Human factors and ergonomics

Human factors and ergonomics (commonly referred to as human factors) is

the application of psychological and physiological principles to the (engineering
and) design of products, processes, and systems. The goal of human factors is to
reduce human error, increase productivity, and enhance safety and comfort with
a specific focus on the interaction between the human and the thing of interest.[1]

The field is a combination of numerous disciplines, such as psychology,

sociology, engineering, biomechanics, industrial design, physiology,
anthropometry, interaction design, visual design, user experience, and user
interface design. In research, human factors employs the scientific method to Play media
Practical demonstrations of
study human behavior so that the resultant data may be applied to the four
ergonomic principles
primary goals. In essence, it is the study of designing equipment, devices and
processes that fit the human body and its cognitive abilities. The two terms
"human factors" and "ergonomics" are essentially synonymous.[2][3][4]

The International Ergonomics Association defines ergonomics or human factors as follows:[5]

Ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among
humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to
design to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.

Human factors is employed to fulfill the goals of occupational health and safety and productivity. It is relevant in the design of
such things as safe furniture and easy-to-use interfaces to machines and equipment.

Proper ergonomic design is necessary to prevent repetitive strain injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders, which can develop
over time and can lead to long-term disability.

Human factors and ergonomics is concerned with the "fit" between the user, equipment, and environment or "fitting a job to a
person".[6] It accounts for the user's capabilities and limitations in seeking to ensure that tasks, functions, information, and the
environment suit that user.

To assess the fit between a person and the used technology, human factors specialists or ergonomists consider the job (activity)
being done and the demands on the user; the equipment used (its size, shape, and how appropriate it is for the task), and the
information used (how it is presented, accessed, and changed). Ergonomics draws on many disciplines in its study of humans and
their environments, including anthropometry, biomechanics, mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, industrial design,
information design, kinesiology, physiology, cognitive psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, and space
psychology.

Contents
Etymology
Domains of specialization
Physical ergonomics
 Cognitive ergonomics
Organizational ergonomics
History of the field
In ancient societies
In industrial societies
In aviation
During the Cold War
Information age
Present-day
Human factors organizations
Related organizations
Practitioners
Methods
Weaknesses
See also
References
Further reading
External links

Etymology
The term ergonomics (from the Greek ἔργον, meaning "work", and νόμος, meaning "natural law") first entered the modern
lexicon when Polish scientist Wojciech Jastrzębowski used the word in his 1857 article Rys ergonomji czyli nauki o pracy, opartej
na prawdach poczerpniętych z Nauki Przyrody (The Outline of Ergonomics; i.e. Science of Work, Based on the Truths Taken
from the Natural Science).[7] The French scholar Jean-Gustave Courcelle-Seneuil, apparently without knowledge of
Jastrzębowski's article, used the word with a slightly different meaning in 1858. The introduction of the term to the English
lexicon is widely attributed to British psychologist Hywel Murrell, at the 1949 meeting at the UK's Admiralty, which led to the
foundation of The Ergonomics Society. He used it to encompass the studies in which he had been engaged during and after World
War II.[8]

The expression human factors is a predominantly North American[9] term which has been adopted to emphasize the application
of the same methods to non-work-related situations. A "human factor" is a physical or cognitive property of an individual or
social behavior specific to humans that may influence the functioning of technological systems. The terms "human factors" and
"ergonomics" are essentially synonymous.[2]

Domains of specialization
Ergonomics comprise three main fields of research: physical, cognitive and organizational ergonomics.

There are many specializations within these broad categories. Specializations in the field of physical ergonomics may include
visual ergonomics. Specializations within the field of cognitive ergonomics may include usability, human–computer interaction,
and user experience engineering.

Some specializations may cut across these domains: Environmental ergonomics is concerned with human interaction with the
environment as characterized by climate, temperature, pressure, vibration, light.[10] The emerging field of human factors in
highway safety uses human factor principles to understand the actions and capabilities of road users – car and truck drivers,
pedestrians, cyclists, etc. – and use this knowledge to design roads and streets to reduce traffic collisions. Driver error is listed as
a contributing factor in 44% of fatal collisions in the United States, so a topic of particular interest is how road users gather and
process information about the road and its environment, and how to assist them to make the appropriate decision.[11]

New terms are being generated all the time. For instance, "user trial engineer" may refer to a human factors professional who
specializes in user trials. Although the names change, human factors professionals apply an understanding of human factors to the
design of equipment, systems and working methods to improve comfort, health, safety, and productivity.

According to the International Ergonomics Association, within the discipline of ergonomics there exist domains of specialization.

Physical ergonomics
Physical ergonomics is concerned with human anatomy, and some of the
anthropometric, physiological and bio mechanical characteristics as they
relate to physical activity.[5] Physical ergonomic principles have been widely
used in the design of both consumer and industrial products. Risk factors
such as localized mechanical pressures, force and posture in a sedentary
office environment lead to injuries attributed to an occupational
environment.[12] Physical ergonomics is important in the medical field,
particularly to those diagnosed with physiological ailments or disorders such
as arthritis (both chronic and temporary) or carpal tunnel syndrome. Pressure
that is insignificant or imperceptible to those unaffected by these disorders
may be very painful, or render a device unusable, for those who are. Many
ergonomically designed products are also used or recommended to treat or
prevent such disorders, and to treat pressure-related chronic pain.

