=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2539/paper2
|storemode=property
|title=Where do We See Cognitive Ergonomics in the Near Future?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2539/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-2539
|authors=Anke Dittmar
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ecce/Dittmar19
}}
==Where do We See Cognitive Ergonomics in the Near Future?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2539/paper2.pdf
Where do We See Cognitive Ergonomics in the
Near Future?
Anke Dittmar
University of Rostock, Department of Computer Science, Germany
anke.dittmar@uni-rostock.de
Abstract. This position statement relates cognitive ergonomics to the
fields of human factors/ergonomics and human-computer interaction.
The role of cognitive ergonomics in design interventions, now and in
the near future, is considered.
Keywords: Cognitive ergonomics · human factors/ergonomics · human-
computer interaction.
1 Introduction
The workshop topics include the question of whether cognitive ergonomics (CE)
is a separate discipline and how to relate it to other fields. Diaper and Sanger [5]
mention three aspects that form a discipline.
– Agreement to a general problem,
– A common set of practices, and
– A body of shared knowledge.
Similarly, Cohen and Lloyd [3] define scientific disciplines as having their own dis-
tinct sets of key knowledge, methods, and assumptions that separate them from
other disciplines. The authors point out that disciplines change due to changes
in the environment and interactions with other disciplines. They borrow the
vocabulary from biological evolution to describe the evolution of scientific disci-
plines in terms of selection, mutation, speciation, extinction, parallel evolution,
and heterosis1 . This paper relates cognitive ergonomics to the fields human fac-
tors/ergonomics (HFE) and human-computer interaction (HCI). The objective
is to inform or prepare a discussion at the workshop about where do we see CE
in the (near) future.
Copyright c 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Com-
mons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
1
Cohen and Lloyd also note that “the idea of scientific disciplines is both old and
new”. It can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, but the use of disciplines “as
the primary unit of internal differentiation of science is an invention of nineteenth
century society” [3].
6 A. Dittmar
2 CE as sub-discipline of HFE
CE emerged as a sub-discipline of HFE2 to better respond to the introduction
of information and communication technology and increasing cognitive demands
on workers in the 1970s. Dul et al. [6] describe key characteristics of HFE which
may also apply to CE, but here with a focus on people’s mental processes and
on cognitive artefacts3 .
– HFE takes a system approach: Systems consist of humans and their envi-
ronments (formed by artefacts ranging from simple tools to whole organiza-
tions [8]). They are considered at different levels (micro-/meso-/macro-level).
– HFE is design driven: HFE can be involved in all stages of systems design.
The aim is to shape the environment around the capacities and aspirations
of humans (first try to fit the environment to the human, only then select
or train them to fit the environment).
– HFE focuses on two joint design outcomes: performance of the system (e.g.,
productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, quality, reliability, sustainability) and
well-being of the human (e.g., health and safety, satisfaction, pleasure, learn-
ing, personal development). The objective is to find an optimal compromise
between well-being and performance.
It is, according to Dul et al. [6], the design orientation that differentiates
HFE from disciplines such as sociology and anthropology. And in contrast to
disciplines such as psychology, medicine, and engineering, HFE looks at both
the human and the technology side. HFE deals with work systems but the un-
derstanding of work systems has been expanded and now includes, for example,
domestic and leisure environments and the consideration of consumer products
and services [5, 6]. In their strategy paper for HFE, Dul et al. [6] point out that the
potential of HFE to contribute to the design of future systems is under-exploited.
The authors see the strength of HFE in the application of participatory design
approaches which can actively involve employees and product/service users in
design processes. But “HFE must demonstrate its value more successfully to
the main stakeholders of system design” (for example, decision makers such as
managers and system experts from technical and social sciences).
2
HFE is defined by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) as “the scientific
discipline concerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and
other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theoretical principles,
data and methods to design in order to optimise human well-being and overall system
performance” (adopted version, 2000).
3
According to the IEA, CE is ”concerned with mental processes, such as percep-
tion, memory, reasoning, and motor response, as they affect interactions among hu-
mans and other elements of a system. The relevant topics include mental workload,
decision-making, skilled performance, human-computer interaction, human reliabil-
ity, work stress and training as these may relate to human-system design.”
Where do We See Cognitive Ergonomics in the Near Future? 7
Fig. 1. Positioning of HFE and HCI as contributing disciplines to interactive systems
design: a) by Saffer, b) by Benyon et al. (see [11] and [1] for the complete diagrams).
