Project Background
Objective of the Project
To develop a learning centre that facilitates an understanding of the human component in engineering system design.
Need and demand for the educational material
Engineering educators need to develop graduates with attributes and abilities previously not considered core to engineering professional practice. According to a review of Australian engineering education steered by Engineers Australia (IE Aust, 1996) accreditation of engineering courses will depend upon demonstrated development of attributes including effective communication, the ability to work in multi-disciplinary teams, utilisation of a systems approach to design, and an understanding of the social, cultural and ethical responsibilities of the professional engineer. It is in this context it becomes vital for engineers to incorporate human factors in the design process. Future engineers will need to consider not only the specified operational needs of a system, but also, the abilities, capacity, expectations and understanding of users at all stages of the system life cycle from the concept stage through to decommissioning. Effective human interface design will increase the usability and productivity of a system (Jordan, 1998). Consideration of “human factors” will reduce the likelihood of human error resulting in a safer, more efficient work environment for all stakeholders (Wickens, Gordon and Liu, 1998). According to the International Ergonomics Association, ergonomics (or human factors) is the:
…scientific discipline concerned with interactions among humans and other elements of a system in carrying out a purposeful activity. Ergonomics aims to improve human well-being and overall system performance by optimizing human-system compatibility. Human-system interaction design considerations include physical, cognitive, social, organizational and environmental factors. (International Ergonomics Association Home Page 2000)
Do engineers have knowledge about the human component of their systems?
The literature suggests that engineers have little understanding of the human component in their system development. This is evidenced by the high rate of latent design error as a contributing factor to accidents. Thatcher (1997) purported that safety in the workplace was dependant on the quality and level of knowledge regarding occupational health and safety issues those engineers possess. He cited studies undertaken by Worksafe Australia (1989) and the Victorian Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (VIOSH) to support his argument. The former study found that OHS education ranged from a one-year compulsory study to no coverage at undergraduate level at all. The VIOSH study found that engineers did not associate their occupation with causes of accidents regardless of their knowledge base, education and training. Previous studies also confirmed gaps in knowledge, which is evidenced by the apparent lack of ‘usability’ built in to engineering systems, artefacts, processes and products (Jordan, 1998).
Should ergonomic principles be an integral component of engineering design?
The literature supports the notion that ergonomics should be an integral component of engineering design. Dwight (1991:42) suggests, “…unless a systematic analysis of equipment is made involving people experienced in the environment of its intended use, the probability of foreseeable risks being identified is low”. As a consequence, designers will leave themselves and other stakeholders open to litigation; and more importantly, expose stakeholders to risk of injury through latent design errors. Kontogiannis and Embrey (1997:120) found that one of the major reasons for this problem “…has been the lack of human factors advice and user participation early in the design process”. Ward (1994) suggests that those involved in the design process are largely unaware of the problems faced by users and as a consequence they may perceive user trials too costly.
The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission thought it so necessary that engineers gained a greater understanding of their role in safety, that they established a working committee to tackle the problem. The working party developed a learning package for engineers and defined learning objectives, some of which included: to ensure that engineering students recognise and understand that control of occupational health and safety problems by design is the most effective method; and to ensure that engineering students have a general knowledge of occupational health and safety and understand and apply the moral and legal requirements involved in workplace design (Worksafe Australia, 1990:6). A current “Safe Design” project being undertaken by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission has found key themes emerging as critical to safe design. They are: the regulatory environment, education, information provision, consumer influences, management processes and encouraging compliance (David Caple and Associates, 2000). The authors proffered, “…design professional associations need to identify and define the key competencies which should be included in the curriculum of undergraduate courses to cover the area of safe design” (David Caple and Associates, 2000:21). The organisation has now identified safe design as a key element of their strategic plan for the next decade.
Would engineers accept the inclusion of ergonomic principles in undergraduate engineering education?
A cross-sectional study (Toft 1998) that explored the relationship between ergonomics and engineering education included a survey of members of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. The participants were found to have a positive attitude toward the major principles of ergonomics. Those who had been exposed to some ergonomic training in their career had a significantly greater positive attitude response toward all ergonomic principles. These findings suggest that exposing engineering undergraduates to ergonomic principles would result in engineers having a greater positive attitude toward ergonomics in their engineering practice. The engineering educators surveyed indicated agreement with this conclusion by indicating that ergonomics is not systematically included in undergraduate engineering programs at present. Over eighty percent of the participants affirmed that they thought it should be included in curricula. Many participants also included guidance as to how they thought the principles could be integrated with present programs. The majority of respondents did not believe that engineering educators had the skills / knowledge needed to teach ergonomic principles themselves at this time. The literature supported that engineering education is experiencing a major paradigm shift globally, one in which the approach taken by engineers will become more holistic. Engineers will need to have an enhanced understanding of the societal context of their work. The sustainability of economic, environmental and human resources are new priorities. Authors argued this would require a culture change in engineering, a move from technical rationality to social responsibility (Blockley 1996; IE Aust 1996). The current competency standards developed by the Engineers Australia reflect these changes.
Institutions for which the educational material is to be developed
Principally engineering educators would use these learning packages across the varied engineering disciplines and educational institutions. The authors have considered congruency with guidance from Engineers Australia, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, and the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia. The cross-disciplinary nature of the package ensures its success but presents a challenge for any one institution to undertake.