One of the most prevalent types of work-related injuries is musculoskeletal

disorder. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMDs) result in
persistent pain, loss of functional capacity and work disability, but their
initial diagnosis is difficult because they are mainly based on complaints of
pain and other symptoms.[13] Every year, 1.8 million U.S. workers Physical ergonomics: the science of
experience WRMDs and nearly 600,000 of the injuries are serious enough to designing user interaction with
cause workers to miss work.[14] Certain jobs or work conditions cause a equipment and workplaces to fit the
user.
higher rate of worker complaints of undue strain, localized fatigue,
discomfort, or pain that does not go away after overnight rest. These types of
jobs are often those involving activities such as repetitive and forceful exertions; frequent, heavy, or overhead lifts; awkward
work positions; or use of vibrating equipment.[15] The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has found
substantial evidence that ergonomics programs can cut workers' compensation costs, increase productivity and decrease employee
turnover.[16] Mitigation solutions can include both short term and long term solutions. Short and long term solutions involve
awareness training, positioning of the body, furniture and equipment and ergonomic exercises. Sit-stand stations and computer
accessories that provide soft surfaces for resting the palm as well as split keyboards are recommended. Additionally, resources
within the HR department can be allocated to provide assessments to employees to ensure the above listed criteria is met.[17]
Therefore, it is important to gather data to identify jobs or work conditions that are most problematic, using sources such as injury
and illness logs, medical records, and job analyses.[15]

Innovative workstations that are being tested include: sit-stand desks, treadmill desks, pedal devices and cycle ergometers. In
multiple studies these new workstations resulted in decreased waist circumference and psychological well being, however a
significant number of additional studies have seen no marked improvement in health outcomes.[18]
Cognitive ergonomics
Cognitive ergonomics is concerned with mental processes, such as perception,
memory, reasoning, and motor response, as they affect interactions among
humans and other elements of a system.[5] (Relevant topics include mental
workload, decision-making, skilled performance, human reliability, work stress
and training as these may relate to human-system and Human-Computer
Interaction design.) Epidemiological studies show a correlation between the time
Ergonomically correct Keyboard
one spends sedentary and their cognitive function such as lowered mood and
depression.[18]

Organizational ergonomics
Organizational ergonomics is concerned with the optimization of socio-technical systems, including their organizational
structures, policies, and processes.[5] (Relevant topics include communication, crew resource management, work design, work
systems, design of working times, teamwork, participatory design, community ergonomics, cooperative work, new work
programs, virtual organizations, telework, and quality management.)

History of the field

In ancient societies
Some have stated that human ergonomics began with Australopithecus Prometheus (also known as “little foot”), a primate who
created handheld tools out of different types of stone, clearly distinguishing between tools based on their ability to perform
designated tasks.[19] The foundations of the science of ergonomics appear to have been laid within the context of the culture of
Ancient Greece. A good deal of evidence indicates that Greek civilization in the 5th century BC used ergonomic principles in the
design of their tools, jobs, and workplaces. One outstanding example of this can be found in the description Hippocrates gave of
how a surgeon's workplace should be designed and how the tools he uses should be arranged.[20] The archaeological record also
shows that the early Egyptian dynasties made tools and household equipment that illustrated ergonomic principles.

In industrial societies
Bernardino Ramazzini was one of the first people to systematically study the illness that resulted from work earning himself the
nickname “father of occupational medicine”. In the late 1600s and early 1700s Ramazzini visited many worksites where he
documented the movements of laborers and spoke to them about their ailments. He then published “De Morbis Artificum
Diatriba” (Italian for Diseases of Workers) which detailed occupations, common illnesses, remedies.[21] In the 19th century,
Frederick Winslow Taylor pioneered the "scientific management" method, which proposed a way to find the optimum method of
carrying out a given task. Taylor found that he could, for example, triple the amount of coal that workers were shoveling by
incrementally reducing the size and weight of coal shovels until the fastest shoveling rate was reached.[22] Frank and Lillian
Gilbreth expanded Taylor's methods in the early 1900s to develop the "time and motion study". They aimed to improve efficiency
by eliminating unnecessary steps and actions. By applying this approach, the Gilbreths reduced the number of motions in
bricklaying from 18 to 4.5, allowing bricklayers to increase their productivity from 120 to 350 bricks per hour.[22]

However, this approach was rejected by Russian researchers who focused on the well being of the worker. At the First
Conference on Scientific Organization of Labour (1921) Vladimir Bekhterev and Vladimir Nikolayevich Myasishchev criticised
Taylorism. Bekhterev argued that "The ultimate ideal of the labour problem is not in it [Taylorism], but is in such organisation of
the labour process that would yield a maximum of efficiency coupled with a minimum of health hazards, absence of fatigue and a
guarantee of the sound health and all round personal development of the working people."[23] Myasishchev rejected Frederick
Taylor's proposal to turn man into a machine. Dull monotonous work was a temporary necessity until a corresponding machine
can be developed. He also went on to suggest a new discipline of "ergology" to study work as an integral part of the re-
organisation of work. The concept was taken up by Myasishchev's mentor, Bekhterev, in his final report on the conference,
merely changing the name to "ergonology"[23]

In aviation
Prior to World War I, the focus of aviation psychology was on the aviator himself, but the war shifted the focus onto the aircraft,
in particular, the design of controls and displays, and the effects of altitude and environmental factors on the pilot. The war saw
the emergence of aeromedical research and the need for testing and measurement methods. Studies on driver behavior started
gaining momentum during this period, as Henry Ford started providing millions of Americans with automobiles. Another major
development during this period was the performance of aeromedical research. By the end of World War I, two aeronautical labs
were established, one at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas and the other at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base outside of Dayton, Ohio.
Many tests were conducted to determine which characteristic differentiated the successful pilots from the unsuccessful ones.
During the early 1930s, Edwin Link developed the first flight simulator. The trend continued and more sophisticated simulators
and test equipment were developed. Another significant development was in the civilian sector, where the effects of illumination
on worker productivity were examined. This led to the identification of the Hawthorne Effect, which suggested that motivational
factors could significantly influence human performance.[22]

World War II marked the development of new and complex machines and weaponry, and these made new demands on operators'
cognition. It was no longer possible to adopt the Tayloristic principle of matching individuals to preexisting jobs. Now the design
of equipment had to take into account human limitations and take advantage of human capabilities. The decision-making,
attention, situational awareness and hand-eye coordination of the machine's operator became key in the success or failure of a
task. There was substantial research conducted to determine the human capabilities and limitations that had to be accomplished.
A lot of this research took off where the aeromedical research between the wars had left off. An example of this is the study done
by Fitts and Jones (1947), who studied the most effective configuration of control knobs to be used in aircraft cockpits.

