Eric Shaver

Human Factors Professional

Performing Office Ergonomics Self-Evaluations

By Leave a Comment

Ergonomic Workstation

The average 21st century knowledge worker often spends prolonged periods of time interacting with technology.  In a traditional office environment, this typically means a dedicated workstation consisting of a computer, desk, and chair.  But, with greater technological advancements, a larger percentage of workers have embraced a mobile “office” environment where they use a laptop, tablet, or smartphone while sitting on a couch or lying in bed.

Regrettably, many of these workstations are not properly designed to facilitate safe, effective, and comfortable productivity.  This is especially true for the mobile office.  While it’s always best to have a professionally trained ergonomist evaluate your workstation, unfortunately in many organizations this isn’t feasible for a number of reasons.  Thus, it’s incumbent on people to help themselves.

Below I have provided a downloadable Office Ergonomics Checklist that can assist in the self-evaluation process for the traditional work or home office.  Some other sources to consult include:

While this checklist focuses on sitting, I would encourage people interested in sit-stand or standing workstations to investigate their potential benefits in order to determine if this might be an acceptable alternative for your needs and physical abilities.

Human Factors – A Brief History

By 1 Comment

Cocpit Vintage

Earliest Days

In the United States, the discipline of human factors and ergonomics, is generally considered to have originated during World War II (Wickens & Hollands, 2000), although advances that contributed to its formation can be traced to the turn of the 20th century. Prior to World War II, the focus centered on “designing the human to fit the machine” (i.e., trial and error), instead of designing machines to fit the human (p. 3). This can be found in Frederick Taylor’s work studying selection, training, work-rest schedules, and time & motion studies of industrial workers (Taylor, 1911), and through the extension of his time & motions studies, by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth (Gilbreth, 1914; Gilbreth & Gilbreth, 1917).

World War I

Many of the human factors and ergonomic advances originated from military necessity. With the start of World War I, the first conflict to employ the recently invented airplane in combat, the need arose for methods to rapidly select and train qualified pilots. This prompted the development of aviation psychology and the beginning of aeromedical research. Although advances were made in this time period, according to Meister (1999), the impetus for developing the discipline wasn’t met due to a lack of “critical mass of technology and personnel as there was in World War II” (p. 149).

Interwar Period

The time between World War I and World War II saw a reduction in research, although some achievements were realized. Aeromedical research continued to see advances in laboratories built at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas and Wright Field in Ohio. These laboratories performed studies that focused on further identifying the characteristics of successful pilots, and determining what effects environmental stressors had on flight performance. Also, the basics of anthropometry (the study of human body measurements) were applied to the design of airplanes in this time period. In the private sector, automobile driving behavioral research was also conducted (Forbes, 1939).

World War II

The outbreak of World War II, and the two inherent needs it generated, formed the catalyst for developing the human factors and ergonomics discipline. First, the need to mobilize and employ vast numbers of men and women made it impractical to select individuals for specific jobs. Thus, the focus shifted to designing for people’s capabilities, while minimizing the negative consequences of their limitations. Second, World War II witnessed the tipping point where the technological advances had finally outpaced the ability of people to adapt and compensate to poor designs. This was most evident in airplane crashes by highly-trained pilots due to problems with control configurations (Fitts & Jones, 1947a) and instrument displays (Fitts & Jones, 1947b). Also, enemy contacts were missed by motivated radar operators (Wickens & Hollands, 2000). Experimental psychologists were retained to study these issues by adapting laboratory techniques to solve applied problems. Consequently, the discipline of human factors and ergonomics was born, even if the people (e.g., Paul Fitts, Alphonse Chapanis, Arnold Small, etc.) involved didn’t realize it at the time (Meister, 1999).

