No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
An Activity Centered Design Framework for Determining Design Decision Levels in Production Systems
Abstract
This paper presents the ACD3-Production framework—a two-dimensional model whose purpose is to visualize and clarify the scope, impact and organizational position of design decisions. The abbreviation stands for Activity-Centered Design Decision Determination and is based on a similar framework for product development that supports design decision-making in product design. The framework characterizes design problems along the two dimensions of Abstraction levels and Design perspectives; it is postulated that design decisions are made at the intersection of these, and that the production system’s overarching purposes will propagate coherently down to the physical detailed design level if the design work follows the top-down process indicated in the framework. ACD3-Production is visually represented in the form of a matrix that can facilitate discussions between design change agents, in order to determine where in the production system there are problems, where specific effects are desired, and where to implement a design change.
... The aim of this paper is to describe the use of ACD 3 as a guide for workplace design, with particular focus on which activities should involve ergonomics expertise, and how ACD 3 has its roots in activity theory [3], systems engineering [4], product development [5], and human factors [6]. The variant known as ACD 3 -Production [7] is used here to structure the E/HF professional's input into a workplace design process, and clarify the design decisions that are pertinent to ergonomics. ...
Background:
Workplace Ergonomics and Human Factors (E/HF) remains as relevant and important as ever to respond to contemporary workplace design challenges. Therefore, E/HF expertise must be involved in early and appropriate phases of the workplace design process, in order to leverage user needs and requirements to constrain the proposed design solution. In this process, design decisions are made.
Objective:
The aim of this article is to describe the use of a systems-theoretical framework as a guide in collaborative workplace design, focussing on planning and documenting which decisions and activities should involve E/HF expertise.
Methods:
As this is a conceptual paper, its method is to synthesise a framework from a combination of design process methodology-, general systems theory- and sociotechnical systems literature.
Results:
The framework organises the design decisions to be made into hierarchical abstraction levels and cross-cuts them into five perspectives from which the design problem can be viewed holistically.
Conclusions:
The ACD3 framework is intended as an enabler of many types of design, including the design of work systems. It provides a framework that allows all stakeholders to converge around design decisions that ensure that the work system is optimised to human characteristics and the activity to be performed.
Improving production ergonomics is a pursuit common to many companies in different
industrial sectors. At the core is an aspiration to eliminate risks for work-related musculo-
skeletal disorders (MSDs), but modern views on ergonomics have evolved the discipline
from a purely physiological, instrumental concern to an organizational, holistic systems-
performance discipline (macroergonomics). This modern perspective implies that it is not
enough to consider ergonomics as the domain of only ergonomics specialists; nor is it
advisable to try improving it in isolation, without paying attention to the influences of the
surrounding stakeholders and context.
This thesis proposes that the “ergonomics infrastructure” of an organization is made up of
the structural, technical, organizational and stakeholder-relational conditions that enable
or hinder improvement of ergonomics. These conditions focus on the positioning of
different stakeholders towards ergonomics issues, the relations between stakeholders and
strategies they use for persuasion, and the influences that arise from industry-specific
culture, attitudes and procedural integration (or exclusion) of ergonomics into engineering processes. This in turn affects an organization’s tendency to handle ergonomics proactively (i.e. at
the design stage) or reactively (in response to injury, discomfort and compensation claims). It was found that stakeholder influence and relational interactions are of particular importance to the implementation of ergonomics improvements. Ergonomics practitioners who are politically
aware and are able to link ergonomics improvements to business and production benefits are best poised to advance an ergonomics agenda.
The knowledge gleaned from the work in this thesis has been synthesized, together with relevant theoretical concepts found in the literature, into a “Tentative Framework” which guides empirical data collection aimed at mapping the “ergonomics infrastructure” in an organization. Its step-by-step systematic review of conditions at different hierarchical levels in the organization should serve ergonomics practitioners and managers alike in identifying pathways and roadblocks to improving production ergonomics. This contributes to the branch of macroergonomics literature, which
to date has placed little focus on day-to-day ergonomics practice and organizational-
relational influences on ergonomics work.