Much of this research transcended into other equipment with the aim of making the controls and displays easier for the operators
to use. The entry of the terms "human factors" and "ergonomics" into the modern lexicon date from this period. It was observed
that fully functional aircraft flown by the best-trained pilots, still crashed. In 1943 Alphonse Chapanis, a lieutenant in the U.S.
Army, showed that this so-called "pilot error" could be greatly reduced when more logical and differentiable controls replaced
confusing designs in airplane cockpits. After the war, the Army Air Force published 19 volumes summarizing what had been
established from research during the war.[22]

In the decades since World War II, human factors has continued to flourish and diversify. Work by Elias Porter and others within
the RAND Corporation after WWII extended the conception of human factors. "As the thinking progressed, a new concept
developed—that it was possible to view an organization such as an air-defense, man-machine system as a single organism and
that it was possible to study the behavior of such an organism. It was the climate for a breakthrough."[24] In the initial 20 years
after the World War II, most activities were done by the "founding fathers": Alphonse Chapanis, Paul Fitts, and Small.

During the Cold War

The beginning of the Cold War led to a major expansion of Defense supported research laboratories. Also, many labs established
during WWII started expanding. Most of the research following the war was military-sponsored. Large sums of money were
granted to universities to conduct research. The scope of the research also broadened from small equipments to entire
workstations and systems. Concurrently, a lot of opportunities started opening up in the civilian industry. The focus shifted from
research to participation through advice to engineers in the design of equipment. After 1965, the period saw a maturation of the
discipline. The field has expanded with the development of the computer and computer applications.[22]
The Space Age created new human factors issues such as weightlessness and extreme g-forces. Tolerance of the harsh
environment of space and its effects on the mind and body were widely studied.[25]

Information age
The dawn of the Information Age has resulted in the related field of human–computer interaction (HCI). Likewise, the growing
demand for and competition among consumer goods and electronics has resulted in more companies and industries including
human factors in their product design. Using advanced technologies in human kinetics, body-mapping, movement patterns and
heat zones, companies are able to manufacture purpose-specific garments, including full body suits, jerseys, shorts, shoes, and
even underwear.

Present-day
In physical ergonomics, digital tools and advanced software allow analysis
of a workplace. An employee's movements are recorded using a motion
capture tool and imported into an analyzing system. To detect hazardous
postures and movements, traditional risk assessment methods are
implemented in the software – for example, as in the ViveLab ergonomic
assessment software RULA and NASA-OBI.[26]

In virtual space, a biomechanically accurate model represents the worker.

Ergonomic evaluation in virtual
The body structure, sex, age and demographic group of the mannequin is
environment
adjustable to correspond to the properties of the employee. The software
provides several different evaluations such as reachability test, spaghetti
diagram, or visibility analysis.[27] With these tools, ergonomists are able to redesign a workstation in a virtual environment and
test it in iterations until the result is satisfactory.

Human factors organizations

Formed in 1946 in the UK, the oldest professional body for human factors specialists and ergonomists is The Chartered Institute
of Ergonomics and Human Factors, formally known as the Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors and before that, The
Ergonomics Society.

The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) was founded in 1957. The Society's mission is to promote the discovery and
exchange of knowledge concerning the characteristics of human beings that are applicable to the design of systems and devices of
all kinds.

The Association of Canadian Ergonomists - l'Association canadienne d'ergonomie (https://ace-ergocanada.ca/index.html) (ACE)

was founded in 1968.[28] It was originally named the Human Factors Association of Canada (HFAC), with ACE (in French)
added in 1984, and the consistent, bilingual title adopted in 1999. According to it 2017 mission statement, ACE unites and
advances the knowledge and skills of ergonomics and human factors practitioners to optimise human and organisational well-
being.[29]

The International Ergonomics Association (IEA) is a federation of ergonomics and human factors societies from around the
world. The mission of the IEA is to elaborate and advance ergonomics science and practice, and to improve the quality of life by
expanding its scope of application and contribution to society. As of September 2008, the International Ergonomics Association
has 46 federated societies and 2 affiliated societies.
Related organizations
The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) was founded by the coal industry in 1969. From the outset the IOM employed an
ergonomics staff to apply ergonomics principles to the design of mining machinery and environments. To this day, the IOM
continues ergonomics activities, especially in the fields of musculoskeletal disorders; heat stress and the ergonomics of personal
protective equipment (PPE). Like many in occupational ergonomics, the demands and requirements of an ageing UK workforce
are a growing concern and interest to IOM ergonomists.

The International Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is a professional organization for mobility engineering professionals in
the aerospace, automotive, and commercial vehicle industries. The Society is a standards development organization for the
engineering of powered vehicles of all kinds, including cars, trucks, boats, aircraft, and others. The Society of Automotive
Engineers has established a number of standards used in the automotive industry and elsewhere. It encourages the design of
vehicles in accordance with established human factors principles. It is one of the most influential organizations with respect to
ergonomics work in automotive design. This society regularly holds conferences which address topics spanning all aspects of
human factors and ergonomics.

