Ergonomics in the Future World: Perspectives from Australia and New Zealand

2.1 Process

The committee designed the process so that it could learn about the challenges faced by IEA federated societies in a structured way, according to a pre-defined schema. This would enable the committee to more easily make comparisons between the responses of individual societies. The committee posed four questions for consideration and discussion:

What are the most promising opportunities for RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT in HFE?

The process for exploring opinions across each of the clusters comprised four stages.

Stage 1: Preliminary data capture

The committee sent the four questions to each cluster in July 2018 to initiate local discussion (see Table 2). In the SCC, this was completed by a Skype discussion between the cluster chairperson (Dr Jennifer Long) and Ms Marion Edwin, then-chair of the HFESNZ, and by email discussion with Dr Margaret Cook, then-President of the HFESA. Their responses to the questions were compiled into a 3-page summary. Ms Edwin and Dr Cook confirmed that the responses correctly represented their answers to the questions.

Stage 2: Workshop

Seven parallel sessions were scheduled during the IEA2018 congress programme (28 August 2018) for members of the HFE societies to meet with their cluster and discuss their responses to the questions. There were 180 participants across all clusters, including delegates of national ergonomics societies and practitioners, who took part comprehensively in the parallel workshops.

Time was scheduled during the IEA2018 Congress programme (28 August 2018) for members of the HFE societies to meet with their cluster and discuss their responses to the questions. The SCC held a 90-minute interactive workshop and brainstorming session with 17 participants (n = 4 from New Zealand and n = 13 from Australia). There were 38 delegates at the conference from Oceania [3], which means that the workshop had an Oceania participation rate of 45%.

The SCC workshop consisted of small group discussions and one large group discussion. Key discussion points were captured on a whiteboard by a scribe. The responses from Stage 1 (3-page summary) were presented by the cluster chairperson to the participants at the end of the workshop to check concordance with the workshop responses. Overall, the knowledge captured during stage 2 was similar to that captured during stage 1.

Stage 3: Putting the results into an international context

Cluster chairpersons met with the committee chairperson (Dr Giulio Toccafondi) on 29 August 2018 to discuss the workshop findings. This helped the chairpersons understand the similarities and differences between the cluster responses. The process also assisted some cluster chairpersons to identify key points from their data that could be presented to the IEA community in an oral presentation in stage 4.

Stage 4: Presentation of findings

The workshop findings were communicated to the IEA in two ways. Firstly, each cluster chairperson presented a short (5-minute) presentation summarising the key findings to delegates at the IEA2018 closing ceremony on 30 August 2018. Secondly, the cluster chairpersons prepared a written report for the committee based on the responses recorded by the scribe during the workshop. The SCC response was submitted in October 2018 and is summarized in Table 2.

The workshop responses and written report were reviewed again by Dr Long in March 2019, 6 months after the oral and written presentation given at IEA2018. Three themes were identified in the data by Dr Long (see section 3 of this paper), and were confirmed by checking that each workshop response (collected in Stage 2 of this process) could be allocated to at least one of the themes. The thematic analysis (as presented in section 3 of this paper) was sent to several workshop participants to confirm that the content was consistent with the discussion that took place during the IEA Congress workshop.

