The Nature of the Human Factors/Ergonomics Profession Today An IEA Perspective - Book 2 Flashcards
PRACTITIONER SUMMARY
Human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) delineates itself from related professions via a design-driven systems approach with the dual outcomes of optimizing human well- being and system performance.
However, use of the terminology “human factors” and “ergonomics” varies, and the variations can create confusion.
While HF/E prac- tice is typically unregulated, wide variations in the breadth and depth of practice have resulted in a number of certification bodies that use the competencies set by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) to certify practitioners to provide a measure of confidence in the HF/E services they receive.
However, it can be chal- lenging for students to find academic programs that lend themselves to attaining the required competencies.
There is a particular requirement for the HF/E profession to support the development of practice in the developing countries through tools, educa- tion programs, and support through organizations such as the IEA, the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the World Health Organization (WHO).
Increased emphasis on demonstrating the value of HF/E as a means to improve performance in addition to well-being will be needed by the joint efforts of researchers and practitio- ners to move HF/E from a reactive endeavor to a necessity in upfront design.
INTRODUCTION
Founded in 1961, the IEA represents the ergonomics and human factors societies from around the world, with a mission to advance ergonomics science and practice. It provides means for societies to collaborate and learn from each other and provides access to the international stage to allow work with related international bodies such as the WHO, ILO, International Standards Organization (ISO), and the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH). The IEA has gradually grown over time and currently there are 48 Federated Societies, two Affiliated Societies, and four Networks under its umbrella.
From our work with the IEA, it is clear that the nature of the HF/E profession today varies within and among countries. Diversity in contexts and cultures at the country, organization, and individual levels dictates the means of application and influences the areas of practice. At the same time, the use of a systems approach with the objectives of optimizing human well-being and overall system performance provides the thread of commonality and serves to delineate the HF/E professional from those who focus on only one of these objectives. The central link between those working across the world as ergonomics practitioners is their interest in the person within the context of their physical, cognitive, and psychosocial setting. Some prac- titioners are more skilled at the physical capacity studies and methodologies, often due to their background in the health sciences or design. Others are more focused on the cognitive or psychosocial aspects, but all require the ability to integrate the three core areas of ergonomics research into their practice. As educational opportunities in HF/E reduce, as in many other professions, there are challenges for the international ergonomics community to work together to support a vibrant and contemporary body of knowledge and practice.
HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? DOES IT MATTER?
When discussing the nature of the HF/E profession today, a natural place to start is the definition of ergonomics.
After much work on the part of the IEA to obtain input from Federated Society representatives around the world and representing various facets of HF/E, a consensus definition was published in 2000:
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 profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to opti-
mize human well-being and overall system performance.
In spite of this consensus definition, researchers and practitioners alike continue to define ergonomics and human factors in a variety of ways.
Some tend to use the terms synonymously, while others define ergonomics as encompassing the physical aspects and human factors encompassing the cognitive elements of human–system interac- tion, or believe that ergonomics is a subset of human factors or vice versa.
However an HF/E professional has come to define HF/E, it seems to be difficult to change their point of view.
This can create an issue in practice as organizations that might benefit from integration of HF/E in their work, but have come to understand ergonomics and human factors in a certain way, may not realize the resources available to them depending on how practitioners defines themselves and whether it aligns with the way that it is seen by the organization in question.
Therefore, getting in the door to speak to a potential client group can be difficult as the practitioner may already be stereo- typed based on how they are titled (ergonomist, human factors specialist, etc.).
In discussion with many professionals in the HF/E field, their views on how they see ergonomics versus human factors are entrenched, in the same way that individu- als can be about their political party affiliations and no amount of debate has brought about resolution.
This diversity of definitions and sometimes conflicting views can be confusing for consumers and may be diluting our power as a profession. As such, practitioners and the societies representing the profession must become adept at communicating the scope of practice both generally and within the context of the country, organization, business unit, or at the individual level as needed and ensure that, at minimum, they define how they are using the terms (synonymously or not, and if not, the definitions being used).
It should be noted also that in some languages both terms translate as the same word.
For example, in French a single term “ergonomie” is typically used.
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCY
Given the breadth of practice, it is important that those working in the field know their areas of competency. One means seen by societies as a way to advance the pro- fession is through the development of a certification process for HF/E professionals. In some countries, the Federated Society has created a certification body that may reside as an entity under the society or may be a separate body. These bodies are typically unregulated from a government perspective, though the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors in the United Kingdom recently attained charter- ship. This will provide a measure of protection as only those registered and dem- onstrating appropriate competency will be able to use the “Chartered Ergonomist and Human Factors Specialist” title. This may set the precedent for other countries to seek a protected status. In the meantime, in many developed countries, anyone can call themselves an HF/E professional with no credentialing and this can create a problem for consumers or clients who need to understand the difference between those who have attained credentials and those who have not.