Practitioners
Human factors practitioners come from a variety of backgrounds, though predominantly they are psychologists (from the various
subfields of industrial and organizational psychology, engineering psychology, cognitive psychology, perceptual psychology,
applied psychology, and experimental psychology) and physiologists. Designers (industrial, interaction, and graphic),
anthropologists, technical communication scholars and computer scientists also contribute. Typically, an ergonomist will have an
undergraduate degree in psychology, engineering, design or health sciences, and usually a master's degree or doctoral degree in a
related discipline. Though some practitioners enter the field of human factors from other disciplines, both M.S. and PhD degrees
in Human Factors Engineering are available from several universities worldwide.

Ergonomics and the Sedentary Workplace

Contemporary offices did not exist until the 1830s [30] with, Wojciech Jastrzębowsk's seminal book on MSDergonomics
following in 1857 [31] and the first published study of posture appearing in 1955s [32]

As the American workforce began to shift towards sedentary employment, the prevalence of [WMSD/cognitive issues/ etc..]
began to rise. In 1900, 41% of the US workforce was employed in agriculture but by 2000 that had dropped to 1.9% [33] This
coincides with an increase in growth in desk-based employment (25% of all employment in 2000) [34] and the surveillance of
non-fatal workplace injuries by OSHA and Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1971.[35] 0-1.5 and occurs in a sitting or reclining
position. Adults older than 50 years report spending more time sedentary and for adults older than 65 years this is often 80% of
their awake time. Multiple studies show a dose-response relationship between sedentary time and all-cause mortality with an
increase of 3% mortality per additional sedentary hour each day.[36] High quantities of sedentary time without breaks is correlated
to higher risk of chronic disease, obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.[18]

Currently, there is a large proportion of the overall workforce who is employed in low physical activity occupations.[37]
Sedentary behavior, such as spending long periods of time in seated positions poses a serious threat for injuries and additional
health risks.[38] Unfortunately, even though some workplaces make an effort to provide a well designed environment for
sedentary employees, any employee who is performing large amounts of sitting will likely suffer discomfort.[38] There are
existing conditions that would predispose both individuals and populations to an increase in prevalence of living sedentary
lifestyles, including: socioeconomic determinants, education levels, occupation, living environment, age (as mentioned above)
and more.[39] A study published by the Iranian Journal of Public Health examined socioeconomic factors and sedentary lifestyle
effects for individuals in a working community. The study concluded that individuals who reported living in low income
environments were more inclined to living sedentary behavior compared to those who reported being of high socioeconomic
status.[39] Individuals who achieve less education are also considered to be a high risk group to partake in sedentary lifestyles,
however, each community is different and has different resources available that may vary this risk.[39] Oftentimes, larger
worksites are associated with increased occupational sitting.Those who work in environments that are classified as business and
office jobs are typically more exposed to sitting and sedentary behavior while in the workplace. Additionally, occupations that are
full-time, have schedule flexibility, are also included in that demographic, and are more likely to sit often throughout their
workday.[40]

Ergonomics Policy Implementation:

Obstacles surrounding better ergonomic features to sedentary employees include cost, time, effort and for both companies and
employees. The evidence above helps establish the importance of ergonomics in a sedentary workplace; however missing
information from this problem is enforcement and policy implementation. As a modernized workplace becomes more and more
technology based more jobs are becoming primarily seated, therefore leading to a need to prevent chronic injuries and pain. This
is becoming easier with the amount of research around ergonomic tools saving money companies by limiting the number of days
missed from work and workers comp cases.[41] The way to ensure that corporations prioritize these health outcomes for their
employees is through policy and implementation.[41]

Nationwide there are no policies that are currently in place, however a handful of big companies and states have taken on cultural
policies to insure the safety of all workers. For example, the state of Nevada risk management department has established a set of
ground rules for both agencies responsibilities and employees responsibilities.[42] The agency responsibilities include evaluating
workstations, using risk management resources when necessary and keeping OSHA records.[42] To see specific workstation
ergonomic policies and responsibilities click here.[42]

Methods
Until recently, methods used to evaluate human factors and ergonomics ranged from simple questionnaires to more complex and
expensive usability labs.[43] Some of the more common human factors methods are listed below:

