise, make trade-offs, and adapt to the conditions of the work environment, organization, and the industry.
This messiness can make it hard to write about HF/E in practice, because the “process” of “doing HF/E” inasmuch as there is one, is not linear and standardized; it is a blend of craft, engineering, and applied science, and varies in order to adapt to conditions. The actual practice of HF/E is less clean and tidy than might be por- trayed in the “success stories” that we sometimes read. The organizational context can also mean that much of HF/E in practice cannot be written about publically without stripping away much of the context, due to its sensitivity. These sensitivities relate to technology (e.g., weapons, consumer products), processes (e.g., military, commercial), data (e.g., safety, security), and politics. Sign-off may be at the CEO level, which can immediately discourage writing. And publication is not usually part of the organizational reward structure for practitioners. Some of these issues mean that some HF/E practitioners are put off writing about practice, and even put off using social media for professional purposes.
THE REALITIES OF HF/E IN PRACTICE
HF/E in PracticE rEquirEs an EFFEctivE rEsEarcH–PracticE rElationsHiP
The issues that most affect HF/E in practice are, then, woven into context. Singleton (1994) argued that knowledge and experience in industry are usually essential in HF/E, since a particular task may not be fully comprehensible without a context. But HF/E practitioners draw on an understanding of interactions (between people and other elements within a system) that is both fundamental and applied, from research and practice. On this, Singleton also argued that research should inform practice through ecologically valid and usable methodology (see Chapter 10), and practice should ideally be based on research evidence, and raise more questions for research (see Chapter 9). Similarly, Sind-Prunier (1996) argued that, to be relevant and useful, research should be responsive to the needs of practitioners.
But from his survey of experienced Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) members, Meister (1999) concluded that “HFE research is not useful to what should be two of its primary consumers: the practitioner and designer working in system development” (p. 264). He bluntly stated that researchers and practitio- ners “see little value in the products of each other’s activities” (p. 223). Green and Jordan (1999) wrote “academics regard industrial approaches as sloppy and lacking in rigor and validity, whilst industrialists regard academic practice as over complex and impractical” (p. 113).
This is addressed elsewhere in this book, but it is important that we do not allow a research–practice gap to widen in HF/E. Issues of research relevance, access to research, research format, and time to read, understand, and apply research (Chung and Shorrock, 2011) must be dealt with by researchers and prac- titioners in tandem. This is important for the relevance and survival of the profes- sion (Meister, 1999; Sind-Prunier, 1996) and its goals of improving well-being and system performance.
We need an effective research–practice relationship in HF/E. But we also need a relationship that acknowledges the realities of practice. The complexity and messiness of application domains means that theory and method cannot be applied in a straightforward way; practitioners need “instrumental” knowledge, not just “explanatory” knowledge (Meister, 1992). Schön (1983) critiqued “technical rationality,” a positivist epistemology of practice that views professional activity as instrumental problem-solving made rigorous by the application of the scien- tific theory and technique. According to Schön, this is “the view of professional knowledge which has most powerfully shaped both our thinking about the profes- sions and the institutional relations of research, education, and practice” (p. 21). He proposed the idea of “knowing-in-action” as a characteristic mode of ordinary practical knowledge: “a kind of knowing [that] is inherent in intelligent action.” Skilled practice reveals a kind of knowing that does not stem from prior intellec- tual consideration. He also proposed “reflecting-in-action”: not only do we think about doing but we think about doing something while doing it. We might call this “thinking on our feet.” Schön suggested that:
When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. He is not dependent on the categories of established theory and technique, but constructs a new theory of the unique case…. Thus reflection-in-action can proceed, even in situ- ations of uncertainty or uniqueness, because it is not bound by the dichotomies of Technical Rationality. (pp. 68–69)
Usher et al. (1997) characterized technical rationality as “the dominant paradigm which has failed to resolve the dilemma of rigor versus relevance confronting profes- sionals” (p. 143). Going back to the discussion of messiness, Schön remarked “the scope of technical expertise is limited by situations of uncertainty, instability, unique- ness, and conflict. When research-based theories and techniques are inapplicable, the professional cannot legitimately claim to be expert but only to be especially well prepared to reflect-in-action” (p. 345). These considerations are particularly impor- tant to us in our thinking about HF/E in practice, the research–practice relationship, and the roles we take on as we practice (see Chapter 7).