In an effort to assist with the credentialing process, the IEA has developed mini- mum standards of competency for societies to use in setting up their certification bodies. Those that meet the IEA criteria are able to attain certification of their pro- cess from the IEA. In many developed countries, these bodies have set levels of competency that exceed the IEA requirements.
In addition to demonstrating competency, an important requirement is that the practitioners be held to a code of ethics to help protect service users from poor prac- tice and from those who practice in areas in which they are not competent. A com- plaint process is also required in case the consumer feels that the practitioner has not been ethical in his or her practice.
It then falls to the certification body and the professionals who have been cer- tified to educate consumers on the difference in competency and quality that can be provided by a certified individual. Having said that, there are not enough cer- tified individuals available to service the demand or potential demand for HF/E. Furthermore, it is unlikely that those who may use HF/E skills in their roles as engineers, occupational health and safety professionals, or health professionals have the time, inclination, or competency, at the level required by the certifying bodies, to become certified. Rather than exclude or ignore these individuals for their contribu- tions to HF/E, our time would likely be better spent at educating them in the practice and helping them to understand at what point a problem is beyond their knowledge and they need to look to an HF/E professional [see Williams and Haslam (2006) for a discussion of the knowledge base of related professions versus those of HF/E practitioners].
EDUCATION TO PRACTICE
HF/E professionals come from a wide variety of backgrounds and often the name of the degree attained is not specifically “Ergonomics” or “Human Factors.” Few such specific programs exist and HF/E tends to be a specialty that one can take within a given university faculty or department.
In a university or college setting, students are typically taught scientific research and reporting formats. Experiments, for instance, start with a null hypothesis, which is tested, and either confirmed or denied. Reports follow a standard scientific format with an introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. Once in practice, it can be shocking to find out that clients do not want a report written in a scientific format. Clients want the bottom line. Saving that for the conclusion part of the report does not work. HF/E practitioners therefore need to be succinct, get to the point in an executive summary, and put details in an appendix. Good communication skills are also essential in dealing with the worker population who may have a large range of education and language skills.
Students also may have access to a range of hardware (e.g., measurement devices), software (e.g., statistical software), and information (e.g., books and journals) that are not available to them in practice, either because of cost and time constraints or because of lack of compatibility with the work environment. In practice, the methods and tools that are likely to be used include surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation, video recording, tape measures and force gauges, and existing data with respect to injuries, incidents, turnover, sickness, and so on. Comparison with normative data that may exist is common; however, a practitioner is often left to provide their best judgment using the closest available data. Gaps in research particularly exist in the cumulative effects of nonrepetitive work such as operations, maintenance, and construction where tasks can vary significantly both within and among days.
Educational programs that expose students directly to businesses though co-operative programs or research partnerships are of great service to the practice as they start exposing these future HF/E professionals to the real-world skill sets they will need.
RESEARCH TO PRACTICE
While tools for practitioner use, such as RULA, REBA, NIOSH Equation, Liberty Mutual Manual Materials Handing Tables, OWAS, MAC, and so on, are helpful [see Neumann (2007) for a catalogue of available tools and methods], there still remains a gap, particularly around methods for easily collecting meaningful data and which have comparative guidelines for work that is not cyclical. Organizations are typically not willing to fund large, lengthy studies. They want to solve an existing problem or implement a design that can be attained on time and remains in budget.
Good work done by practitioners often goes unpublished as a result of constraints set by the organization, lack of rigorous scientific methodology preventing journal or conference acceptance, or simply because practitioners do not believe that the work will be valued or do not have the time or resources to write up or present their work. In a survey of over 500 HF/E professionals by Chung and Shorrock (2011), “carrying out more research and publication” was one of the top five suggestions on how practi- tioners could improve research application, but several highlighted the lack of outlets to do this. On the other hand, some societies trying to solicit practitioner cases and presentations through awards, contests, or dedicated conference streams have found low participation relative to the practitioner population. The IEA Congress has intro- duced a stream on practitioner case studies since 2012. More than 100 case studies were received from around the world for the IEA 2015 Triennial Congress, which is encouraging on one hand, but low in relation to the thousands of practitioners worldwide. While practitioners need tools and data from research, learning from the successes and failures of other practitioners is equally as important. Finding ways to encourage frequent sharing of practitioner knowledge and experiences continues to be a challenge.