Cold War

The two decades following the end of World War II saw the continuation of military-sponsored research, driven in large part, by the Cold War. Military research laboratories established during the war were expanded and additional ones were developed by the Army (Human Engineering Laboratory), the Air Force (Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center), and the Navy (Naval Electronics Laboratory). Universities also established laboratories, with the assistance of government funding, including ones at the University of Illinois (Aviation Psychology Laboratory) in 1946, and Ohio State University (Laboratory of Aviation Psychology) in 1949. The private sector saw the establishment of human factors and ergonomics groups in aviation companies (e.g., Boeing, McDonnell Douglass, and Grumman Corporation, etc.) and electronics and communication (e.g., Bell Laboratories, etc.).

HFES Formation

The Human Factors Society, the main professional organization for human factors and ergonomics practitioners in the US, was formed in 1957 with approximately 90 people attending the first annual meeting. The name was changed to the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society in 1992. Today the society has more than 4500 members, many of whom participate in one or more of the 23 technical groups, local and student chapters, and attend the Annual Meetings or Health Care Symposia.

Growth and Expansion

Starting in the mid-1960s, the discipline continued to grow and develop in previously established areas. Moreover, it expanded into other areas including computer hardware (1960s); computer software (1970s); nuclear power plants & weapon systems (1980s); the Internet & automation (1990s), and adaptive technology (2000s), just to name a few. Most recently, new areas of interest have emerged including affect, neuroergonomics, and nanoergonomics.

A Bright Future for Human Factors

A consistent theme that has emerged over the years is the ever expanding sphere of influence human factors and ergonomics has sought to encompass, as technology advances and grows. What started out as a narrowly defined breakaway of experimental psychology that focused on the interaction of people with machine controls has grown to encompass almost any interaction of people with their surroundings. With the rapid advances in science and technology, in such areas as bio- and nanotechnology, it’s interesting to speculate on what newly discovered problems human factors and ergonomics will be called on to solve. Several authors have theorized about the future direction for the discipline, including Brewer and Hsiang (2002), Cacciabue (2008), Dul, et al. (2012), Hancock and Diaz (2002), Karwowski (2006), Rasmussen (2000), and Vicente (2008).

Multidisciplinary Roots

Today, as it was at its inception, human factors remains a multidisciplinary profession. In the United States, the profession grew from the behavioral sciences, like experimental psychology, and certain engineering disciplines. Among European nations, the profession finds its roots in the physical sciences, like human physiology. Currently, individuals from a number of disciplines ranging from psychology, engineering and physiology, focus their unique skills and abilities to the study of how people interact with systems.

Further Reading

Readers interested in learning more about the formal history of the human factors and ergonomics discipline are encouraged to read the very informative text authored by Meister (1999). Also, the reader may want to consult O’Brien and Meister (2002).

References

Brewer, J.D., & Hsiang, S.M. (2002). The ‘ergonomics paradigm’: Foundations, challenges and future directions. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 285-305.

Cacciabue, P.C. (2008). Role and challenges of ergonomics in modern societal contexts. Ergonomics, 51, 42-48.

Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson, J.R., & van der Doelen, B. (2012).  A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: Developing the discipline and profession.  Ergonomics, 55, 377-395.

Fitts, P.M., & Jones, R.E. (1947a). Analysis of factors contributing to 460 “pilot error” experiences in operating aircraft controls (Report No. TSEAA-694-12). Dayton, OH: Aero Medical Laboratory, Air Materiel Command, U.S. Air Force.

Fitts, P.M., & Jones, R.E. (1947b). Psychological aspects of instrument display. Analysis of 270 “pilot-error” experiences in reading and interpreting aircraft instruments (Report No. TSEAA-694-12A). Dayton, OH: Aero Medical Laboratory, Air Materiel Command, U.S. Air Force.

Forbes, T.W. (1939). The normal automobile driver as a traffic problem. The Journal of General Psychology, 20, 471-474.

Gilbreth, L.M. (1914). The psychology of management: The function of the mind in determining, teaching and installing methods of least waste. New York, NY: Sturgis & Walton Company.

Gilbreth, F.B., & Gilbreth, L.M. (1917). Applied motion study: A collection of papers on the efficient method of industrial preparedness. New York, NY: Sturgis & Walton Company.