In industrial production companies, the practice of assigning responsibility for human factors and ergonomics (HFE) to specific professionals (referred to as HF agents in this paper) may take on various organizational forms. This interview study examines the extent to which HF agents are able to give input towards the design of new production systems in different industrial sectors. The present paper reports on how HF agents work in four Canadian case companies from the Automotive, Nuclear Power, Poultry and Auto parts sectors. A stratified soft-systems framework was used to guide the comparison of the four case companies regarding the HF agents' positioning in their companies and how this influences their work practices. HF agents and a cluster of 2 -3 surrounding colleagues with adjacent responsibilities were interviewed. Results showed that company context-specific factors such as procedures, collegial relations, processes and culture all heavily influence the "infrastructure" the HF agents can make use of to advance and sustain a human factors/ergonomics agenda. This includes vertical support in the company hierarchy (management support from top-down, employee acceptance from bottom-up), available tools and methods for demonstrating HFE benefits, and proceduralized accountability for HFE in projects. The companies that report positively on being able to address HFE issues proactively have HFE input integrated procedurally into new project start-ups, and the HF agent has a sign-off role. These companies have also, on a high organizational level, established linkage between HFE improvements and business objectives.
This study compares how Canadian industrial engineers (IEs) and ergonomists 'position themselves' to influence human factors and ergonomics (HFE) issues. The study examined how these stakeholders perceived their influence on HFE issues, constraints they operated under, and strategies used. The results contribute to an understanding of decisions and processes surrounding HFE practices, showing that organisational entry points and stakeholder expectations on IEs and ergonomists affect their influence on HFE issues. Ergonomists influenced HFE issues by leveraging their knowledge of other stakeholders' priorities, and were more dependent on accessing the issue via a 'problem owner'. IEs were often entrusted with greater freedom to act on improvements. Expressing HFE improvements in terms of business benefits was a successful strategy for both. It was found that ergonomists operated as 'partial solution builders', trying to influence the HFE issue as an expert, lobbyist or facilitator. Based on the results, an existing framework was modified. [Received 5 August 2011; Revised 10 October 2011; Revised 28 March 2012; Accepted 30 October 2012]
Unlabelled:
Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has great potential to contribute to the design of all kinds of systems with people (work systems, product/service systems), but faces challenges in the readiness of its market and in the supply of high-quality applications. HFE has a unique combination of three fundamental characteristics: (1) it takes a systems approach (2) it is design driven and (3) it focuses on two closely related outcomes: performance and well-being. In order to contribute to future system design, HFE must demonstrate its value more successfully to the main stakeholders of system design. HFE already has a strong value proposition (mainly well-being) and interactivity with the stakeholder group of 'system actors' (employees and product/service users). However, the value proposition (mainly performance) and relationships with the stakeholder groups of 'system experts' (experts fromtechnical and social sciences involved in system design), and 'system decision makers' (managers and other decision makers involved in system design, purchase, implementation and use), who have a strong power to influence system design, need to be developed. Therefore, the first main strategic direction is to strengthen the demand for high-quality HFE by increasing awareness among powerful stakeholders of the value of high-quality HFE by communicating with stakeholders, by building partnerships and by educating stakeholders. The second main strategic direction is to strengthen the application of high-quality HFE by promoting the education of HFE specialists, by ensuring high-quality standards of HFE applications and HFE specialists, and by promoting HFE research excellence at universities and other organisations. This strategy requires cooperation between the HFE community at large, consisting of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), local (national and regional) HFE societies, and HFE specialists. We propose a joint world-wide HFE development plan, in which the IEA takes a leadership role.
Practitioner summary:
Human factors/ergonomics (HFE) has much to offer by addressing major business and societal challenges regarding work and product/service systems. HFE potential, however, is underexploited. This paper presents a strategy for the HFE community to strengthen demand and application of high-quality HFE, emphasising its key elements: systems approach, design driven, and performance and well-being goals.
This paper is a short communication introducing a novel method for stakeholder analysis, Change Agent Infrastructure (CHAI). The method is specifically developed in the context of ergonomics/work environment-related change projects and is meant for early stages of change projects. It maps potential stakeholders against eight distinct “roles” that have been found in previous research to facilitate or hinder workplace change. Mapping the “decision dilemmas” that stakeholders may face, as well as identifying over- or underrepresented roles, may benefit the change project in terms of determining information needs and how the project team should be staffed. The method has been iteratively developed and tested in educational and research projects. The method is visual, participative and helps to clarify the various participants’ understanding of the change at hand and what it means for them—this contributes positively to information strategies and decisions that facilitates the planning and execution of a sustainable change.