Qualitative data collection and the ability to conduct interviews with stakeholder groups and individuals are necessities for good practice. However, in many educa- tional programs, quantitative data are important and the use of qualitative methods is not emphasized. Fortunately, the necessity for private sector research dollars has resulted in increased applied research conducted in the field. Publically and privately funded research organizations are often required to interact with practitioners to determine their needs, to assist in setting research directions, and to transfer knowl- edge to the HF/E profession and end users.
THE HF/E PROFESSION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
The IEA has a goal to support the development of HF/E in developing countries (as per the Human Development Index, HDI). This includes providing financial support to IEA meetings and conferences as well as identifying benefactors typically from large companies with a commitment to support developing countries. An example was a large European agriculture machinery supplier providing financial support for research on women in India working in agriculture. Other examples include a major study on HF/E requirements for a backpack used by coffee pickers in Central America. The IEA has also provided guidelines for the establishment of education programs in developing countries. In order to have an HF/E profession, there needs to be an education system in place that supports the competencies required to become a professional in the area. Lack of academics to provide this education is a major barrier toward cultivating HF/E as a profession in some developing countries. Where some practice is going on within these countries, it has often arisen out of the need to address occupational injuries and illness and therefore has been taken up by medical or safety professionals. Electronic resources that are now available can be very helpful in providing access to educational materials and even attaining a related degree, although language can be a barrier, since many of these resources are in English only. Feedback from societies in developing countries indicates that there are few individuals (in the range of 0%–20% of the mem- bers of these societies) who are working specifically as HF/E practitioners. With the growth of online educational programs, there are now more opportunities for people from developing countries to select more courses, webinars, and professional develop- ment programs from around the world.
A major difference between developing and developed countries is their high pro- portion of workers in the informal sector. This is often over 90% of their working population. They are outside the direct control of regulators and industry standard enforcement. Innovative processes to mentor, coach, and support industry leaders are generally more applicable than producing large government agencies.
The ergonomics issues in developing countries that practitioners need to address are similar to developed countries. These include the following:
• Prevention of musculoskeletal disorders
• Aging workforce
• Design to suit the worker populations
• Fatigue management and cognitive demands
• Gender differences in work design
The occupations are also similar though the access to technology is often very different. The main industries that are relevant to developing countries include the following:
• Construction • Transport
• Agriculture • Healthcare
• Service industries including office-based work
• Mining
Five significant means to advance HF/E in developing countries are the development of the ILO “Ergonomics Checkpoints” (ILO, 2010, 2012), the joint ICOH and IEA publication “Ergonomics Guidelines for Occupational Health Practice in Industrially Developing Countries” (Kogi et al., 2010), roving ergonomist programs, the formation of IEA Networks, and educational initiatives. These are outlined in the following.
THE HF/E PROFESSION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
ilo cHEckPoints
The ILO Checkpoints is an illustrated, easy-to-use guide to problems and solutions. Its development has been a collaboration between the IEA (content provision) and the ILO (distribution) and it is freely available from the ILO website in a PDF format in a few languages. Recently, an agriculture-specific version was released and a human care work version is nearing completion. An app has been released as well. The Checkpoints publication is available in many languages, and countries are encour- aged to use and translate it when needed. China is currently adapting it for use in its main industries with more representative pictures being utilized. The first edition was published by the ILO in 1996 and the second edition in 2010.
THE HF/E PROFESSION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
iEa and icoH Joint Publication on ErgonoMics guidElinEs For occuPational HEaltH guidElinEs in industrially dEvEloPing countriEs
These guidelines were developed for occupational health professionals working in developing countries to understand the basic principles and processes required to imple- ment a site-based ergonomics program. It focuses on participatory methods for users to identify their local ergonomics risks and to develop simple and cost-effective interven- tions. It includes a range of simple record sheets for observation studies and a checklist to identify ergonomics risk factors in the workplace. A multifactorial approach to inter- vention is taken to address the physical, cognitive, and psychosocial risk factors.
THE HF/E PROFESSION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
roving ErgonoMists PrograM
This program enables ergonomics practitioners and academics visiting developing countries to provide guest lectures and conduct workshops with students and local practitioners to share knowledge and experiences. This program is funded via the rov- ing ergonomist who is possibly travelling to other regions of the world for vacation and interested to include some personal and professional development at the same time. The local IEA Society will often offer local hospitality in recognition of their time.
