Bridging the gap between research and practice – let’s talk

An article from The Ergonomist in February 2013 written with Steve Shorrock and Amy Chung

Most people who read The Ergonomist would acknowledge that there are differences between the challenges that researchers and practitioners face on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, the value placed on different types and formats of research, will, invariably, change based upon the individual challenges faced. The stereotypical view is that those in academia are more focused on the fundamental understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system; whereas, those working in industry are more interested in the application of tools and techniques in order to optimise human well-being and overall system performance.

Making the, somewhat contentious, assumption that the readership can be broadly divided into two groups (researchers and practitioners), most would probably agree that there is much benefit from collaboration between the two groups. Practitioners need to remain up-to-date with substantial advances in thinking, and researchers must demonstrate the application of their research. As such, the application of research has clear advantages to researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and the public. Increasing collaboration, communication and networking between researchers and practitioners was the most cited suggestion by human factors and ergonomics practitioners in the largest study conducted on the research-practice relationship in Human Factors and Ergonomics (see References).

Our experience is that the level of collaboration is often inconsistent, and frequently reliant on individual contacts or networks, and has varied success. Given this, we contend that more could be done to increase the level of collaboration between researchers and practitioners. We will be hosting a discussion session at the upcoming IEHF conference in April to discuss (1) in which areas collaboration is needed, and (2) the appropriate mechanisms for supporting this collaboration. During the discussion, we would especially like to hear your stories of collaboration – what worked well, what did not, and how could collaboration be optimised to bridge the gap between research and practice? It would be great to see you there and hear your thoughts.

References

Shorrock, S.T. and Chung, A. (2010). Human factors research and practice Part 1: Surveying the gap. The Ergonomist, February, 4-5. http://db.tt/EV5uLuSi

Shorrock, S.T. and Chung, A. (2010). Human factors research and practice Part 2: Bridging the gap. The Ergonomist, March, 4-5. http://db.tt/oOUO28So

Shorrock, S.T. and Chung, A. (2010). Human factors research and practice Part 3: Crossing the bridge. The Ergonomist, April, 6-7. http://db.tt/p2Q4Shr

See original article: http://www.sociotechnic.com/articles/theergonomist_Feb2013.pdf

Wikipedia - A call to arms

An article from The Ergonomist in January 2013

For many, Wikipedia is the destination of choice when we are presented with an unfamiliar term or reference. In the right situation, it’s a very useful tool. Well-developed entries contain a succinct definition and description along with a list of more traditional peer-reviewed references for more information.

For others, notably those that have received formal deliverables that reference Wikipedia directly, it can be a source of frustration. One of Wikipedia’s greatest strengths, the fact that anyone can add to it, is also one of its weaknesses. The reliability and the quality of the entries can be questionable. Recent cases in the press highlight this issue; a 25 year-old American student was falsely identified as the cofounder of the Independent newspaper in the Leveson enquiry report.

When the former editor of encyclopaedia Britannica read the entry “encyclopaedia” he gave it 5 out of 10, stating that it left him with the “impression that it was written by someone who had no previous knowledge of the subject and who, once he got into it, found it did not interest him very much.” Likewise, when the editor of Vogue was asked to look at the entry on ‘Haute couture’ she found it “broadly speaking inaccurate and unclear”, with “few correct facts” and “every value judgement wrong”. Zero out of ten.  Not that it matters too much because chances are, by the time you read this, the entries will have changed.

Love it or hate it, with around 600 million page views per day, it is safe to say that Wikipedia will be around for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, at the time of writing, Wikipedia entries are the ‘top hit’ for Google searches on ‘ergonomics’ and ‘human factors’. With this in mind, as a society, the obvious question is, should we be doing more to participate in the upkeep of the entries that are relevant to our discipline?

If your answer to the previous question was yes, and you are interested in increasing the accuracy and the quality of the entries on the Wikipedia site, we are proposing a session at the next IEHF conference this April, in Cambridge, to make some changes. So please come along, armed with your laptop, tablet or smart phone, and help improve the quality of the relevant entries.

see article http://www.sociotechnic.com/articles/theergonomist_Jan2013.pdf

The joy of unintuitive design

As such a strong advocate for the design of intuitive, user-friendly products, I surprised myself with my enjoyment of this product. Almost all usability checklists and assessments would rate the product I am writing about as extremely poor, yet strangely I love it!

The product in question is a Japanese watch from ‘Tokyoflash’. Nearly all of the watches produced by the company have unique methods of presenting the time. A photo of the watch I bought can be seen below. As a test of its usability see if you can work out the time? (the answer can be found by highlighting the white text in the brackets below).

The actual time is (highlight between brackets to view): [ 09:44 the face is divided into three blocks the first one has twelve circles, the second six (only five work), and the last has nine. The top block represents the hours, the second block the tens of minutes and the last the units. ]

For obvious reasons, I don’t wear the watch every day. To access the time you have to press a button on the bottom side of the watch. The only way of doing this is to use the other hand. Thus, it is extremely difficult to glance at the time. In social situations, it can be perceived as rude to be checking the time, furthermore when carrying bags or cycling it is a real inconvenience.