This paper is a short communication introducing a novel method for stakeholder analysis, Change Agent Infrastructure (CHAI). The method is specifically developed in the context of ergonomics/work environment-related change projects and is meant for early stages of change projects. It maps potential stakeholders against eight distinct “roles” that have been found in previous research to facilitate or hinder workplace change. Mapping the “decision dilemmas” that stakeholders may face, as well as identifying over- or underrepresented roles, may benefit the change project in terms of determining information needs and how the project team should be staffed. The method has been iteratively developed and tested in educational and research projects. The method is visual, participative and helps to clarify the various participants’ understanding of the change at hand and what it means for them – this contributes positively to information strategies and decisions that facilitates the planning and execution of a sustainable change.
The context for this study is the maritime domain and the design of shipboard workspaces. Due to the globalized nature of shipping, the traditional approach to a participative ergonomics process can be a logistical challenge since stakeholders like designers, manufacturers and operators are often scattered both geographically and organizationally. The participative design study presented in this paper addresses this challenge by exploring the ability of three types of simple three-dimensional (3D) models to act as mediating objects for representative users in order to elicit design feedback in a use scenario-workshop format. The study found that all three types of 3D models, when coupled with a scenario description, elicited several types of useful design feedback that served not only as direct input to changing proposed design parameters, but also as an unprompted long-term learning opportunity for the design team to gain insight into the lives and challenges of their users, who both work and live on board.
The need for developing the area of industrial production is greater than ever, both for individual manufacturing companies and for national industries as a whole in the fight to maintain competitiveness in a global market. Outsourcing is not the only answer to the question of how to reduce product cost; on the contrary, continuously developing production is a way of both controlling costs and of utilizing production as a competitive means in the business strategy.
Production development is about improving existing production systems and developing new ones. The production system should be developed in integration with the product, as a part of the overall product realization process, and not in sequence after the product has already been designed. Production Development: Design and Operation of Production Systems takes a holistic viewpoint on the production system and its design process during the whole system life cycle. A working procedure demonstrating how to design and realize the production system is presented, together with a number of related production development aspects.
Production Development: Design and Operation of Production Systems is illustrated with a large number of figures and industrial examples. The book can be used as a reference for teachers and students, or as a manual for professionals within the field of production.
Socio-technical systems thinking has predominantly been applied to the domains of new technology and work design over the past 60 years. Whilst it has made an impact, we argue that we need to be braver, encouraging the approach to evolve and extend its reach. In particular, we need to: extend our conceptualization of what constitutes a system; apply our thinking to a much wider range of complex problems and global challenges; and engage in more predictive work. To illustrate our agenda in novel domains, we provide examples of socio-technical perspectives on the management of crowd events and environmental sustainability. We also outline a research and development agenda to take the area forward.
It has always been an ambition within the ergonomic profession to ensure that design or redesign of production systems consider both productivity and employee well being, but there are many approaches to how to achieve this. This paper identifies the basic issues to be addressed in light of some research activities at DTU, especially by persons responsible for facilitating design processes. Four main issues must be addressed: (1) determining the limits and scope of the system to be designed; (2) identifying stakeholders related to the system and their role in the system design; (3) handling the process' different types of knowledge; and (4) emphasizing that performance management systems, key performance indicators (KPIs), and leadership are also part of the system design and must be given attention. With the examples presented, we argue that knowledge does exist to help system design facilitators address these basic issues.
The aim of this paper is to introduce the concept of boundary objects in order to better understand the role of objects in participatory ergonomics (PE) design processes. The research question is: What characterizes boundary objects in PE processes? Based on two case studies, we identify eight characteristics of boundary objects and their use, which make them particularly useful in PE design processes. These characteristics go beyond the object itself and extend into the context of their use. We argue that the selection of boundary objects in PE processes is of great importance, since different objects enable workers' participation and collaborative design in different ways. The framework developed may serve to provide criteria to guide practitioners and intervention researchers in the selection of objects to facilitate a PE process. The paper concludes with a list of recommendations for ergonomic practitioners that are based on the framework.