THE REALITIES OF HF/E IN PRACTICE
HF/E in PracticE is dEPEndEnt on PractitionEr cHaractEristics and rElationsHiPs
Many factors that have a great bearing on our success in practice are rarely writ- ten about (Williams and Haslam, 2011). Such interacting factors may include, for instance, personal characteristics (e.g., integrity, credibility, empathy, congruence, respect), knowledge (e.g., of industry, technology, regulations, laws), and skills (e.g., in marketing, sense-making, design, storytelling, communicating, relating). When it comes to professional practice, character and the constraints of the practice envi- ronment may have much more bearing than background education and knowledge (Piegorsch et al., 2006). While many of these factors are generic to many professions (Shanteau, 1992), they are operationalized in particular ways in the context of HF/E, which is rarely discussed.
Just as important is the network of relationships that brings about the desired out- comes of HF/E. HF/E has one foot in a “system world” of tools, methods, processes, standards, and regulations, but it has another foot in a “relational world” (or “com- munity world”) of people in various roles in organizations and society. The ability to relate effectively to these people, drawing on relationship skills such as listening and empathy (Shorrock and Murphy, 2007), is vital. HF/E is dependent on a network of relationships This reflects consulting more generally. Peter Block observed that “No matter how research-based or technical the project, it will always reach a point at which the success of the work will hinge on the quality of the relationship we have with out client. This relationship is the conduit through which our expertise passes.” (2000, p. 374). The most advanced methods and latest theory will come to nothing without a network of relationships.
THE REALITIES OF HF/E IN PRACTICE
HF/E is cHanging
As society and industry is changing, so is HF/E and our identity, especially in the eyes of industry. HF/E is becoming more popular. In the UK National Health Service, there is now significant participation in human factors, in good part due to the work of the Clinical Human Factors Group (see Foreword by Martin Bromiley and Chapter 13). This is evident to the outsider via social media, particularly Twitter. The same can be seen in WebOps, again in no small part due to one of the authors in this text: John Allspaw (Chapter 25). Frontline workers know that HF/E is relevant, and they often see “human factors” as what they do. Going back to the IEA definition, it is about the interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and at a work-design level, adapting these via knowledge-in-action and reflection-in-action, within the system of constraints that exists. Or referring to Wilson’s definition, it is about human behaviour and performance in purposeful interacting sociotechnical systems. In simple terms, for many people in industry, ‘human factors’ is about human work, and ‘design’ may involve the design of artefacts and processes, or it may be constrained to adjustment of routines, and so on.
There are relatively few HF/E professionals in many environments, so others are often taking the reins. As Corlett (2010) described, this could have bad outcomes: “if there is no control over those who wear the label of “ergonomist” then not only will improvements in practice be a long time in coming but there will be projects put for- ward as ergonomic improvements which will eventually be discredited as a result of bad practice” (p. 682). But we can collaborate and invite others in. After all, dietary advice is not the sole domain of dieticians, and talking about problems is not the pre- serve of counselors. While “deprofessionalization” (or counter-professionalism) may come at the expense of quality, overprotection of a profession may come at the expense of participation, and success. We can work together to ensure that dangers and threats are mitigated, but that opportunities are taken, which will likely increase the desire for HF/E (Williams and Haslam, 2006).
So a middle ground is required. Part of this middle ground may be that cer- tain roles, typically involving a wide and deep-level content and method expertise (see Chapter 7), may require highly qualified and experienced HF/E practitioners (e.g., chartered, registered, or certified). Other roles may require a different sort of practitioner, perhaps familiar with certain aspects of HF/E, but not a special- ist as such [e.g., a “technical member” of the CIEHF (CIEHF, 2016)]. These roles may involve applying certain aspects of content and method expertise; using pro- cess facilitation; advocating or evangelizing HF/E principles; stimulating think- ing or experimentation; or acting as an independent monitor. This middle ground requires collaboration among those with expertise in theory, method, and aspects of context (HF/E practitioners) and those with deep expertise in their jobs, working environments, and industry (field experts [Shorrock et al., 2014]; system actors and experts [Dul et al., 2012]).
The middle ground requires that we invite in those at the edge. In the context of communities, McKnight and Block (2010) put it this way:
The challenge is to keep expanding the limits of our hospitality. Our willingness to welcome strangers. This welcome is the sign of a community confident in itself. It has nothing to fear from the outsider. The outsider has gifts, insights, and experiences to share for our benefit…. The beautiful, remarkable sign of a secure community is that it has a welcome at the edge.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK
The previous discussion brings us to the purpose of this book, which is to convey some of the perspectives and experiences of practitioners on the real practice of HF/E in a variety of industrial sectors, organizational settings, and working contexts. The book blends literature on the nature of practice with reflections from experience, and offers insights into the achievement (and nonachievement) of the core goals of HF/E: improved system performance and human well-being.