3 CE and HCI
Let us now look more closely at the relationship between CE and HCI. Some may
consider HCI to be a sub-field of CE, some may not see a big difference between
the two fields. CHI, the largest HCI conference, calls itself “Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems”. Diaper [4] defines HCI “as an interdisciplinary
engineering discipline that is a subdiscipline of ergonomics”. The definition of the
HCI as a field given by the ACM SIGCHI4 suggests a different view which is also
supported by Papantoniou5 : “CE’s difference from HCI is mainly the broader
focus of the analysis to include the worksystem as a whole, as opposed to the
user-computer interaction, as well as other factors (organizational, historical etc.)
that traditional HCI often avoids to address, and hides under the “context” label
instead”. Figure 1 refers to illustrations from ‘schoolbooks’ depicting interactive
systems design as multidisciplinary approach. What is interesting here, in the
context of this paper, is the positioning of HFE and HCI (CE is not explicitely
mentioned). Figure 1a) shows HFE and HCI as ‘non-overlapping’ disciplines,
Figure 1b) puts HFE in the ‘People cloud’ and HCI in the ‘Design cloud’.
Norman [10] considers the practice of HCI as still mainly an art form and
compares it with HFE practice (not with CE in particular): “The discipline that
calls itself “Human Factors” in the United States and “Ergonomics” elsewhere in
the world is a real, true engineering discipline, with established methods and pro-
4
HCI is “concerned with the design, evaluation, and implementation of interactive
computing systems for human use and with the study of major phenomena sur-
rounding them” (ACM SIGCHI, 1992).
5
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-
computer-interaction/cognitive-ergonomics. For Papantoniou, CE is synonymous
with cognitive engineering.
8 A. Dittmar
Fig. 2. HFE positioned in a map of design practice and design research by Sanders
(see [12] for the complete diagram).
cedures6 . It is what HCI ought to be” [10]. Falzon, an (constructive) ergonomist,
states that “[a]ctual ergonomics practice is more an art than a science. It re-
quires a constant adaptation to the peculiarities of the situation to be tackled,
based on the expertise of a particular HFE specialist” [8].
4 The Evolution of CE
The evolution of a discipline is influenced by the developments in ‘the external
world’. Dul et al. [6] mention, for example, continuing automation of work sys-
tems and rapid, continuing developments in ICT affecting individuals’ consump-
tion behaviors. It is also influenced by the diverse, partly conflicting perspectives
on the discipline and by the interaction with other disciplines. A distinction be-
tween an ‘insider’s view’ and an ‘outsider’s view’ may be useful for a better
understanding of the current role of a discipline. For example, HFE experts em-
phasize the design driven nature of HFE (see above) and make the criticism that
HFE is often incorporated within engineering disciplines and psychology (and
not seen as its own discipline) [6]. HCI experts instead consider HFE/CE as not
being a design discipline [10] but as “a source of knowledge for [HCI/interaction]
designers to use as guidelines for ensuring good usability”7 . HFE experts point
out that “HFE commonly takes participatory design approaches” [6] (especially
in organizational ergonomics), a view that is not necessarily shared by people
outside the field (see, e.g., Figure 2). Another source for the development of
a (sub-)discipline are the internal discussions and conflicts. For example, the
constructive approach to HFE advocated by Falzon and colleagues [7, 8] sets
6
Norman refers, for example, to the profound knowledge and systematic methods in
analyzing situation awareness, tasks, collaborative activities (co-located or not).
7
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/cognitive-ergonomics
Where do We See Cognitive Ergonomics in the Near Future? 9
the development of individuals, collectives, and organizations as the target of
ergonomic design interventions, and thus puts more emphasis on reflective prac-
tice and on HFE methods supporting reflective activities of employees than other
approaches.
Where do we see CE in the near future? If we follow the ideas of Cohen and
Lloyd [3] that were mentioned in the introduction, we understand the evolution
of (sub-)disciplines as a process in which
– Key characteristics of disciplines are formed (selection and mutation),
– New (sub-)disciplines emerge (speciation),
– Myopic views of complex phenomena can be held (inbreeding),
– Disciplines disappear because of waning interest, little new useful research,
or certain power relations (extinction),
– Two or more existing disciplines create independent solutions to new envi-
ronmental demands (parallel evolution),
– Disciplines are ‘merged’ or combined (heterosis).
In this context, we can perhaps understand the current state of CE and
HCI as parallel but overlapping developments; both fields came into being as
responses to technological developments in the 1970s, both emphasized that
technology must fit human needs, but CE emerged as a sub-discipline from
HFE and HCI emerged to ‘counterbalance’ software engineering practices8 . Both
fields have to continuously question their objectives, methods, and practices.
Carroll [2] describes effects of the multidisciplinary but also fragmented field of
HCI on researchers and practitioners as follows. On the one hand, an isolation
“from some portion of the field’s foundations” is often to be found as a coping
strategy among HCI specialists. On the other hand, they accept the need for
amalgamating different user-centred design methods and techniques [2]. Harper
et al’s [9] statement (in 2008) about the near future of HCI (in 2020) may support
a converging view on CE and HCI: “...we need to have a new conception of the
‘computer’ in HCI. We need a better way of understanding how the embedding
of digital technologies in everyday artefacts, in the built structures around us
and in the natural landscape is transforming our surrounding environment into
a physical-digital ecosystem. We now need to address not just the design of the
artefacts themselves but also the spaces within which these artefacts reside. More
than this, design has to deal with deeper, systemic issues”.