Hancock, P.A., & Diaz, D.D. (2002). Ergonomics as a foundation for a science of purpose. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 115-123.

Karwowski, W. (2006).  From past to future: Building a collective vision for HFES 2020+.  Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Bulletin, 49(11), 1-3.

Meister, D. (1999). The history of human factors and ergonomics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O’Brien, T.G., & Meister, D. (2001). Human factors testing and evaluation: An historical perspective. In S.G. Charlton & T.G. O’Brien (Eds.), Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evalution (pp. 5-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rasmussen, J. (2000). Human factors in a dynamic information society: Where are we heading? Ergonomics, 43, 869-879.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers.

Vicente, K.J. (2008). Human factors engineering that makes a difference: Leveraging a science of societal change. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9, 1-24.

Wickens, C.D., & Hollands, J.G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Human Factors Books for the Layperson

By Leave a Comment

There are many great books on the discipline of Human Factors.  Unfortunately, most are written for academics or practitioners with prohibitively expensive price tags.

But, there are some that provide the layperson with a general introduction without overwhelming them in jargon.  While no single book can thoroughly cover such a diverse field, a few to consider include:

The Design of Everyday Things

The Human Factor

The Atomic Chef

Human Error

Behind Human Error

Human Factors Guidance Listed in FDA 2015 Priorities

By Leave a Comment

Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Optimize Medical Device Design

In 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released their draft guidance Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Optimize Medical Device Design.  

It provides the FDA’s “current thinking on this topic” and the recommendations “…are intended to improve the usability of devices to reduce use error, injuries from medical devices, and product recalls. The FDA believes that these recommendations will help control current risks and reduce future risks associated with device use” (p. 4).

The draft guidance has generated a lot of interest – and provoked numerous questions – from the medical device community.  At the 2013 International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care: Advancing the Cause, Ron Kaye, Human Factors Pre-Market Evaluation Team Leader for the FDA, noted that more than 500 comments were submitted to the Agency during the review period.

A recurring question since its release has been “When will the draft guidance be finalized?”  It looks like we have our answer.

The FDA has released the CDRH Fiscal Year 2015 (FY2015) Proposed Guidance Development and Focused Retrospective Review of Final Guidance, which includes the draft guidance on their “A-list” (…prioritized device guidance documents that the Agency intends to publish within 12 months of the date this list is published…).

It will be interesting to see if the final guidance is substantially different or not from the draft guidance.

Assessing Medical Technology from the User’s Perspective

By Leave a Comment

Operating Room Monitors

In 2008, I co-authored “Assessing Devices from the User’s Perspective” with Curt Braun.

The article focuses on the importance of using methods from the field of human factors and ergonomics to facilitate the procurement and implementation of appropriate medical technology for a health care organization.  Specifically, it identifies heuristic evaluations and usability testing.

With regard to the former, it references the Nielsen–Shneiderman Heuristics, coined by Zhang, et al. (2003).  They include:

  1. Consistency: Users should know that similar actions lead to similar results.
  2. Visibility: Users should be informed about what is going on in the system.
  3. Match: Users should have a mental model that matches the state of the medical technology.
  4. Minimalist: Users should not be exposed to unnecessary information.
  5. Memory: Users should not be required to memorize a lot of information to use the medical technology.
  6. Feedback: Users should be provided prompt and informative feedback.
  7. Flexibility: Users should have the ability to customize or create shortcuts.
  8. Message: Users should receive an informative error message.
  9. Errors: Users should be insulated from error occurrence by the design of the medical technology.
  10. Closure: Users should be informed of task completions.
  11. Undo: Users should have the ability to recover from errors.
  12. Language: Users should be presented information in an understandable form.
  13. Control: Users should not have the impression that the medical technology is in control.
  14. Document: Users should be provided help by the medical technology when necessary.

References

Shaver, E.F., & Braun, C.C. (2008, September).  Assessing devices from the user’s perspective.  Materials Management in Health Care, 30-34.