To achieve this purpose the approach of this book can be characterized as follows:
• Contextual and systemic: The book takes a holistic approach to HF/E, emphasizing the context of real HF/E practice and the systemic nature of the discipline and profession.
• Diverse and eclectic: The book offers multiple perspectives from prac- titioners from different industries and settings and industry-focused researchers. The diversity of HF/E in practice means that the chapters have an eclectic feel; we avoided stipulating a certain style or format, or extensive referencing, since this is not the reality of practice. But as a whole, the authors give complementary insights into HF/E in practice.
• Experiential and reflective: The book recounts real experiences and reflections of practitioners and other HF/E stakeholders via reflection and narrative, and this is prioritized over citation and referencing. Authors also consider some of the lessons learned and not learned by the profession, and some of the wider implications for the profession.
• Genuine: The authors are honest about HF/E-as-done, without assuming ideal conditions. The authors discuss some of the factors that influence practice and outcomes in “messy” and constrained environments, including the compromises and trade-offs that are necessary in practice.
• Useful: The book aims to help improve professional practice, via practical wisdom from experienced practitioners (e.g., “advice I’d give myself if I were starting over”).
This book speaks directly to the realities of HF/E in practice. Like books on practice and professional issues for other disciplines and professions (e.g., Bransetter, 2012; Brookfield, 1995; Kottler, 2010; Schön, 1991), it offers reflections on the world of practice and “life as a practitioner.”
YOU, THE READERS
There should be something of interest to anyone with an interest in the discipline and profession of HF/E, including:
• Current HF/E practitioners to help reflect on, challenge, and conceptual- ize their own practice and the practice of others, and how it may be sus- tained, changed, or improved
• Future HF/E practitioners to gain an understanding of HF/E-as-done, and put their training into a wider context
• Allied practitioners, HF/E advocates and ambassadors who utilize cer- tain HF/E concepts and methods, or champion the aims of HF/E, to put their practice into a broader and more systemic framework, perhaps pro- gressing to fuller integration into their work
• Researchers to gain an understanding of the nature of HF/E practice in a vari- ety of industrial domains and organizational and working contexts, to help focus and direct their research, and to help identify some of the practical implications
• Policy makers and regulators to understand some of the practical and systemic HF/E issues affecting policy and regulation
• Clients of HF/E services and products to become more active and instru- mental in the success of HF/E in practice
THE AUTHORS AND EDITORS
This edited book features chapters and commentary by many experienced HF/E prac- titioners situated in a diverse range of contexts, including consultancies, manufactur- ers, service providers, universities, and other organizations. The chapters are diverse in content, approach, tone, and style of writing, reflecting the individual authors, their roles and experiences, their working contexts, and preferred approaches to writing. The authors have worked in many countries on six continents, though most are from Anglophone backgrounds and work mainly in Anglophone countries, with a few exceptions.
We editors are both practitioners with experience in a variety of industries. We have links to academia (we both still research and teach) and previously held full- time roles in universities.
A blog that accompanies the book is at www.hfeinpractice.wordpress.com. Here you will find practitioner summaries for each chapter and some reflections from early readers, and you are invited to reflect on the general themes within each chapter.
STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK
The book is structured in four parts. Part I presents views on aspects of the state of the profession and discipline of HF/E. Part II considers some of the fundamental issues for practitioners, as well as others associated with HF/E. Part III gives some perspectives on HF/E in practice in a range of industries, from health care to agri- culture. Part IV considers issues associated with communicating about HF/E, at all levels and in various forms.
A CONCLUSION FROM ALPHONSE CHAPANIS
To conclude this chapter, we will leave you with a quote from Alphonse Chapanis (1917–2002), one of the founders of our discipline. It gives a brief summary of life as a practitioner, one of the things we hope you get from the rest of this book.
Human Factors has always been challenging, frustrating at times, rewarding at others, but never dull. I can honestly say in retrospect that I have had a full life—an exciting life—and that I have enjoyed telling people about human factors, educating students and others to take over where I have had to leave off, and grappling with the problems trying to make our material world safer, more comfortable, and easier to cope with.
