Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015

A Philosophy of Ergonomics/Human Factors - An Updated Perspective

a
Thomas J. Smith
a
School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Abstract: This report introduces the following series of philosophical tenets of ergonomic/human
factors (E/HF) science that generalize and extend those delineated by previous observers: (1)
performance and design are interdependent; (2) closed-loop rather than linear systems performance;
(3) new designs evoke new patterns of performance variability; (4) tailor design to the control
capabilities of behaviour; and (5) E/HF science has universal significance for the human condition.

Keywords: philosophy, performance-design interaction, control systems perspective, context

specificity

1. Historical Perspective
The term ‘philosophy,’ broadly speaking, refers to a framework of belief, bought to bear on the study of
general, fundamental problems. The etymological source of the term is Greek, philo sophos or lover of
wisdom, a meaning attributed to Pythagoras (Aldrete, 2011, Lecture 13). That E/HF science has philosophic
connotations dates back to the early days of the field. The very first article in the very first issue of the journal
Human Factors is titled “A human factors philosophy” (Morehouse, 1958).
Consequently, the first challenge that must be confronted in this report is to answer the question of
whether there is anything new or original to add to the idea of a philosophy of E/HF. The next two sections
address this challenge from two perspectives, namely whether: (1) the field of philosophy generally has
considered possible philosophical connotations of E/HF? and (2) the perspective introduced here differs in
any meaningful way from previous contributions in the field of E/HF to the idea of a philosophy of E/HF?

1.1. Do Philosophical Theories Have Anything to Say about a Philosophy of E/HF

Although E/HF science, and the terms human factors and ergonomics, have relatively recent origins, it can
be argued that humans have been practicing E/HF for a long time. Christensen (1976) points out that the
design and utilization of tools falls legitimately within the purview of ergonomics and thus is traceable back to
earliest humans and their hominid ancestors. He then goes on to observe that the design and use of tools
represents the result of specific, intelligent manifestations of the interactions between humans and their
environments. This idea recapitulates the thesis of Morehouse (1958) that a philosophy of human factors
equates to considering the human factor in relation to the machines and environments in which man works
and plays. From these perspectives, it can be argued that the origin of E/HF philosophy and that of our
species are contemporaneous.
Framing E/HF philosophy in terms of human interaction with design---of environments and/or artifacts---
supports the conclusion that some philosophical theories implicitly, if not explicitly, embody a concern with
E/HF. Thus, in reviewing the seminal flowering of philosophical thinking between 700 and 500 B.C., Aldrete
(2011, Lecture 13) notes that:
“[this period]…was a time of great and original thinkers…One distinction that can be drawn among
them is that some focused on this life and others focused on existence beyond the physical one...In
the first category can be placed those whose interests lay in investigating and explaining the natural
world, as well as those who sought a better way to organize society and regulate human behaviour.”
To frame this distinction in E/HF terms, those philosophic perspectives in the first category can be broadly
considered, if not necessarily human-centered, then at least human-oriented.
From this perspective, it can be argued that one of the earliest historical systems of philosophy,
introduced between 700 and 500 B.C. (Aldrete, Lecture 13), embodies a human-oriented approach.

  1  
 Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015

Specifically, Confucius preached a system that emphasized basic human goodness, social harmony, and
moral behaviour.
Subsequently however, across the extensive varieties of philosophical theory that have emerged over
the ensuing two-and-a-half millennia, most are centered upon concerns beyond the physical world, such as
thinking and the substantive mind, spiritualism, or mysticism. One key exception is social philosophy,
generally concerned with understanding social behaviour, the social structure of societies and institutions,
and/or the social contexts for political, legal, moral, and cultural questions
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_philosophy). There is a degree of overlap with these concerns and those
of the E/HF field of macro-ergonomics. Well-known philosophers whose work (at least in part) touches upon
social philosophy include Epicurus, Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Nietzsche, Marx and Engels, Kant, Russell,
and Sartre.
A related framework for considering the possible degree to which philosophical concerns encompass
those of E/HF philosophy is that of religion, based on the premise that there are considerable philosophical
connotations to the world’s religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_philosophy). In contrast to the
emphasis on belief systems and ritual behaviour, characteristic of other major religions, Judaism is a
performance-based religion that encourages behavioural compliance with the set of laws contained in the
Torah (Plaut, 1981). Such a (broadly speaking) human-oriented emphasis on the part of the Judaic religious
system has evident parallels with concerns of E/HF science related to human performance generally, and
performance standards in particular (Smith and Merhi, 2006; Smith et al., 2014).
In summary, the foregoing analysis suggests that there is a defined body of human-oriented philosophic
theory, particularly instantiated in social philosophy, and in at least one religious system, that features a
distinct focus on human concerns in a general sense, and human-design interaction particularly. These
concerns are broadly relevant to those of E/HF science. This suggests that assumptions of certain avenues
of philosophic thinking are broadly aligned with those of E/HF philosophy. As discussed below however,
principles of E/HF philosophy articulated here extend well beyond those that can be inferred from such
thinking.