3.1 The impact of technological advances on HFE professional practice

Workshop participants viewed new technologies as a promising opportunity for research and development in HFE. This aligns with the history of the HFE profession and with views published by members of the HFE community over the past 30 years. For example, Chapanis described HFE input into the development of space flight and computers in the 1950s and 1960s, and mused that by 1990 HFE conference topics had broadened to include decision-making in large-scale systems, designing better interfaces for users, and organizational adaptation to computing systems [7]. In 2005, Karwowski [8] argued that HFE should no longer limit its focus to local human-machine interfaces (for example, how an individual interacts with a single computer) nor simply take a reactionary approach to technology developed by others (for example, only providing post-manufacture critique of design). He challenged the HFE profession to have greater interactions with other professions, such as designers and managers, in order to gain their perspectives of modern technology [8]. In 2012, Dul and co-authors [5] described some of the opportunities for HFE specialists to contribute to the design of new types of work systems; for example, virtual systems where collaboration and communication is via technology. More recently, there has been discussion about the role of HFE in the development and use of autonomous vehicles, and whether HFE is in ‘catch-up mode’ because this technology has already been developed largely without HFE input [9, 10]. Waterson argued that there are examples of successful implementation of complex technologies within healthcare and that instead of focussing on the disadvantages of new technologies, the HFE profession should focus on positive aspects of technology and automation in order to facilitate better collaborative relationships with other professions and disciplines [11].

Debate about the impact of technological advances in modern society is not confined to HFE circles, but has also been discussed at government levels in Australia [12] and New Zealand [13]. For example, the New Zealand Government’s terms of reference [13] ask:

There is a clear opportunity for the HFE profession to contribute to these discussions since the questions asked by government are at the core of HFE practice. However, the HFE profession in Australia and New Zealand are not generally consulted for such matters. It is beyond the remit of this paper to problem-solve the issues raised by the SCC during the EFW@IEA2018 workshop, but it is worth noting that possible reasons for the lack of HFE representation at high-level government discussions could be related to HFE communication strategies with stakeholders, and small numbers of HFE professionals in Australia and New Zealand. Both of these issues will be discussed in the following sections. There are also arguments (such as those put forward by Thatcher and co-authors in their article discussing ergonomics and global issues [14]) that although the scope of HFE practice includes analysis of complex and dynamic systems, the research supporting it has been “weak, largely theoretical and uncoordinated” and that ergonomists (internationally) are rarely trained to apply the concepts “to systems larger than a single organisation.” [14]. This is not to say that there are no HFE professionals engaged in this type of work. Rather, the HFE profession, as a whole, is not seen as actively working at a broader (macro) level within the emerging technology arena.

The application of emerging technologies creates a niche for HFE professionals. Although there are estimates that 40% of current jobs will be replaced by automation within 10 to 15 years [15], there are predictions that it will be a core requirement for emerging workers to have non-technical skills such creative problem solving, communication skills, and an ability to manage information [15, 16]. HFE professionals typically use these skills to perform their work, and non-technical skills was discussed during the EFW@2018 workshop in the context of training curricula for future HFE professionals. Previous IEA President Ilkka Kourinka’s vision for the HFE profession in 1990 appears to be uncannily pertinent today:

3.2 Communication

3.3 HFE education

There were two concerns raised by the SCC which relate to HFE education: (1) How can quality HFE education be provided to HFE professionals so they can provide sound advice? and (2) How can HFE education be integrated into other professional disciplines?

The first concern stems from the fact that over the past decade some HFE courses have closed in Australia and New Zealand and there are small numbers of qualified HFE practitioners, some of whom are now approaching retirement age. The HFE profession is also not regulated in Australia and New Zealand, which means that any person can call themselves an ergonomist. This creates a risk for the profession: if there are insufficient numbers of qualified practitioners, then untrained people may provide HFE services to fill the void. If untrained people do not have a solid understanding of HFE principles and subsequently provide incorrect advice, then this can reflect poorly on the HFE profession. Similar sentiments were expressed by Wilson in his paper reflecting on the HFE profession in 2012 [26]. Paradoxically, these supply-demand imbalances could be exacerbated if HFE marketing efforts (as described in section 3.2) are successful.

Human factors and ergonomics courses have closed for a variety of reasons, including the fact that HFE programs are generally small compared to other programs offered by universities [26], university budgetary constraints [26, 27] and a poor appreciation by key university stakeholders as to the value of a multidisciplinary program such as HFE [27]. In New Zealand where the population is relatively small, Legg and Stedmon propose that HFE teaching could be incorporated into multiple teaching programs and then allow students the opportunity to gain qualifications through a single cross-university national masters degree [27]. Other strategies that were discussed by the SCC include accessing HFE education through online courses based locally or overseas. One example presented as a paper at the IEA2018 congress is the development of a human factors Masters course in aviation based in the UK but which can be undertaken by students anywhere in the world [28].

