New Paradigms in Ergonomics

Neville A. Stanton, Paul M. Salmon, Guy Walker

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367570958
• eBook ISBN: 9781351208932
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

The systems in which we work continue to evolve, creating emergent problems and often strengthening intractable issues. In order to remain relevant and impactful, the discipline of ergonomics needs its paradigms to evolve too. The aim of this book is to provide researchers and practitioners with new paradigms in the form of ideas, concepts, theories, methods, practices and values. The chapters take the reader on a journey through underlying theories, new ways to apply those theories and emerging domains in which ergonomics is expected to play a greater role. Readers of this book will be inspired by these new paradigms in ergonomics and seek to push the boundaries even further. The lifeblood of the science depends on continual evolvement and developments to take on the challenges we face in complex sociotechnical systems design and evaluation. Perhaps the most significant take-home message from this book is the demonstration of how theory maps onto practice. As such, the only remaining paradigm shift is for these ideas, concepts, methods and practices to be taken up more widely and the discipline advanced, until the next paradigm shift occurs.

The chapters were originally published as a special issue in the journal Ergonomics.

1
Introduction

New paradigms in ergonomics

Neville A. Stanton, Paul M. Salmon and Guy H. Walker

New paradigms

A paradigm is a world view underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific discipline; in our case, ergonomics. The ability to engage in new thinking and new paradigms is a critical aspect for the lifeblood of any discipline. Thankfully, ergonomics has a long history of innovations in theory, methodology, science and application. Once regarded as an offshoot of experimental psychology, physiology, biomechanics, engineering and computer science, ergonomics now draws from a much broader range of insights to become a discipline in its own right. This is reflected in the development of models and methods that are unique to the discipline. Accident causation models, for example, first emerged in the early 1900s (Heinrich 1931) but have since evolved to consider entire systems and emergent properties therein (e.g. Leveson 2004; Perrow [1984] 1999; Rasmussen 1997; Reason 1990). Methodologies have moved from focusing on human tasks (Taylor 1911) and work (Gilbreth 1912) to entire systems and the constraints shaping behaviour in the world (e.g. Vicente 1999). Human performance itself has shifted from a world view in which it was mathematically characterised in terms of, for example, response times, sensitivity or decision bias (e.g. Green and Swets 1966) to more complex forms of distributed and situated cognition (e.g. Hutchins 1995).

The systems in which ergonomists work continue to evolve, creating emergent problems and often strengthening intractable issues. In order to remain relevant and impactful, the discipline needs its paradigms to evolve too. The aim of this special issue is to provide researchers and practitioners with an opportunity to present and discuss contemporary, forecasted and required paradigm shifts in ergonomics.

Contributions to this New Paradigms in Ergonomics special issue have been grouped into three themes: new paradigms in theories and methods; new paradigms in practice; and new paradigms in domains and values. These themes take the reader on a journey through underlying theories, news ways to apply those theories, emerging domains in which ergonomics is expected to play a greater role and to what ultimate ends. In the new paradigms, in theories and methods theme, are papers on ‘Quantum ergonomics’ (Walker et al. this issue), ‘Nonlinear dynamical systems for theory and research in ergonomics’ (Guastello), ‘Fitting methods to paradigms’ (Salmon et al. this issue), ‘Quantitative modelling in cognitive ergonomics’ (Moray, Groeger, and Stanton, this issue) and ‘Beyond human error taxonomies in assessment of risk in sociotechnical systems’ (Stanton and Harvey, this issue). In the new paradigms, in practice theme, are papers on ‘Detection of error-related negativity in complex visual stimuli’ (Sawyer et al. this issue), ‘Towards continuous and real-time attention monitoring at work’ (Mijovic et al. this issue), ‘Musculoskeletal disorders as a fatigue failure process’ (Gallagher and Schall, this issue). In the new paradigms, in domains and values theme, are papers on ‘The field becomes the laboratory?’ (Sharples and Houghton), ‘Imposing limits on autonomous systems’ (Hancock, this issue) and ‘Nature’ (Richardson et al. this issue). Summaries of each of the contributions together with conclusions for the special issue are in the following sections of this editorial.