1.2. How Has E/HF Philosophy Developed over Recent Decades?

The claim by Morehouse (1958) that an E/HF philosophy exists followed the WWII-stimulated
emergence of E/HF science in the U.S. by less than two decades (Smith, 1987), and was contemporaneous
with the establishment of a professional human factors society in the U.S. (Christensen, 1976; DeLucia,
2014). Since then however: (1) subsequent efforts to elaborate upon this idea have been relatively sparse;
and (2) the common denominator across these subsequent efforts is their relatively narrow focus on what a
philosophy of E/HF science actually means. A review of a sample of reports published over the past 45 years
underscores these conclusions.
For example, Burgess (1970) points out that an effective systems design process must be guided by a
defined systems philosophy. This author goes on to emphasize that both individual and interpersonal
contributions must be balanced for the process to succeed.
Fowler (1972) notes that a key element of the job philosophy of a human factors engineer is service as
a consumer advocate. For such an effort to succeed, three requirements are specified: (1) benefits of such
service must be demonstrated; (2) requisite skills must be upgraded and refined; and (3) an educational
framework for developing these skills must be promoted.
Peacock et al. (1975) assume that a philosophy of ergonomics standards comprises a series of key
concepts and issues, such as: (1) the scope of ergonomics is broader than a narrow concern with
musculoskeletal disorders; (2) ergonomic program guidelines should address general types of ergonomic
activities, such as job analysis, hazard management, or training; (3) performance requirements should refer
to specific outcomes, such as productivity improvement or injury/illness reduction; (4) mandated detail in
design specifications, related to systems, products, or environments; and (5) that future performance is not
necessarily predictable (Section 2) supports a probabilistic rather than explicit approach to formulating
ergonomic standards.
Gillan et al. (1998) provide guidelines for presenting quantitative data in papers for publication, based
on three ‘know thy user’ principles of a reader-centered design philosophy: (1) know your user’s tasks; 92)
know operations supported by your data displays; and (3) match user operations to those supported by your
data displays.

  2  
 Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015

In advocating a philosophy of ergonomics, Hignett (2000) points out that there are two distinct bodies of
opinion among professionals in the field regarding: (1) perspectives on the exclusive versus inclusive nature
of ergonomics, relative to other disciplines; and (2) reliance on quantitative versus qualitative methodologies
(Hignett favors the latter approach). She then goes on to characterize the philosophic position of each
methodology. That of the quantitative approach is assumed to be based upon objectivity, empirical analysis,
and reliance on sensory feedback. That of the qualitative approach is assumed to be based upon subjectivity,
rational analysis, and reliance on reason.
Finally, Hancock (2009) devotes an entire text to developing the theme that human-technology
interaction can be characterized from a philosophic perspective. This general idea essentially recapitulates a
similar suggestion of Morehouse (1958) proposed some fifty years earlier, and more broadly referenced by
philosophical theories dating back multiple millennia, as noted in Section 1.1 (Aldrete, 2011, Lecture 13).
The foregoing analysis arguably supports conclusions offered at the outset of this section. Over a span
of over four decades, relatively few observers have made a serious effort to formulate a defined philosophy
of E/HF. The number and detail of concepts offered in support of the philosophies proposed range from
sparse to more extensive, but in every case the scopes of those proposed are relatively narrow. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, with the notable exceptions of Morehouse (1958) abd Hancock (2009) none of the
proposed philosophies make any reference to what is widely considered to represent the essence of E/HF
science, namely that scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans
and other elements of a system (http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html). The objective of the updated
perspective on E/HF philosophy offered here is to elaborate some key conceptual implications of the basic
idea of performance-design interaction.