Target student groups
The learning packages are aimed at undergraduate engineering courses and many include a facilitator’s guide. Initially they have been developed for use in subjects related to systems design. The package incorporates a case study/cooperative learning approach. The pedagogy is consistent with development of the generic attributes that will be demanded of future engineers. The pedagogy encourages problem-solving skills through cooperation and interdependence, working together to accomplish shared goals (Johnson et al, 1998). The package will be further developed at a later date for use by practising engineers, as a professional development tool.
How the material will be applied for the benefit of the health and safety of people at work in Australia
Engineers have a duty of care to end users of the systems they design under current statutes and at common law. Considerations such as cognitive compatibility and usability of equipment and system design are becoming issues of increasing importance, as society becomes more reliant on information technology and automation. That engineers contribute to human error in these systems through latent design error and poor management decision-making is well documented. Therefore, the role of engineers can be considered integral to positive outcomes in workplace safety.
There is extensive evidence of human error as a major causal factor in industrial accidents. Researchers have found that eighty to ninety percent of accidents are due to human error (Heinrich et al, Salminen and Tallberg 1996). Feyer and Williamson (1991) found that two out of three Australian accidents are caused by human error. Evidence also supported that the high rate of human operator error was related to design error (Rasmussen and Pedersen, 1984; Reason, 1990). When considering the impact of human contribution to systems disasters, it is important to distinguish between at least two types of error, active and latent errors (Rasmussen and Pedersen, 1984). Active errors occur at the front or sharp end of the operation and involve front line operators of complex systems; the effects are felt almost immediately. Latent errors are those, which may lay dormant in a system for many years, their consequences only become evident when they combine with other factors to breach the system’s defences. Latent errors are mostly spawned by those that are removed from the direct control interface by space and time, they are the designers, high level decision makers, managers, maintenance and construction personnel (Rasmussen and Pedersen, 1984). It has been found that attention to ergonomic principles in the design phase could improve safety, efficiency, productivity and user satisfaction (Norman, 1988; Jordan, 1998). Mayhew (1992) found that this improvement could be measured quantitatively.
Ergonomics underpins the notion of ‘safe design’. Until practicing engineers develop a basic understanding of ergonomic principles, the relationship between these principles and human error, it is unlikely that safe design can be achieved. This grant would enable the extensive research completed to date inform a paradigm change in undergraduate engineering education and professional practice.
Reference list
Blockley, D. I. (1996), ‘Hazard engineering’ in C. Hood, and D. Jones (Eds.), Accident and Design, UCL Press Limited: London
David Caple & Associates (2000), ‘Discussion Paper: Assessment of policy implications arising from research undertaken for the Safe Design Project’, National Occupational Health & Safety Commission: Sydney
Dwight, R. A. (1991), ‘Is clairvoyance really required by modern occupational health and safety law: a case study’, Occupational health and safety: engineering the work environment, Institution of Engineers, Australia: Canberra, 36 – 42
Feyer, A. M. and Williamson, A. M. (1991), ‘A classification system for causes of occupational accidents for use in preventive strategies’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 17, 302 – 31
Heinrich, H. W., Petersen, D. and Roo, N. (1980), Industrial Accident Prevention, (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill: New York
Institution of Engineers, Australia Task Force (1996), Changing the Culture: Engineering Education into the Future – Review Report, Institution of Engineers, Australia: Canberra
International Ergonomic Association, (1999), ‘Definition of ergonomics’, IEA Homepage, IEA: http://ergonomics-iea.org/ accessed 4/2/99, 22:30
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. and Smith, K. A. 1998. Active Learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Interaction Book Company: Edina
Jordan, P. W. (1998), An introduction to usability, Taylor and Francis: London
Kontogiannis, T. and Embrey, D. (1997), ‘A user-centred approach for introducing computer-based process information systems’, Applied Ergonomics, 28 (2), 109-120
Mayhew, D. J. (1992), Principles and guidelines in software user interface design, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs
Norman, D. A. (1988), The design of everyday things, Doubleday-Currency: New York
Rasmussen, J and Pedersen, O. M. (1984), ‘Human factors in probabilistic risk analysis and risk management’, Operational Safety of Nuclear Power Plants (Vol. 1), International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna
Reason, J. (1990), Human Error, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
Salminen, S. and Tallberg, T. (1996), ‘Human Errors in fatal and serious occupational accidents in Finland’, Ergonomics, 39 (7), 980 – 988
Thatcher, T. (1997), ‘A rationalism why engineers are ignorant about their OHS responsibilities’, Paper Presented at Synergy in safety, Safety Institute of Australia conference, 16 – 17 October, 1997, Sydney
Toft, Y. (1998), ‘Ergonomics is integral to sustainable engineering design’, Presented at the Waves of Change: 10th Australasian Conference on Engineering Education, 28 – 30 September, 1998, Gladstone
Ward, S. (1990), ‘The designer as ergonomist’, Ergonomics design, products for the consumer: Proceedings 26th Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society of Australia, Ergonomics Society of Australia: Canberra, 101 – 106
Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E. and Liu, Y., (1998), An introduction to human factors engineering, Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Incorporated: USA
Worksafe Australia (1990) Occupational health and safety for engineers: a resource for engineering education, Worksafe Australia: Sydney