New paradigms in ergonomics theory and methods

Walker, Salmon, Bedinger and Stanton (Quantum ergonomics: Shifting the paradigm of the systems agenda) draw inspiration from the world of quantum physics to confront some difficult truths about ergonomics paradigms. Walker et al. present three case studies to demonstrate ‘quantum effects’ in ergonomics science. In the first case study, they show how the nanoscale, individual behaviour of drivers cannot reveal the macro-scale behaviour of the entire road traffic network. The case study reveals the unexpected reverse finding; that more route guidance (in effect, better situational awareness) on the part of individual drivers does not necessarily result in lower CO2 emissions for the whole road network. Sometimes it is worse. ‘Catastrophically counter-intuitive’ findings like these show the difficulty in predicting system-wide emergent properties (often the thing we really want to know) simply from studying the behaviour of individuals and magnifying the resultant findings. In the second case study of a submarine control room, Walker et al. present insights into the behaviour of a command team system that have been hitherto unforthcoming from studying individual operators. The system dynamics have enabled the development of a submarine command room simulator that is currently being used to generate new understanding of how these teams work together in challenging environments (Stanton 2014). Walker et al. argue that we need systems approaches if we are to remain an effective discipline in the new increasingly complex and networked world. They argue that we need to look at new approaches, such as phase spaces (see Stanton, Walker, and Sorensen 2012; Guastello, this issue), as a means of offering some rigour in naturalistic studies (see Sharples and Houghton this issue). In the final case study, Walker et al. present findings from a large-scale operation field trial (see Stanton et al. 2009). Using network analysis methods, they were able to show how the organisational dynamics changed over time. Walker et al. comment that ergonomic methods need to be fit-for-purpose (see Salmon et al. this issue) and offer the maximum of insight for the minimum of effort. This is in contrast to a ‘one size fits all’ approach to method (and theory) selection. The discipline of ergonomics is good at responding to problems in the world – which are in a constant state of flux – so the methods need to adapt and develop to meet this evolving demand. The overall message is one of hope: methods currently exist to enable these challenging systems problems to be tackled in practical real-world circumstances, provided the necessary paradigm shift can be made to occur.

Guastello (Nonlinear dynamical systems for theory and research in ergonomics) also argues that the complexity of sociotechnical systems requires a paradigm shift in ergonomics theory (see Walker et al. 2010this issue) and practice (see Salmon et al. this issue). He proposes the non-linear dynamical systems approach as an alternative paradigm that can cope with this complexity, as it addresses:

• structures and patterns of variability;
• underlying dynamics and system changes;
• both internal and external dynamics;
• effects of state-dependent changes; and
• both top-down and bottom-up emergent properties in systems.

Guastello explains how systems do not just have one stereotypical response, rather there are a multiplicity of behaviours with different patterns and outcomes. The effects can be both large and small, depending upon the state of the system. Guastello brings many different systems concepts and methods together under the non-linear dynamical systems framework with the view that these will help ergonomics explain complex systems behaviour. One example is the use of phase spaces to visualise the dynamical processes in systems (Walker et al. this issue; Stanton, Walker, and Sorensen 2012). He provides numerous examples of the practical application of non-linear dynamical systems methods, including (but not limited to): accidents, biomechanics, performance variability, resilience and team coordination and workload. The non-linear dynamical systems approach has much to offer systems ergonomics, both as a theoretical construct and practical methods.

Salmon, Walker, Read and Stanton (Fitting methods to paradigms: are ergonomics methods fit for systems thinking?) question whether current ergonomics methods really are fit for the new systems paradigm which, from the above, is clearly in the ascendancy. In many ways, ergonomics methods have always been about system interactions, from individuals to teams to organisations (Stanton et al. 2013). Yet Salmon et al. argue that the increasing complexity of the modern world (Walker et al. 2010), and challenges that ergonomics faces, may have left the methods wanting. They show that despite the dramatic reductions in accidents over the decades the statistics are plateauing. It is suggested that we may have reached the limits of deterministic methods, so new approaches are required. Salmon et al. explore how well our current methodological toolkit can cope with modern day problems by focusing on five key areas within the ergonomics paradigm of systems thinking: normal performance as a cause of accidents, accident prediction, system migration, systems concepts and ergonomics in design. The ergonomics methods available for pursuing each line of inquiry are explored, along with their ability to respond to key requirements. Salmon et al. come to the conclusion that, although our current suite of ergonomics methods is highly useful, there is work to be done. For example, they conclude that, although providing rich outputs, some of our existing accident analysis methods do not describe accident causation in a manner that is congruent with contemporary models (e.g. Rasmussen 1997). With regard to accident prediction, it is concluded that we currently do not have appropriate methodologies for predicting systemic accidents (although see Stanton and Harvey, this issue, for new developments). Likewise, Salmon et al. argue that assessing the migration of performance towards and away from safety boundaries, a key systems thinking concept, is outside of the capabilities of our current methodological toolkit. They also suggest that further ergonomics problems and constructs may be suited to systems level analysis, and that few ergonomics methods are actually being used directly in system design processes. Salmon et al. close the article in an upbeat manner, highlighting that many seemingly appropriate methods already exist, both in ergonomics and other disciplines, and that research is underway to develop some of the methods required (see Salmon 2016a,b). In closing, they map out the prerequisites for methods development in systems ergonomics. If our discipline is to maintain currency and rise to the contemporary and future design challenges, we need to develop methods that have the entire sociotechnical system as the unit of analysis.