2. An Updated Perspective on an E/HF Philosophy

A broad framework of E/HF philosophy is delineated below, embodying a set of philosophical concepts that
arguably more completely encompass the scientific scope of the field relative to previous formulations.
Performance and Design Are Interdependent. As noted above, E/HF is the scientific discipline
concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans (human performance) and other elements
of a system (the performance environment). The status of E/HF as an integral scientific discipline rests upon
the validity of this principle. If the nature and extent of the link between human performance, and design
characteristics of the performance environment, is weak (inconsistent or coincidental), then design and
behaviour may be dissected from one another, and E/HF becomes subordinate to the disciplines of
engineering and psychology. Conversely, if there is functional interdependence between design and
performance, such that neither can be realistically assessed in isolation from the other, then E/HF assumes
a much stronger role as a distinct scientific discipline---neither engineering nor psychology traditionally have
concerned themselves with design-performance interaction.
Variability in Human Performance is Prominently Influenced by Design Factors in the Performance
Environment. Support for the above concept rests upon various lines of evidence that design factors in the
performance environment prominently influence variability in performance, a phenomenon termed context
specificity (Moray, 1994; Smith, 1998; Smith et al., 1994, 2014). For example, Albin (2014) points out that:
“Ergonomics is widely perceived as dealing only with risk of injury or illness, rather than with all aspects of
the interaction between humans and the things that they use in a context.”
No other discipline places a comparable emphasis on this concept. A philosophical framework of E/HF
thus rests fundamentally on conceptual delineation and empirical support for context specificity. Key tenets
of this framework may be summarized as follows.
Closed-Loop rather than Linear Systems Performance. One major implication of the idea of context
specificity is that there are not strict cause and effect relationships among design and performance, in that
each serves simultaneously as both cause and effect of the other. Both Smith (1972) and Jagacinski and
Flach (2003) champion the idea of a closed-loop linkage between perception (sensory feedback from design
factors in the performance environment) and action (behavioural feedback control of perceptual input).
New Designs Evoke New Patterns of Performance Variability. If design and performance are
interdependent, the consequences of introducing new designs are new patterns of performance variability
with possibly unintended consequence. Laws—design factors---are a good example. Although the putative
objective of a law ideally is to encourage common modes of behaviour, in actuality many laws result in
behavioural variability that the lawgivers did not anticipate.

  3  
 Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015

Tailor Design to the Control Capabilities of Behaviour. The foregoing concepts suggest that context
specificity in performance occurs as a consequence of dynamic spatiotemporal interaction between sensory
feedback (design) and sensory feedback control (behaviour). Good design therefore may be defined as that
giving rise to sensory feedback which can be effectively controlled through active behaviour (Merken, 1986;
Smith, 1994). That is, proficiency and skill in human- machine or human-system performance depend upon
the degree to which the operator, through motor activity, can effectively control design-dependent sensory
feedback generated across the interface. To ensure safe, effective performance, task and operational design
factors must conform to the spatiotemporal imperatives of behaviour.
E/HF Science has Universal Significance for the Human Condition. Humans are the most important
resource for the performance of any enterprise, organization, institution, economy, or nation-state (Lotterman,
2014; Smith et al., 2014, Chap. 9). Human history and prehistory are marked by a sustained and ongoing
effort to customize the designs of technological, environmental, and organizational systems to meet human
needs (Aldrete, 2011). From this perspective, viewed as the practice of integrating design and performance
to mediate human productivity, survival and progress, E/HF may be considered as an essential aspect of the
human condition (Flach, 1994), that originated as both a product and a determinant of human evolution
(Smith et al., 2014, Chap. 11; Smith and Smith, 1993). It is reasonable to suggest, therefore, that E/HF
science should play a central role in guiding the effective design and productivity of all human systems, a
role that merits acknowledgment and recognition by professional societies devoted to supporting such
entities.

3. Conclusions
The E/HF philosophic framework advocated here extends earlier formulations with its focus on context
specificity as the fundamental principle of E/HF science, along with the implications of this principle. I have
been championing this idea for many years (Smith, 1998), and more recently have co-authored an entire text
(Smith et al., 2014) devoted to a conceptual and empirical analysis of the prominent contribution of context
specificity to many different modes of human performance variability. These include motor behavioural
performance, cognitive performance, education and learning performance, performance under displaced
feedback, human error, affective performance, social performance, performance of complex socioeconomic
systems, and fracture-critical performance of complex systems. The assumption here is that the broad
generality of this analysis justifies a consideration of the philosophic treatment of the concept, principles and
applications of the idea of context specificity.
In closing, it is worth noting that there is a common denominator to all of the perspectives on E/HF
philosophy addressed above, including that advocated here. Namely, it can be argued that each of these
perspectives to some degree traces its inspiration to the broader framework of the philosophy of science.
The philosophy of science is characterized as a field that deals with what science is, how it works, and the
logic through which we build scientific knowledge (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy). A search of
the worldwide web (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=philosophy+of+social+science) indicates that
philosophical foundations of a range of human sciences have been developed, including anthropology,
economics, history, political science, psychology, and social science. Disappointingly, E/HF science is not
cited in this list of disciplines. Nevertheless, the evident conclusions are that: (1) the present as well as
previous efforts to formulate philosophic principles of E/HF science have an ample precedent in similar
efforts with other domains of human science; and (2) as well, they all fall firmly within the general framework
of the philosophy of science.