Do we see CE as an own (sub-)discipline in the future, or do we see a new
discipline (with what name?) combining CE with other disciplines, or do we see
CE disappearing? In [3], three strategies to survive as discipline are mentioned
which help to think about justifications for CE and possible new directions.
– Turning inward and strengthening boundaries,
– Forming strategy alliances with stronger disciplines,
8
Authors such as Diaper [4] even suggest to abolishing the historical division between
software engineering and HCI “because both are engineering disciplines concerned
with the same types of systems and their difference is merely one of emphasis, with
software engineering focusing more on software and HCI more on people”.
10 A. Dittmar
– Reconstituting the discipline in a newer and larger field of study.
I think the strength of CE, and of HFE in general, is the design orientation and
the focus on well-being and performance as joint design outcomes. Ergonomic
design interventions are exploratory, they are “hypotheses about how artifacts
shape cognition and collaboration” [13] and require active participation of all
stakeholders. It is neither expected in the near future that ‘pure’ engineering
disciplines fully take up this design perspective nor that disciplines such as psy-
chology or social sciences become design disciplines. I can imagine, in the long
run, that we (need to) have a deeper, common understanding of the co-evolution
of artefacts, people, and practices, and this may perhaps lead to less specializa-
tion.
An alliance of CE with some areas of HCI9 seems to be plausible for sev-
eral reasons. Both fields extended their scope: considered activities now also in-
clude activities in domestic, leisure or public environments. Existing conceptions
of performance and corresponding methods cannot be applied without revision
and CE could benefit, for example, from HCI research on user experience. As
mentioned above, HCI needs to reconsider the conception of ‘computer’ as com-
puters are now embedded in all sorts of (everyday) artefacts and the field could
benefit from the more systemic and ecological CE approaches. Current HCI de-
sign follows user-centred and participatory design approaches but mostly with a
product-oriented perspective. CE can complement these practices with more ex-
ploratory design interventions [13] and more emphasis on reflective activities of
stakeholders (e.g., [7]). It was also indicated above that HFE/CE practices still
have to be more effectively integrated in existing design and production pro-
cesses (e.g., by increasing the awareness of decision makers) and this certainly
applies to HCI design practices as well. Both fields need to revise their under-
standing of users’ needs (‘HCI jargon’) or well-being (‘CE jargon’) and of other
basic assumptions. For example, current systems often are based on an overuse
of resources. Do I feel well as an individual knowing that I destroy natural re-
sources for future generations (including own children)? What other factors than
the commonly considered ones (such as mental workload or work stress) have
an impact on (mental) well-being? Do we need to change our understanding of
systems?
References
1. Benyon, D., Turner, P., Turner, S.: Designing interactive systems: people, activities,
contexts, technologies. Addison-Wesley (2005)
2. Carroll, J. (ed.): HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a multidisci-
plinary science. Morgan Kaufman Publishers (2003)
3. Cohen, E., J. Lloyd, S.: Disciplinary evolution and the rise of the transdiscipline.
Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 17,
189–215 (01 2014). https://doi.org/10.28945/2045
9
I do not refer here to more technology-oriented HCI research (e.g., invention of new
interaction technologies).
Where do We See Cognitive Ergonomics in the Near Future? 11
4. Diaper, D.: In: Diaper, D., Stanton, N. (eds.) The handbook of task analysis
for human-computer interaction, chap. Understanding Task Analysis for Human-
Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. (2004)
5. Diaper, D., Sanger, C.: Tasks for and tasks in human-computer interaction. Inter-
acting with Computers 18(1), 117–138 (2006)
6. Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson,
J.R., van der Doelen, B.: A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the
discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55(4), 377–395 (2012)
7. Falzon, P. (ed.): Constructive Ergonomics. CRC Press (2015)
8. Falzon, P.: Enabling environments, enabling organizations, enabling interventions:
A constructive ergonomics viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the European Conference
on Cognitive Ergonomics 2015. pp. 3:1–3:3. ECCE ’15, ACM (2015)
9. Harper, R., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., Sellen, A.: Being Human: Human-Computer
Interaction in the Year 2020 (01 2008)
10. Norman, D.: Interaction design is still an art form: ergonomics is real engineering.
Interactions 13, 45–60 (01 2006)
11. Saffer, D.: Designing for Interaction. New Riders (2009)
12. Sanders, L.: An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions
15(6), 13–17 (2008)
13. Woods, D.: Designs are hypotheses about how artifacts shape cognition and col-
laboration. Ergonomics (41), 168–173 (1998)