Moray, Groeger and Stanton (Quantitative modelling in cognitive ergonomics: predicting signals past at danger) state that the discipline of ergonomics is sufficiently mature to enable quantitative modelling of performance. A case study of the activities of the Thames Trains driver in the Ladbroke Grove rail accident is presented. All three authors were expert witnesses in this case, so they combined their knowledge for this paper. Moray et al. present accounts of the accident background, context, infrastructure and timeline together with ‘black box’ data from the train. The accident raises questions about why the driver behaved in a particular way on that fateful day, as well as the performance of signals and warnings inside and outside the train cab. Eye movement data were used as the basis for the development of a cognitive model of driver visual attention. The model accounts for attention both inside and outside the train cab. It revealed the difficulty in acquiring the signal in a relatively short amount of time, due to the number of signals, their placement and the speed of the train as well as initial masking of the signals. The ambiguity of the automatic warning system horn further compounded the problem coupled with a strong expectation of the signal being in a non-red aspect and glare from the sun. The quantitative model shows how prediction of visual attention can be used to determine risks associated with signal sighting, which can in turn be used to support guidelines and in-cab display design.

Stanton and Harvey (Beyond human error taxonomies in assessment of risk in sociotechnical systems: a new paradigm with the EAST ‘broken-links’ approach) introduce a new paradigm for risk assessment based on the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST) method. They argue that the approach offers a fundamentally different way of thinking about risk in systems, and is dramatically different from existing human error taxonomies. Rather than treat accidents as the result of ‘human error’ the EAST broken-links approach treats them as information communication failures. Stanton and Harvey provide examples of information communication failures in the Herald of Free Enterprise capsize at Zeebrugge, the British Midland crash at Kegworth and the Thames Train collision at Ladbroke Grove. All of these accidents have the common feature that key information was not communicated to an appropriate agent by the system in an effective manner at the right time. Stanton and Harvey present a case study of an EAST analysis of a RAF Hawk and RN Frigate system (see Salmon et al. this issue, for a call on understanding normative systems). The EAST model comprised normative task, information and social networks together with the composite model. Stanton and Harvey demonstrate that by systematically breaking the task and social links in the networks, risks are revealed by information not being communicated between tasks and social agents. One hundred and thirty-seven risks were revealed by breaking only 12 task and 19 social links. Stanton and Harvey show how the emergent information communication failures transpose risk around the network of agents, actors and artefacts. Furthermore, they show how reducing risk in one part of the system increases risk in another part. For future work, Stanton and Harvey plan to break and/or add multiple links simultaneously to show how compounded information communication failures and short circuits could affect system performance.

New ergonomics paradigms in practice

Sawyer, Karwowski, Xanthopoulos and Hancock (Detection of error-related negativity in complex visual stimuli: a new neuroergonomic arrow in the practitioner’s quiver) have established a link between the error-related negative evoked response potential (ERN-ERP) and the complex task of identifying a motorcycle in a busy visual scene. The innovation in this work is to take visual search tasks beyond simple letter arrays and icon images in binary forced-choice tasks to a more naturalistic task. Motorcycle detection is notoriously difficult and undoubtedly the cause of accidents. Sawyer et al. transferred this task into the laboratory alongside a more traditional letter flanker task (where the target letter was flanked on either side by non-target letters). They demonstrated that both tasks produce similar error rates and workload ratings. Sawyer et al. found that the ERN-ERP waveforms were very similar for the letter flanking and motorcycle identification tasks. In both tasks, the wave was flat for the correct response and had a pronounced negative deflection for the incorrect response. Sawyer et al. propose that this finding shows the ERN-ERP has potential for practical application and they plan to use the procedure ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• 1 Introduction: New paradigms in ergonomics
• Theme 1 New paradigms in theories and methods
• Theme 2 New paradigms in practice
• Theme 3 New paradigms in domains and values
• Index