Sumario: The historical development of ergonomics in organizational design and management is reviewed. Basic concepts of organizational design and of sociotechnical systems are discussed. The emergence of an organizational machine interface technology and related concepts of macroergonomics are presented, including sociotechnical system considerations in organizational and work systems design. Macroergonomics methods and applications are summarized
This paper offers a set of sociotechnical principles to guide system design, and some consideration of the role of principles of this kind. The principles extend earlier formulations by Cherns (1976, Human Relations, 29, 783-792; 1987, Human Relations, 40, 153-162). They are intended to apply to the design of new systems, including those incorporating new information technologies and a range of modern management practices and ways of working. They attempt to provide a more integrated perspective than is apparent in existing formulations. The principles are of three broad types: meta, content and process, though they are highly interrelated. They are for use by system managers, users and designers, and by technologists and social scientists. They offer ideas for debate and provide devices through which detailed design discussions can be elaborated. The principles are most likely to be effective if they are relatively freestanding, but supported by relevant methods and tools. The principles are necessary but not sufficient to make a substantial contribution to design practice.
Increasingly products and services result from interactions among people who work across organizational, geographical, cultural and temporal boundaries. This has major implications for human factors and ergonomics (HFE), in particular, challenging the limits of the systems to be designed, and widening the range of system elements and dimensions that we need to consider. The design of sociotechnical systems that involve work across multiple boundaries requires better integration of the various sub-disciplines or components of HFE, as well as increased collaboration with other disciplines that provide either expertise regarding the domain of application or expertise in concepts that can enrich the system design. In addition, 'customers' contribute significantly to the 'co-production' of products/services, as well as to their quality/safety. The design of sociotechnical systems in collaboration with both the workers in the systems and the customers requires increasing attention not only to the design and implementation of systems, but also to the continuous adaptation and improvement of systems in collaboration with customers. This paper draws from research on human factors in the domains of health care and patient safety and of computer security.
During the last years, many change projects in organizations did not have the planned success. Therefore at first, the causes for these failures and the success factors contributing to organizational change have to be discussed. To get better results, a comprehensive change management concept has been developed and tested in an ongoing research project. By using concepts for an integrated assessment and design of organizations, an approach for analyzing the current situation has been elaborated to identify "lack of integration" in the change initiatives of a company. To realize an integrated overall approach of modernization by harmonizing different methods and concepts, first, one has to prove their relationship to policy and strategy (vertical harmonization). The second step is to take into account the fact that there has to be a logical fit between the single concepts (horizontal harmonization). But even if all elements are logically coherent, that does not mean that the people working in the company also see this coherence. Therefore, in addition to the "logical fit", one has to examine the "psychological fit". In the end, a concept for analyzing the status quo in an organization as a result of "objective data" and "subjective data" originated. Subsequently, instruments for harmonizing different modernizing concepts have been applied. As part of the comprehensive change management concept participatory ergonomic approaches have been used during the project. The present study shows this approach in the case of one company.
ACD³ -Utvecklingsprocessen ur ett människamaskinperspektiv Production development: design and operation of production systems
- L.-O M Bligård
- E K Säfsten
Bligård, L.-O.: ACD³ -Utvecklingsprocessen ur ett människamaskinperspektiv. Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg (2015)
2.
http://acd3.com/about.html
3.
Bellgran, M., Säfsten, E.K.: Production development: design and operation
of production systems. Springer Science & Business Media (2009)
Comprehensive change management concepts. Development of a participatory approach Design of systems for productivity and well being
- K J Zink
- U Steimle
- D Schroder
- K Edwards
- P L Jensen
Zink, K.J., Steimle, U., Schroder, D.: Comprehensive change management
concepts. Development of a participatory approach. Appl Ergon 39, 527-538 (2008)
10.
Edwards, K., Jensen, P.L.: Design of systems for productivity and well
being. Appl Ergon 45, 26-32 (2014)
PU2B-model, connecting human factors and systems engineering for effective product development
- R Nilsson
- L.-O Bligård
Nilsson, R., Bligård, L.-O.: PU2B-model, connecting Human Factors and
Systems Engineering for effective Product Development. NORDIC ERGONOMICS
SOCIETY ANNUAL CONFERENCE, (2015)
User requirements elicitation-A framework for the study of the relation between user and artefact
- I C M Karlsson
Karlsson, I.C.M.: User requirements elicitation -A framework for the study
of the relation between user and artefact. vol. PhD Thesis. Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg (1996)
14.
International Council on Systems Engineering,
15.
http://www.iea.cc/