4. References
Albin, T. J. 2014. Quantitative Approaches to Physical Ergonomic Issues Encountered While Assessing Workplace
Designs (Doctoral thesis). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Aldrete, G. S. 2011. History of the Ancient World: A Global Perspective. Chantilly, VA: The Great Courses.
Burgess, J. H. 1970. “Ego Involvement in the Systems Design Process.” Human Factors 12 (1): 7-12.
Christensen, J. M. 1976. Ergonomics – Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going. In Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, XXV-XXXIII. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society.
DeLucia, P.R. 2014. “Looking Back, Looking Forward: 55 Years of Human Factors.” Human Factors 56 (5): 813-815.

  4  
 Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015

Flach, J. M. 1994. “Ruminations on Mind, Matter, and What Matters.” In Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, 531-535. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Gillan, D. J., C. D. Wickens, J. G. Hollands, and C. M. Carswell 1998. “Guidelines for Presenting Quantitative Data in
HFES Publications.” Human Factors 40 (1): 28-41.
Hancock, P. A. 2009. Mind, Machine, and Morality: Toward a Philosophy of Human-Technology Symbiosis. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate.
Hignett, S. 2000. “The Philosophy of Ergonomics. Taking a Qualitative Approach.” In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES
2000 Congress, 6-182 - 6-185. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Jagacinski, R. J., and J. M. Flach 2003. “Control Theory for Humans: Quantitative Approaches to Modelling
Performance.” Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lotterman, E. 2014. “The Plus Side of Defense Spending.” In St. Paul Pioneer Press (Nov. 16), pp. 1D, 5D.
Merken, R. S. 1986. “Human Factors and Human Nature: Is Psychological Theory Really Necessary?” Human Factors
Society Bulletin 29 (9): 1-2.
Moray, N. 1994. “‘De Maximis Non Curat Lex’ or How Context Reduces Science to Art in the Practice of Human Factors.
In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, 526-530. Santa Monica, CA:
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Morehouse, L. E. 1958. “A Human Factors Philosophy.” Human Factors 1 (1), 1.
Peacock, B., G. Orr, D. Chaffin, T. Leamon, and R. Radwin 1995. “The Philosophy of Ergonomics Standards (Panel).” In
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, 678. Santa Monica, CA: Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Plaut, W. G. 1981. The Torah. A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
Smith, K. U. 1972. “Cybernetic Psychology.” In The Psychomotor Domain, edited by R. N. Singer, 285-348. New York:
Lea and Febiger.
Smith, K. U. 1987. “Origins of Human Factors Science.” Human Factors Society Bulletin 30 (4): 1-3.
Smith, K. U., and T. J. Smith 1993. “Human-Computer Interaction and the Automation of Work.” In Human-Computer
Interaction: Software and Hardware Interfaces, edited by M. Smith and G. Salvendy, 837-842. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Smith, T. J. 1994. “Core Principles of Human Factors Science.” In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society 38th Annual Meeting, 536-540. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Smith, T. J. 1998. “Context Specificity in Performance - The Defining Problem for Human Factors/Ergonomics.” In
Proceedings of the Human Factors/ Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 692-696. Santa Monica, CA:
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Smith, T. J., R. A. Henning, and K. U. Smith 1994. “Sources of Performance Variability.” In Design of Work and
Development of Personnel in Advanced Manufacturing, edited by G. Salvendy and W. Karwowski, 273-330. New
York: Wiley.
Smith, T. J., R. Henning, M. G. Wade, and T. Fisher, T. 2014. Variability in Human Performance. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.  
Smith, T. J., and O. Merhi 2006. “Ergonomic performance standards and regulations - their scientific and operational
basis.” In Handbook of Standards and Guidelines in Human Factors and Ergonomics, edited by W. Karwowski,
Chap. 3, 79-108. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  5