Ethnographic analysis: Using methods derived from ethnography, this process focuses on observing the uses
of technology in a practical environment. It is a qualitative and observational method that focuses on "real-world"
experience and pressures, and the usage of technology or environments in the workplace. The process is best
used early in the design process.[44]
Focus Groups are another form of qualitative research in which one individual will facilitate discussion and elicit
opinions about the technology or process under investigation. This can be on a one-to-one interview basis, or in
a group session. Can be used to gain a large quantity of deep qualitative data,[45] though due to the small
sample size, can be subject to a higher degree of individual bias.[46] Can be used at any point in the design
process, as it is largely dependent on the exact questions to be pursued, and the structure of the group. Can be
extremely costly.
Iterative design: Also known as prototyping, the iterative design process seeks to involve users at several
stages of design, to correct problems as they emerge. As prototypes emerge from the design process, these are
subjected to other forms of analysis as outlined in this article, and the results are then taken and incorporated
into the new design. Trends among users are analyzed, and products redesigned. This can become a costly
process, and needs to be done as soon as possible in the design process before designs become too
concrete.[44]
Meta-analysis: A supplementary technique used to examine a wide body of already existing data or literature to
derive trends or form hypotheses to aid design decisions. As part of a literature survey, a meta-analysis can be
performed to discern a collective trend from individual variables.[46]
Subjects-in-tandem: Two subjects are asked to work concurrently on a series of tasks while vocalizing their
analytical observations. The technique is also known as "Co-Discovery" as participants tend to feed off of each
other's comments to generate a richer set of observations than is often possible with the participants separately.
This is observed by the researcher, and can be used to discover usability difficulties. This process is usually
recorded.
Surveys and questionnaires: A commonly used technique outside of human factors as well, surveys and
questionnaires have an advantage in that they can be administered to a large group of people for relatively low
cost, enabling the researcher to gain a large amount of data. The validity of the data obtained is, however, always
in question, as the questions must be written and interpreted correctly, and are, by definition, subjective. Those
who actually respond are in effect self-selecting as well, widening the gap between the sample and the
population further.[46]
Task analysis: A process with roots in activity theory, task analysis is a way of systematically describing human
interaction with a system or process to understand how to match the demands of the system or process to
human capabilities. The complexity of this process is generally proportional to the complexity of the task being
analyzed, and so can vary in cost and time involvement. It is a qualitative and observational process. Best used
early in the design process.[46]
Think aloud protocol: Also known as "concurrent verbal protocol", this is the process of asking a user to
execute a series of tasks or use technology, while continuously verbalizing their thoughts so that a researcher
can gain insights as to the users' analytical process. Can be useful for finding design flaws that do not affect task
performance, but may have a negative cognitive effect on the user. Also useful for utilizing experts to better
understand procedural knowledge of the task in question. Less expensive than focus groups, but tends to be
more specific and subjective.[47]
User analysis: This process is based around designing for the attributes of the intended user or operator,
establishing the characteristics that define them, creating a persona for the user. Best done at the outset of the
design process, a user analysis will attempt to predict the most common users, and the characteristics that they
would be assumed to have in common. This can be problematic if the design concept does not match the actual
user, or if the identified are too vague to make clear design decisions from. This process is, however, usually
quite inexpensive, and commonly used.[46]
"Wizard of Oz": This is a comparatively uncommon technique but has seen some use in mobile devices. Based
upon the Wizard of Oz experiment, this technique involves an operator who remotely controls the operation of a
device to imitate the response of an actual computer program. It has the advantage of producing a highly
changeable set of reactions, but can be quite costly and difficult to undertake.
Methods analysis is the process of studying the tasks a worker completes using a step-by-step investigation.
Each task in broken down into smaller steps until each motion the worker performs is described. Doing so
enables you to see exactly where repetitive or straining tasks occur.
Time studies determine the time required for a worker to complete each task. Time studies are often used to
analyze cyclical jobs. They are considered "event based" studies because time measurements are triggered by
the occurrence of predetermined events.[48]
Work sampling is a method in which the job is sampled at random intervals to determine the proportion of total
time spent on a particular task.[48] It provides insight into how often workers are performing tasks which might
cause strain on their bodies.
Predetermined time systems are methods for analyzing the time spent by workers on a particular task. One of
the most widely used predetermined time system is called Methods-Time-Measurement (MTM). Other common
work measurement systems include MODAPTS and MOST. Industry specific applications based on PTS are
Seweasy,MODAPTS and GSD as seen in paper: Miller, Doug, Towards Sustainable Labour Costing in UK
Fashion Retail (5 February 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2212100 or
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2212100 (https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.2212100) .
Cognitive walkthrough: This method is a usability inspection method in which the evaluators can apply user
perspective to task scenarios to identify design problems. As applied to macroergonomics, evaluators are able to
analyze the usability of work system designs to identify how well a work system is organized and how well the
workflow is integrated.[49]
Kansei method: This is a method that transforms consumer's responses to new products into design
specifications. As applied to macroergonomics, this method can translate employee's responses to changes to a
work system into design specifications.[49]
High Integration of Technology, Organization, and People (HITOP): This is a manual procedure done step-
by-step to apply technological change to the workplace. It allows managers to be more aware of the human and
organizational aspects of their technology plans, allowing them to efficiently integrate technology in these
contexts.[49]
Top modeler: This model helps manufacturing companies identify the organizational changes needed when new
technologies are being considered for their process.[49]
Computer-integrated Manufacturing, Organization, and People System Design (CIMOP): This model allows
for evaluating computer-integrated manufacturing, organization, and people system design based on knowledge
of the system.[49]
Anthropotechnology: This method considers analysis and design modification of systems for the efficient
transfer of technology from one culture to another.[49]
Systems analysis tool (SAT): This is a method to conduct systematic trade-off evaluations of work-system
intervention alternatives.[49]
Macroergonomic analysis of structure (MAS): This method analyzes the structure of work systems according
to their compatibility with unique sociotechnical aspects.[49]
 Macroergonomic analysis and design (MEAD): This method assesses work-system processes by using a ten-
step process.[49]
Virtual manufacturing and response surface methodology (VMRSM): This method uses computerized tools
and statistical analysis for workstation design.[50]

Weaknesses
Problems related to measures of usability include the fact that measures of learning and retention of how to use an interface are
rarely employed and some studies treat measures of how users interact with interfaces as synonymous with quality-in-use, despite
an unclear relation.[51]

Although field methods can be extremely useful because they are conducted in the users' natural environment, they have some
major limitations to consider. The limitations include:

1. Usually take more time and resources than other methods

2. Very high effort in planning, recruiting, and executing compared with other methods
3. Much longer study periods and therefore requires much goodwill among the participants
4. Studies are longitudinal in nature, therefore, attrition can become a problem.[52]

See also
Related subjects System usability scale Systems psychology
Related fields Ubiquitous computing
3D body scanning Universal design
Accessibility Activity-centered ergonomics Usability
Anthropometrics Accident analysis User experience design
Back injury Crew resource management User-centered design
Carpal tunnel syndrome Design for all Related scientists – living
Cognitive ergonomics Engineering psychology
Cognitive load Environmental design M. M. Ayoub
Computer-aided ergonomics Experience design John Chris Jones
Ergonomics in Canada Human–computer interaction Donald Norman
Human–computer interaction Human-centered computing Richard Pew
Human error (discipline) Thomas Sheridan
Human Factors in Engineering Human factors integration Neville A. Stanton
and Design Industrial and organizational
psychology Related scientists – deceased
Human-in-the-loop
Human reliability Industrial design
Frederic Bartlett
Industrial noise Industrial engineering
Alphonse Chapanis
Latent human error Industrial hygiene
Niels Diffrient
Manual handling Light ergonomics
Henry Dreyfuss
Mockup Maintenance resource
management Paul Fitts
Musculoskeletal disorder Frank Gilbreth
Occupational health psychology
Needs analysis Lillian Gilbreth
Occupational therapy
Occupational Health Science Étienne Grandjean
Participatory ergonomics
Repetitive strain injury W. E. Hick
Safety engineering
Rohmert's law John Karlin
Single pilot resource
Procrustes, the antonym of Maurice de Montmollin
management
ergonomics
Systems engineering Frederick W Taylor
Spinal disc herniation

