Human factors and ergonomics methods in practice: three fundamental constraints

Abstract

Human factors and ergonomics needs to ensure that its methods are available, usable and used in practice. The majority of our methods tend to be developed by researchers situated in academic institutions, and published in scientific journals, books and conference proceedings. The intended or assumed end-users of HF/E methods, on the other hand, are often practitioners embedded in consultancies, producers, manufacturers, service providers, government departments and so on. The difference in context contributes to a research-practice gap, resulting in a number of issues such as reliance on old methods, low uptake of new methods and application problems. This commentary article outlines three key constraints from our own experience as practitioners and researchers À as tool users and developers À that affect the application of methods in practice. We suggest several implications and ways to improve the availability and actual use of HF/E methods.

Impact of Technology on Safety as Viewed by Ship Operators

“…This result indicates that technology characteristics, not operator capabilities, could be reason for confusion. This is in accordance with findings by Shorrock and Williams (2016) that collaboration between users and designers is essential and that it should be stimulated by all interested stakeholders. For example, reporting equipment deficiencies by operators should be encouraged.…”

“…Therefore, the involvement of the operators throughout design and development is necessary. Unfortunately, an insufficient collaboration between designers and operators has been recognised as one of the constraints in the design process (Shorrock and Williams, 2016).…”

Moving beyond the organizational ceiling: Do construction accident investigations align with systems thinking?

“…Compounding the challenges associated with moving toward systems thinking approaches in construction is the research‐to‐practice gap that exists across a number of domains, including the construction industry (Chung & Shorrock, ; Salmon, ; Shorrock & Williams, ; Underwood & Waterson, , , ). In particular, translating contemporary ergonomics theory into practice continues to represent a key challenge for both researchers and practitioners (Underwood & Waterson, ).…”

Accounting for Differing Perspectives and Values: The Rail Industry

“…The researcher/practitioner gap has been explored in the discipline of ergonomics/human factors [19], pointing out problems of accessibility and usability of some academic methods. There has been reluctance to "give away" ergonomics methods to industry/novices [20], because of a required level of knowledge/expertise for the reliable and valid application of the methods.…”