Translating concepts of complexity to the field of ergonomics

Abstract

Since 1958 more than 80 journal papers from the mainstream ergonomics literature have used either the words 'complex' or 'complexity' in their titles. Of those, more than 90% have been published in only the past 20 years. This observation communicates something interesting about the way in which contemporary ergonomics problems are being understood. The study of complexity itself derives from non-linear mathematics but many of its core concepts have found analogies in numerous non-mathematical domains. Set against this cross-disciplinary background, the current paper aims to provide a similar initial mapping to the field of ergonomics. In it, the ergonomics problem space, complexity metrics and powerful concepts such as emergence raise complexity to the status of an important contingency factor in achieving a match between ergonomics problems and ergonomics methods. The concept of relative predictive efficiency is used to illustrate how this match could be achieved in practice. What is clear overall is that a major source of, and solution to, complexity are the humans in systems. Understanding complexity on its own terms offers the potential to leverage disproportionate effects from ergonomics interventions and to tighten up the often loose usage of the term in the titles of ergonomics papers. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: This paper reviews and discusses concepts from the study of complexity and maps them to ergonomics problems and methods. It concludes that humans are a major source of and solution to complexity in systems and that complexity is a powerful contingency factor, which should be considered to ensure that ergonomics approaches match the true nature of ergonomics problems.

Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: A call for bravery

“…However, as in the examples above, 'technology' plays roles of varying significance in systems. The implication is that the socio-technical community moves beyond its dominant focus on new technologies to a concern for complex systems (within which technologies, tools and infrastructures will play roles of some kind) (Walker, Stanton, Salmon, Jenkins, & Rafferty, 2010). This will almost certainly require a shift in our mindsets.…”

“…All of these proposals will also require the refinement of our existing toolsets and the development of new methods, so that we are better placed to analyze, understand, predict and evaluate complex socio-technical systems (e.g., Crowder, Robinson, Hughes, & Sim, 2012;Walker, et al, 2010). We will need innovations in our toolsets, for example, including innovations such as simulation and modeling, social network analyzes, the use of 'big data' and the like.…”

An efficient approach to understanding and predicting the effects of multiple task characteristics on performance

“…This is driven by the characteristics of the task that define its inherent complexity, subsequent processing time and the likelihood of errors. This is a likely scenario in the present context, although see Walker et al (2010) for a wider consideration of complexity in ergonomics.…”

Accomplishments of Naturalistic Decision Making Research and Applications to Emerging Defense Challenges

“…Flexecuting one's actions on the observed/controlled world depend on the ability to flexecute the technology. When each of the four nodes in Figure 2 is replaced by the corresponding detailed diagram [as in Figure 1), it becomes clear how this is a case study in complex systems (Feltovich, Hoffman and Woods, 2004;Walker, et al, 2010). Lee (2012], we question the generalizability of models that "consider the development and influence of trust in terms of a traditional information processing perspective where perceptual inputs are processed to affect trust and guide the decision to rely or comply with the automation" (p. 304].…”