References
 1. [1] (http://opac.vimaru.edu.vn/edata/EBook/An%20intruduction%20to%20human%20factors%20engineering.pdf)
in An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering. Wickens, Gordon, Liu, 1997.
2. ISO 6385 defines "ergonomics" and the "study of human factors" similarly, as the "scientific discipline concerned
with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that
applies theory, principles and methods to design to optimize overall human performance."
3. "What is ergonomics?" (http://www.ergonomics.org.uk/learning/what-ergonomics/). Institute of Ergonomics and
Human Factors. "Essentially yes, they are different terms with the same meaning but one term may be more in
favour in one country or in one industry than another. They can be used interchangeably."
4. "CRIOP" (https://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Sikkerhet%20og%20p%c3%a5litelighet/Prosjekte
r/CRIOP/CRIOPReport.pdf) (PDF). SINTEF. "Ergonomics is a scientific discipline that applies systematic
methods and knowledge about people to evaluate and approve the interaction between individuals, technology
and organisation. The aim is to create a working environment and the tools in them for maximum work efficiency
and maximum worker health and safety ... Human factors is a scientific discipline that applies systematic
methods and knowledge about people to evaluate and improve the interaction between individuals, technology
and organisations. The aim is to create a working environment (that to the largest extent possible) contributes to
achieving healthy, effective and safe operations."
5. International Ergonomics Association. What is Ergonomics (http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html). Website.
Retrieved 17 March 2014.
6. "Safety and Health Topics | Ergonomics | Occupational Safety and Health Administration" (https://www.osha.gov/
SLTC/ergonomics/). www.osha.gov. Retrieved 28 March 2019.
7. Wojciech Jastrzębowski (http://www.fees-network.org/what-is-ergonomics/)
8. Hywel Murrell (http://www.ergonomics.org.uk/awards/hywel-murrell)
9. Swain, A.D.; Guttmann, H.E. (1983). "Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power
Plant Applications. NUREG/CR-1278" (http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0712/ML071210299.pdf) (PDF).
USNRC. "Human Factors Engineering, Human Engineering, Human Factors, and Ergonomics ... describe a
discipline concerned with designing machines, operations, and work environments so that they match human
capacities and limitations ... The first three terms are used most widely in the United States ... The last term,
ergonomics, is used most frequently in other countries but is now becoming popular in the United States as well."
10. "Home Page of Environmental Ergonomics Society" (http://www.environmental-ergonomics.org/). Environmental-
ergonomics.org. Retrieved 6 April 2012.
11. John L. Campbell; Monica G. Lichty; et al. (2012). National Cooperative Highway Research Project Report 600:
Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems (Second Edition). Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board.
12. "Ergonomic Guidelines for Common Job Functions Within The Telecommunication Industry" (http://www.ehscp.or
g/resources/Documents/Ergonomics/Final%20Version%2011-06-07.pdf) (PDF).
13. Isabel A P Walsh; Jorge Oishi; Helenice J C Gil Coury (February 2008). "Clinical and functional aspects of work-
related musculoskeletal disorders among active workers". Programa de Pós-graduação Em Fisioterapia.
Universidade Federal de São Carlos. São Carlos, SP, Brasil. Rev. Saúde Pública Vol.42 No.1 São Paulo.
14. Charles N. Jeffress (27 October 2000). "BEACON Biodynamics and Ergonomics Symposium". University of
Connecticut, Farmington, Conn.
15. "Workplace Ergonomics: NIOSH Provides Steps to Minimize Musculoskeletal Disorders" (http://www.buildings.co
m/articles/detail.aspx?contentID=1563). 2003. Retrieved 23 April 2008.
16. Charles N. Jeffress (27 October 2000). BEACON Biodynamics and Ergonomics Symposium. University of
Connecticut, Farmington, Conn.
17. "Ergonomic Guidelines for Common Job Functions Within The Telecommunication Industry" (http://www.ehscp.or
g/resources/Documents/Ergonomics/Final%20Version%2011-06-07.pdf) (PDF).
18. Neuhaus, M.; Eakin, E. G.; Straker, L.; Owen, N.; Dunstan, D. W.; Reid, N.; Healy, G. N. (October 2014).
"Reducing occupational sedentary time: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence on activity-
permissive workstations" (http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:342216/OAUQ342216.pdf) (PDF). Obesity
Reviews. 15 (10): 822–838. doi:10.1111/obr.12201 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fobr.12201). ISSN 1467-789X (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/issn/1467-789X). PMID 25040784 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25040784).
19. Dart, R. A. (1960). The Bone Tool‐Manufacturing Ability of Australopithecus Prometheus. American
Anthropologist, 62(1), 134-138.
20. Marmaras, N.; Poulakakis, G.; Papakostopoulos, V. (August 1999). "Ergonomic design in ancient Greece".
Applied Ergonomics. 30 (4): 361–368. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00050-7 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0003-6
870%2898%2900050-7).
21. Franco, G., & Franco, F. (2001). Bernardino Ramazzini: The Father of Occupational Medicine. American journal
of public health, 91(9), 1382.
22. Nikolayevich Myasishchev estia.com/library/1358216/the-history-of-human-factors-and-ergonomics The History
of Human Factors and Ergonomics (http://www.quVladimir), David Meister
23. Neville Moray (2005), Ergonomics: The history and scope of human factors (http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7491
513M/Ergonomics), Routledge, ISBN 9780415322577, OCLC 54974550 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5497455
0), 041532257X
24. Porter, Elias H. (1964). Manpower Development: The System Training Concept. New York: Harper and Row, p.
xiii.
25. "NASA-STD-3000" (https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section01.htm). "1.2 OVERVIEW."
26. ViveLab ergonomics System (https://www.vivelab.cloud/features.html#analyses)