To mitigate the issue of non-qualified practitioners providing HFE advice, the IEA promotes the development of certification programs, whereby individual federated societies may develop and implement certification programs for their members, and upon application to the IEA, have the program endorsed by the IEA [29]. Although certification does not prevent unqualified people practicing HFE, it does confirm an individual’s competence to practice HFE and give the individual permission to call themselves a Certified Professional Ergonomist (Australia) or a Certified New Zealand Human Factors Professional/Ergonomist. These certification programs include a requirement for HFE education.

The issue of education and certification is not unique to HFE, but has also been described by the occupational health and safety profession in Australia [30]. In New Zealand, an umbrella health and safety association was established in 2014 (Health and Safety Association of New Zealand (HASANZ)) [31] to raise professional standards of practice across all health and safety disciplines with the goal of reducing workplace harm and fatalities. Anecdotal reports indicate that this is creating stronger recognition of the value of HFE, stimulating business demand for skilled and certified HFE professionals, driving HFESNZ members to seek Professional Membership and creating new interest in HFE education. In Australia a similar umbrella organisation known as Australian Associations of Safety and Health Professionals (ASHPA) has been in place since 2012. The HFESA is a member of this organisation, along with the safety and occupational hygiene associations. Two of the key strategies identified by ASHPA include improving professionalism and engaging with stakeholders. It is of note that this organisation has no funding from government or other external bodies and that this has been identified as a barrier to progress.

The second concern raised by the SCC was how to integrate HFE education into other professional disciplines. This appears to be at odds with the first concern, and raises the question: should HFE only be practiced by those trained to do so, or should HFE be embedded within society as a philosophy and practiced by everyone in all disciplines?

This conundrum is not new, and was flagged as an issue by Bullock (an Australian academic) in her article about harmonizing professional standards in ergonomics [32]. In the article, Bullock points out that in the early days of the HFE profession (1930s to the 1950s) graduates interested in “humanising technology” and who had an “orientation to ergonomics” “saw themselves as contributing to ergonomics.” [32]. Similarly, Kuorinka observed that there are more professionals from other disciplines who incorporate ergonomics into their work than there are professional ergonomists and that many of these “non-ergonomists” produce good work which could withstand professional scrutiny [17].

Actively integrating HFE into other university disciplines requires acknowledgement by key stakeholders of HFE’s strategic value; this is in a climate where curricula may be already congested and cross-disciplinary university collaborations may be difficult to facilitate [33]. Nevertheless, this challenge is not insurmountable. In Australia and New Zealand ergonomics education is a component within numerous engineering, design and safety undergraduate courses. In some professions, such as optometry, it is a core competency for registered optometry practice in Australia [34]. To that end, there have been efforts within Australia for joint professional development between the HFE community and optometrists to share ergonomics best-practice knowledge and to foster better working relationships between the two professions [35].

3.4 Limitations

There are two chief limitations of this work. Firstly, it only represents the opinions of those who attended the IEA2018 workshop. If the broader HFE communities in Australia and New Zealand had been surveyed, then it is possible that other issues and topics may have been raised. On the other hand, the president/chair of the HFESA and HFESNZ both contributed to the discussions and it could be assumed that they would be aware of the main issues facing members within their respective countries.

The second limitation is that it only presents the perspective of the HFE community, not that of external stakeholders who may potentially access HFE services. A user perspective of HFE services is beyond the scope of this paper, but is essential for helping the HFE profession understand what business wants and needs from the profession. Future research is required to understand the opinion of stakeholders, and this knowledge could help address the HFE profile and education issues raised inthis paper.