The watch performs badly in bright sunlight. It is also rather bulky and prone to scratching. Yet, despite these glaring flaws, it still brings a smile to my face every time I put it on. Assessed as a watch, the product scores badly; however, as a fun product and a talking-point in social situations, it is fantastic!

Is the customer always right?

The latest advertisement campaign from Microsoft highlights how their new operating system, Windows 7, has been developed based on user feedback. Each advert centres on a user who introduces the audience to a new function that they thought of and communicated to Microsoft. Although clearly intended to be light hearted, these adverts raise an interesting question, ‘is the customer always right?’, and how much should we rely upon what they tell us? Turning to Window’s main competitor, Apple, the story could not be more different. As Steve Jobs is keen to point out, Apple does no market research. Instead, they rely on a small team of designers with a detailed domain understanding to develop their products. This begs the question, what is the role of end-user engagement in product or system design?

In the 1950s Henry Dreyfuss, helped to publicise the importance of fitting products to people, instead of the other way around. The ‘user-centred design’ movement gained momentum as consumer electronics became cheaper and widely used in everyday products. In the twenty-first century, the ease of use of websites and consumer products has proved to be a key factor in consumer choice.

As Human Factors specialists, we are often asked to ‘enhance’ existing products – to make them ‘more intuitive’ or to ‘enhance the user-experience’. Engagement with the user community often provides us with potential solutions from the outset. With limited resources, it can be tempting to rely upon these individuals, to follow them blindly. Moving icons, adding functionality, all tailored to a specific individual and task. While there may be times when it is appropriate to follow this guidance, for many complex sociotechnical systems the solution is not so simple. What may work for a specific individual, performing a specific task, under specific circumstances, may not be appropriate in all situations. In larger systems, end-users rarely have a complete understanding of how the organisation is structured or the implications of this on systems performance. Nor necessarily should they if it does not directly influence their primary task.

To leverage significant system enhancements, the role of human factors practitioners should go beyond optimisation of the man-machine interface. Whilst this may remain an integral part of system optimisation, there are other factors at work, such as organisational design, that are also worthy of our attention. While many will consider this blatantly obvious, it is not universally acknowledged or accepted. Much of Apple’s success has been attributed to their meticulous control of every aspect of the system. They control the hardware, the software and much of the supply chain.

Considering large socio-technical systems, the diagram above highlights many of the aspects that should be considered in design. Each level of the diagram offers opportunity to enhance overall performance. As the centre of the diagram shows, overall system performance can be changed through component design or by providing the end user with additional skills. These can be viewed as two separate components, or they can be considered as a human-machine subsystem. Stepping out further, the system can be viewed at the team level. Here we can start to consider and model how the design of a system influences the way a team functions. Stepping out further still, larger, more extended, networks can be considered. Finally, at the outermost layer, we can start to consider the wider domain independently of the system currently in place. We can consider its overall purpose and how we might assess this.

In summary, effective design is more about domain understanding than end-user engagement. Clearly, talking to users can help in developing this understanding; however, it should not be used as the sole design driver. Effective systems design should consider the physical and functional elements of a system along side the social and structural ones. It is contented that this approach will lead to safer, more effective systems.

An analysis of the Stockwell shooting

An article from the ‘The Ergonomist’ August 2009

The fateful events in Stockwell, on the 22nd July 2005, need little introduction. A manhunt was on for the perpetrators of the previous day’s attempted bombings. A gym membership card, found with one of the failed devices, connected Hussain Osman and the address ‘21 Scotia Road’ to the attacks. An operation was mounted at the address to apprehend Osman as he left the flat’s communal entrance. At 09.33 hrs a man, allegedly bearing a resemblance to Osman, left the flat. Officers followed him on his 33-minute journey to Stockwell Tube Station. Two minutes after he entered the station, members of the Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) specialist firearms department (CO19), entered the underground station with orders to ‘stop’ a suspected suicide-bomber. Surveillance officers directed them towards the suspect. Moments later, two of the CO19 officers approached the man and between them fired seven shots into his head and one into his shoulder from close range. This man was later found to be Jean Charles de Menezes (JCdM), a completely innocent Brazilian national.

The organisation involved, the MPS, failed to balance its responsibilities of preserving the life of the public, its officers, and suspects. Whilst the situation can, unquestionably, be defined as complex, dynamic, and safety critical, procedures to tackle suicide bombers, defined by the codename Kratos, have been in existence since 2003. Thus, the pertinent question is how was this outcome allowed to happen.

Click here to download the full article.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog. The main reason for creating this is to share findings from reports and my general opinion on all things related to human factors, ergonomics, and cognitive systems engineering.

You can find out a little more about me and the kind of work I am interested in from the following website: www.sociotechnic.com