27. Advances in The Ergonomics in Manufacturing: Managing the Enterprise of the Future (https://books.google.de/b
ooks?id=EodYBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=Charat&f=false). [AHFE Conference]. 19 July
2014. ISBN 9781495121036.
28. "Association of Canadian Ergonomists - about us" (https://ace-ergocanada.ca/about/about-ace/index.html).
Association of Canadian Ergonomists. 2017. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
29. "Mission" (https://ace-ergocanada.ca/about/governance/mission.html). Association of Canadian Ergonomists.
2017. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
30. Smithsonian Education. Carbon to Computers. (1998) A Short History of the Birth and Growth of the American
Offic. http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/scitech/carbons/text/birth.html
31. Jastrzębowski, W. B., Koradecka, D., (2000) An outline of ergonomics, or the science of work based upon the
truths drawn from the Science of Nature: 1857 International Ergonomics Association., & Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society. (2000).. Warsaw: Central Institute for Labour Protection.
32. Hewes, G. (1955). World Distribution of Certain Postural Habits. American Anthropologist, 57(2), new series,
231-244. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/666393
33. C. Dimitri, A. Effland, and N. Conklin, (2005) The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm
Policy, Economic Information Bulletin Number
34. Wyatt, I. D. (2006). Occupational changes during the 20th century. Monthly Lab. Rev., 129, 35.
35. Roughton, James E. (2003), "Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements, Part
1904", OSHA 2002 Recordkeeping Simplified, Elsevier, pp. 48–147, doi:10.1016/b978-075067559-8/50029-6 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fb978-075067559-8%2F50029-6), ISBN 9780750675598
36. de Rezende, Leandro Fornias Machado; Rey-López, Juan Pablo; Matsudo, Victor Keihan Rodrigues; do Carmo
Luiz, Olinda (9 April 2014). "Sedentary behavior and health outcomes among older adults: a systematic review"
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4021060). BMC Public Health. 14: 333. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-
14-333 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1471-2458-14-333). ISSN 1471-2458 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1471-24
58). PMC 4021060 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4021060). PMID 24712381 (https://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24712381).
37. Parry, S., & Straker, L. (2013). The contribution of office work to sedentary behaviour associated risk. BMC Public
Health,13(1). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-296
38. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health. (2019, March 15). (none). Retrieved February, 2019, from
https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/ergonomics/sitting/sitting_overview.html
39. Konevic, S., MARTINOVIC, J., & DJONOVIC, N. (2015). Association of Socioeconomic Factors and Sedentary
Lifestyle in Belgrade’s Suburb, Working Class Community. Iranian Journal of Public Health,44(8), 1053-1060.
Retrieved March, 2019.
40. Yang, L., Hipp, J. A., Lee, J. A., Tabak, R. G., Dodson, E. A., Marx, C. M., & Brownson, R. C. (2017). Work-
related correlates of occupational sitting in a diverse sample of employees in Midwest metropolitan cities.
Preventive Medicine Reports,6, 197-202. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.03.008
41. Polanyi, M. F.; Cole, D. C.; Ferrier, S. E.; Facey, M.; Worksite Upper Extremity Research Group (March 2005).
"ScienceDirect". Applied Ergonomics. 36 (2): 231–239. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.10.011 (https://doi.org/10.101
6%2Fj.apergo.2004.10.011). PMID 15694078 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15694078).
42. "Ergonomics Policy" (http://risk.nv.gov/LP/ErgoPolicy/). risk.nv.gov. Retrieved 28 March 2019.
43. Stanton, N.; Salmon, P.; Walker G.; Baber, C.; Jenkins, D. (2005). Human Factors Methods; A Practical Guide
For Engineering and Design. Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-0-7546-4661-7.
44. Carrol, J.M. (1997). "Human-Computer Interaction: Psychology as a Science of Design". Annu. Rev. Psychol. 48:
61–83. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.24.5979 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.24.5979).
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.61 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.48.1.61). PMID 15012476 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15012476).
45. "Survey Methods, Pros & Cons" (http://www.betteroffice.net/articles/survey-methods-pros-cons/16). Better
Office.net. Retrieved 17 April 2014.
46. Wickens, C.D.; Lee J.D.; Liu Y.; Gorden Becker S.E. (1997). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering, 2nd
Edition. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-321-01229-1.
47. Kuusela, H.; Paul, P. (2000). "A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis". The
American Journal of Psychology. 113 (3): 387–404. doi:10.2307/1423365 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1423365).
JSTOR 1423365 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1423365). PMID 10997234 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
10997234).
48. Thomas J. Armstrong (2007). Measurement and Design of Work.
49. Brookhuis, K., Hedge, A., Hendrick, H., Salas, E., and Stanton, N. (2005). Handbook of Human Factors and
Ergonomics Models. Florida: CRC Press.
50. Ben-Gal et al. (2002), The Ergonomic Design of Workstation Using Rapid Prototyping and Response Surface
Methodology. IIE Transactions on Design and Manufacturing, 34(4), 375–391. Available at:
http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~bengal/Ergonomics_Paper.pdf
51. Hornbaek, K (2006). Current Practice in Measuring Usability: Challenges to Usability Studies and Research,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
52. Dumas, J. S.; Salzman, M.C. (2006). Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics. 2. Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society.