THE HF/E PROFESSION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
iEa nEtWorks
IEA Networks are typically groups of Federated Societies and Affiliated societies formed to provide means of collaborating and to assist countries without a society to develop. Four such networks currently exist: Federation of European Ergonomics Societies (FEES), The Latin American Ergonomics Union (ULAERGO), The South East Asian Network of Ergonomics Societies (SEANES), and in 2014, ErgoAfrica was formed to network the African Societies. With the help of these networks, societies in Malaysia and Peru were recently formed and a society in Algeria is in development.
THE HF/E PROFESSION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Educational initiativEs
Two examples of educational initiatives to advance the HF/E profession are as follows:
- Graduate Program in Ergonomics for Latin America: In the summer of 2015, a new ergonomics graduate program will start in Cuba to serve the Spanish-speaking nations. Academic resources from within and outside of Latin America have been retained to provide education covering the competencies required as an HF/E professional. With a waiting list of stu- dents, this program should provide a significant boost to the profession in Latin America and is being closely watched by other networks, such as ErgoAfrica, as a potential model for programs in their own regions.
- In India, HF/E education typically resides within design departments and medicine. A new proposal in the development stage is the creation of a program that operates like some of the MBA (Masters of Business Administration) programs in developed countries where students from a variety of backgrounds, including HF/E, and often having some work expe- rience, will form groups and go out into the common local industries (e.g., agriculture and arts and crafts) to observe the work being done, collect data, and use generative design principles to propose solutions that will help the workers observed use local resources and resources that can be manufac- tured locally.
THE HF/E PROFESSION IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
In contrast to developing countries, the majority of society members from developed countries tend to work directly in the field of HF/E as practitioners with smaller num- bers in academia and research. In practice, HF/E professionals may work as consul- tants or as employees in government departments, medium-sized or large companies to provide HF/E expertise. Many consultants tend to be utilized in a reactive fash- ion where an unwanted event (injury, incident, accident, or illness) has occurred, to provide recommendations to improve the particular situation. External consultants may not get an opportunity to follow up to determine whether the recommenda- tions were implemented, and if so, whether the problem was resolved. Often they are contracted through human resources, occupational health and safety, or opera- tional safety departments. Since representatives from these departments are often not deeply involved in the upfront design process, particularly at the concept and early development stages, gaining access to groups that could utilize HF/E in a more proactive fashion can be difficult. As ergonomists become more exposed to other related professions, they can develop more opportunities to become involved in more strategic and proactive projects. This is generally referred to as macro-ergonomics. The IEA has a technical committee called “Organizational management and design” that incorporates this broader role of ergonomists.
The range of challenges facing ergonomics as a profession was deemed to be consistent enough among many countries that the IEA established a subcommit- tee tasked with examining the HF/E profession and making recommendations to move it forward. In 2012, this subcommittee, with Jan Dul as the Chair, produced a white paper on the “Future of Ergonomics,” which was published in the journal Ergonomics (Dul et al., 2012). Through data collection from a number of societies, it was reported that HF/E has a unique combination of three fundamental charac- teristics: (1) it takes a systems approach, (2) it is design driven, and (3) it focuses on two closely related outcomes: performance and well-being. However, the profession has not done a good job at marketing these characteristics to stakeholder groups that could benefit. While there are numerous papers showing the outcome of well-being, there are few demonstrating improved performance. Two main strategic directions are recommended:
1. To strengthen the demand for high-quality HF/E by increasing awareness among powerful stakeholders of the value of high-quality HF/E by com- municating with stakeholders, by building partnerships, and by educating stakeholders
2. To strengthen the application of high-quality HF/E by promoting the edu- cation of HF/E specialists, by ensuring the high-quality standards of HF/E applications and HF/E specialists, and by promoting HF/E research excel- lence at universities and other organizations
The IEA, Federated Societies, and HF/E practitioners will need to work together in order to determine appropriate tactics to move these strategies forward.
CONCLUSION
The IEA provides an opportunity for representatives from both developing and developed countries to come together and discuss how to advance HF/E within soci- eties and in the world as a whole. Its partnerships with other international bodies will continue to play an important role in the recognition of the value of HF/E.
There are challenges in consistency of how we define ourselves, finding novel ways to capture and share practitioner work, and access to appropriate educa- tion and practitioner tools. At the same time, collaborations between practitioners and researchers have been growing in conjunction with institutional mandates for knowledge transfer and the necessity of applied research to gain access to industry funding. As HF/E practitioners, academics, and societies become more adept at pro- moting the benefits of HF/E to potential users in the language and manner that best suit the targeted group(s) and at all levels of organizations, opportunities in the field can continue to grow.
