Good conversation this. A few thoughts in this thread. https://twitter.com/bentipney/status/1281336072442720257

Human Factors/Ergonomics is only one of several disciplines concerned with human performance. It has a particular twin purpose and method of intervention but is just one discpines and profession.

HF/E is concerned with system performance and human wellbeing. These goals are inseparable for HF/E. if the two aren’t considered together, it could be argued that it’s not HF/E.

The boundary of HF/E is a social construct. What constitutes HF/E may seem different in research and practice. Popular textbooks are a reasonably a good guide.

Another guide to what constitutes HF/E in practice is the methods employed. If HF/E methods are not employed, it’s probably something other than HF/E. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315587394

But using an HF/E method alone doesn’t make something HF/E either. The purpose is just as important, along with a system perspective and design focus.

HF/E works in cycles of understanding and intervention. The scope for understanding is huge. The scope for intervention is much more limited (the design of system interactions/work).

The scope of HF/E is indeed very broad and can seem all consuming. That’s because it is interdisciplinary and anything relevant to system performance and human wellbeing is in scope of understanding.

HF/E draws from many other disciplines and has relatively few theories of its own.

Safety is only one system criterion of concern to HF/E. Others concerning production or protection/prevention may be of more interest depending on the application.

Safety and HF/E became closely associated because of the origins of HF/E and many accidents in the 1980s that increased research activity, regulation and (therefore) practice.

While HF/E is, by definition, concerned with (work) design, adaptation is also of interest. This is relatively new. Before recent years, adaptation was often viewed negatively (‘violation’) rather than more neutrally.

As people come to HF/E from many disciplines (esp psychology, engineering and biological sciences), some aspects will be of more interest than others. Practitioner/researcher interests will tend to straddle their other disciplines.

No-one can claim to speak for HF/E as the scope is so broad and there is so much variation in practice, but the IEA definition - while unwieldy - gives a sense of scope. https://iea.cc/what-is-ergonomics/

NB Human Factors and Ergononics are synonymous in the discipline and profession, similar to counselling and psychotherapy. No discernible difference in course content, journal scopes, etc. Though ‘ergonomics’ has strin DFF we design connotations among public and in industry.

Many disciplines are concerned with human performance, sometimes in a systems context. These include sport science, psychology (and sub-disciplines), management science, etc. While these can all be relevant to UNDERSTANDING when it comes to HF/E, they have their own methods.

Rather than HF/E embrace these discpines (in terms of INTERVENTION) to increase their prominence in industry, it is really for these discpines and professions to promote their offer. This may be less of a design approach and more of a training, coaching, and communication.

All of these things have costs. Someone has to do the design, training, coaching, etc.

There is no better or worse (design vs training/coaching). There is only what will be most appropriate for the problem or opportunity.

Design (of activity, tools and context) may be more suitable for some situations. Training and coaching may be more suitable for other situations. Both are necessary and will tend to. We’d to work hand-in-hand.

To improve the application of human performance disciplines in applied settings such as healthcare, you have to talk to people who hold the purse strings and make decisions.

Another way is via regulation. This can have unpredictable consequences, however. The regulation that has pushed the integration of HF/E in industry has tended to have a safety and health focus. This reinforces the perception of HF = safety.

Finally, much of what I do probably isn’t HF/E. I consider myself an interdisciplinary practitioner with a systems, design and humanistic bent, though my training is applied psychology and HF/E. I push for more HF/E as there is too little in practice (especially in healthcare!).