Further reading
Books

Thomas J. Armstrong (2008), Chapter 10: Allowances, Localized Fatigue, Musculoskeletal Disorders, and
Biomechanics (not yet published)
Berlin C. & Adams C. & 2017. Production Ergonomics: Designing Work Systems to Support Optimal Human
Performance. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbe
Jan Dul and Bernard Weedmaster, Ergonomics for Beginners. A classic introduction on ergonomics – Original
title: Vademecum Ergonomie (Dutch)—published and updated since the 1960s.
Valerie J Gawron (2000), Human Performance Measures Handbook Lawrence Erlbaum Associates – A useful
summary of human performance measures.
Lee, J.D.; Wickens, C.D.; Liu Y.; Boyle, L.N (2017). Designing for People: An introduction to human factors
engineering, 3nd Edition. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace. ISBN 9781539808008.
Liu, Y (2007). IOE 333. Course pack. Industrial and Operations Engineering 333 (Introduction to Ergonomics),
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Winter 2007
Meister, D. (1999). The History of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-2769-9.
Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things—An entertaining user-centered critique of nearly every gadget
out there (at the time it was published)
 Peter Opsvik (2009), "Re-Thinking Sitting" Interesting insights on the history of the chair and how we sit from an
ergonomic pioneer
Oviatt, S. L.; Cohen, P. R. (March 2000). "Multimodal systems that process what comes naturally".
Communications of the ACM. 43 (3): 45–53. doi:10.1145/330534.330538 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F330534.33
0538).
Computer Ergonomics & Work Related Upper Limb Disorder Prevention- Making The Business Case For Pro-
active Ergonomics (Rooney et al., 2008)
Stephen Pheasant, Bodyspace—A classic exploration of ergonomics
Sarter, N. B.; Cohen, P. R. (2002). Multimodal information presentation in support of human-automation
communication and coordination. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research. 2.
pp. 13–36. doi:10.1016/S1479-3601(02)02004-0 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS1479-3601%2802%2902004-0).
ISBN 978-0-7623-0748-7.
Smith, Thomas J.; et al. (2015). Variability in Human performance. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4665-7972-9.
Alvin R. Tilley & Henry Dreyfuss Associates (1993, 2002), The Measure of Man & Woman: Human Factors in
Design A human factors design manual.
Kim Vicente, The Human Factor Full of examples and statistics illustrating the gap between existing technology
and the human mind, with suggestions to narrow it
Wickens, C.D.; Lee J.D.; Liu Y.; Gorden Becker S.E. (2003). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering, 2nd
Edition (https://archive.org/details/introductiontohu0000wick). Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-321-01229-6.
Wickens, C. D.; Sandy, D. L.; Vidulich, M. (1983). "Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of
input, central processing, and output". Human Factors. 25 (2): 227–248. doi:10.1177/001872088302500209 (http
s://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872088302500209). ISSN 0018-7208 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0018-7208).
PMID 6862451 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6862451).Wu, S. (2011). "Warranty claims analysis
considering human factors" (http://kar.kent.ac.uk/31007/1/UniversityOfKent.pdf) (PDF). Reliability Engineering &
System Safety. 96: 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2010.07.010 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ress.2010.07.010).
Wickens and Hollands (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Discusses memory, attention,
decision making, stress and human error, among other topics
Wilson & Corlett, Evaluation of Human Work A practical ergonomics methodology. Warning: very technical and
not a suitable 'intro' to ergonomics
Zamprotta, Luigi, La qualité comme philosophie de la production.Interaction avec l'ergonomie et perspectives
futures, thèse de Maîtrise ès Sciences Appliquées – Informatique, Institut d'Etudes Supérieures L'Avenir,
Bruxelles, année universitaire 1992–93, TIU [2] (http://www.tiuonline.com/) Press, Independence, Missouri
(USA), 1994, ISBN 0-89697-452-9
Peer-reviewed Journals (numbers between brackets are the ISI impact factor, followed by the date)

behavior & Information Technology (0.915, 2008)

Ergonomics (0.747, 2001–2003)
Ergonomics in Design (-)
Applied Ergonomics (1.713, 2015)
Human Factors (1.37, 2015)
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (0.395, 2001–2003)
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing (0.311, 2001–2003)
Travail Humain (0.260, 2001–2003)
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science (-)
International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics (-)
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (-)

External links
Directory of Design Support Methods (https://web.archive.org/web/20100904194902/http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/d
dsm/) Directory of Design Support Methods (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a355192.pdf)
Engineering Data Compendium of Human Perception and Performance (http://design1st.com/Engineering-data-c
ompedium-of-human-perception-and-performance.pdf)
Index of Non-Government Standards on Human Engineering... (http://hfetag.dtic.mil/docs/index_ngs.doc)
Index of Government Standards on Human Engineering... (http://hfetag.dtic.mil/docs/index_govt_std.doc)
Human Factors Engineering resources (http://www.humanics-es.com/recc-ergonomics.htm#humanfactorsergono
mics)
 Human Factors in aviation (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Category:Human_Factors)
NIOSH Topic Page on Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ergonomic
s/)
Office Ergonomics Information (http://osha.europa.eu/publications/e-facts/efact13/13_office_ergonomics.pdf)
from European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
Human Factors Standards & Handbooks (http://www.enre.umd.edu/publications/hfs&h.htm) from the University of
Maryland Department of Mechanical Engineering
Human Factors and Ergonomics Resources (http://www.norcc.org/wiki/Human_Factors_and_Ergonomics)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_factors_and_ergonomics&oldid=915211337"

This page was last edited on 11 September 2019, at 21:31 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.