The complexity of today’s sociotechnical systems has prompted researchers and practitioners to advocate new holistic approaches to safety. However, many engineering standards, methods and processes for addressing technical, human and organizational factors do not fully reflect this. This article investigates known project management challenges and how they can explain the lack of attention to human factors issues in the design and development of new technology. As such, the work contributes to a research stream investigating why the human factors discipline is repeatedly marginalized in engineering projects. This article reports on findings from a case study – a research and innovation project developing technology and concepts for human–robot collaboration. We conclude that a narrow focus on early project phases and insufficient information coordination contribute to marginalizing the role of human factors in the design and development of new technology.
NaghdaliFLevaMCBalfeN. Human factors engineering at design stage: is there a need for more structured guidelines and standards?Chem Engineer Trans2014; 36: 577–582.
2.
LevaMCNaghdaliFAlunniCC. Human factors engineering in system design: a roadmap for improvement. Proc CIRP2015; 38: 94–99.
3.
DiftlerMAMehlingJAbdallahME. Robonaut 2 – the first humanoid robot in space. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Shanghai, China, 9–13 May 2011, pp.2178–2183. New York: IEEE.
ZambonelliFOmiciniAScerriP. Coordination in large-scale socio-technical systems: introduction to the special section. IEEE T Emerg Top Comput2016; 4: 5–8.
7.
TaylorJR. Statistics of design error in the process industries. Safety Sci2007; 45: 61–73.
8.
JohnsenSO. An investigation of resilience in complex socio-technical systems to improve safety and continuity in integrated operations. Doctoral Dissertation, Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2012.
9.
SætrenGBHogenboomSLaumannK. A study of a technological development process: human factors – the forgotten factors?Cogn Technol Work2016; 18: 595–611.
10.
SamsetKVoldenGH. Front-end definition of projects: ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and project governance. Int J Proj Manag2016; 34: 297–313.
AtkinsonRCrawfordLWardS. Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. Int J Proj Manag2006; 24: 687–698.
16.
AarsethWSorhaugHC. Improving business performance in multi-company projects through ‘cooperative power’: presentation of a collaborative tool model. Int J Bus Perform Manag2009; 11: 364–382.
17.
JohnsenSOSteneTMKongsvikTØ. Human dependability in space control operations – a HOT perspective. In: SteenbergenRDJMvan GelderPHAJMMiragliaS. (eds) ESREL. Amsterdam; London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, p.58.
18.
FossumKMohammadAB. Approaching human-robot interaction with resilience. In: SgobbaTRongierI (eds) Space safety is no accident. Cham: Springer, 2015, pp.295–302.
19.
FossumKDanielsenBEMohammadAB. Laying the basis for resilient human-robot interactions in future space exploration missions. In: PodofilliniLSudretBStojadinovicB. (eds) Safety and reliability of complex engineered systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015, pp.2883–2888.
20.
FossumKDanielsenBBergC. Analyzing safety strategies at the front-end of projects. In: WallsLRevieMBedfordT (eds) Risk, reliability and safety: innovating theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2016, pp.1201–1208.
21.
SalvendyG. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
22.
KarwowskiW. Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems. Ergonomics2005; 48: 436–463.
ReasonJ. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. London: Routledge, 2016.
25.
LichtDMPolzellaDJBoffKR. Human factors, ergonomics and human factors engineering: an analysis of definitions. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center, 1989.
26.
BoringR. Meeting human reliability requirements through human factors design, testing, and modeling. In: AvenTVinnemJE (eds) Risk, reliability and societal safety, vol. 1. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2007, pp.3–8.
27.
ChapanisA. To communicate the human factors message, you have to know what the message is and how to communicate it. Hum Fact Soc Bull1991; 34: 1–4.
28.
SkogdalenJEVinnemJE. Quantitative risk analysis offshore – human and organizational factors. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2011; 96: 468–479.
29.
ReasonJ. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1997.
30.
ReasonJ. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
31.
RasmussenJ. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Safety Sci1997; 27: 183–213.
32.
CullenLWD. The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster. London: HMSO, 1993, p.49.
GodwinR. Columbia accident investigation report. Burlington, ON, Canada: Apogee Books, 2003.
37.
VaughanD. The challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture and deviance at NASA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009, p.1 (online resource 594 s).
38.
StarbuckWFarjounM. Organization at the limit: lessons from the Columbia disaster. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
39.
TillmanBPickettLMartinL. Human factors engineering standards at NASA. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008, pp.1999–2002.
40.
NASA. NASA human research roadmap. Washington, DC: NASA, 2013.
41.
DohertyNF. Re-envisioning the role of benefits realisation in a world dominated by robots. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 10th international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS), Grenoble, 1–3 June 2016, pp.1–6. New York: IEEE.
42.
LevenPHutchinsonS. A framework for real-time path planning in changing environments. Int J Robot Res2002; 21: 999–1030.
43.
Schumann-OlsenHBakkenMHolhjemØH. Parallel dynamic roadmaps for real-time motion planning in complex dynamic scenes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on robots in clutter: perception and interaction, Chicago, IL, 18 September 2015. IEEE.
44.
BarnesTAPashbyIGibbonsA. Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool. Int J Proj Manag2006; 24: 395–404.
45.
MidlerC. ‘Projectification’ of the firm: the Renault case. Scand J Manag1995; 11: 363–375.
46.
PackendorffJLindgrenM. Projectification and its consequences: narrow and broad conceptualisations. S Afr J Econ Manag S2014; 17: 7–21.
47.
LenfleS. Floating in space? On the strangeness of exploratory projects. Proj Manag J2016; 47: 47–61.
48.
MillerRLessardDRMichaudP. The strategic management of large engineering projects: shaping institutions, risks, and governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
49.
WilliamsTMSamsetKSunnevågKJ. Making essential choices with scant information. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
50.
LochCHDeMeyerAPichM. Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
51.
SandersonJ. Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: a critical discussion of alternative explanations. Int J Proj Manag2012; 30: 432–443.
52.
SimonHA. Administrative behaviour. New York: Macmillan, 1947.
53.
LiebowitzSJMargolisSE. Path dependence, lock-in, and history. J Law Econ Organ1995; 11: 205–226.
54.
SamsetKAndersenBAustengK. To which extent do projects explore the opportunity space? A study of conceptual appraisals and the choice of conceptual solutions. Int J Manag Proj Bus2014; 7: 473–492.
55.
DosiG. Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change. Econ J1997; 107: 1530–1547.
56.
WilliamsTMSamsetKSunnevågK. Making essential choices with scant information: front-end decision-making in major projects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
57.
RolstadåsATommeleinIMorten SchiefloeP. Understanding project success through analysis of project management approach. Int J Manag Proj Bus2014; 7: 638–660.
JohnsenSOBjørkliCSteiroT. CRIOP: a scenario method for crisis intervention and operability analysis. Trondheim: SINTEF, 2011, pp.1–152.
68.
ReasonJT. The human contribution: unsafe acts, accidents and heroic recoveries. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2008.
69.
StebbinsRA. Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2001.
70.
FrickTWReigeluthCM. Formative research: a methodology for creating and improving design theories. In: ReigeluthCM (ed.) Instructional-design theories. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, pp.633–652.
71.
LeeJD. Human factors and ergonomics in automation design. In: SalvendyG (ed.) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. 3rd ed.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2006, pp.1570–1596.
72.
JaafariA. Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: time for a fundamental shift. Int J Proj Manag2001; 19: 89–101.
73.
AholaTKujalaJLaaksonenT. Constructing the market position of a project-based firm. Int J Proj Manag2013; 31: 355–365.
74.
PMBOK. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, 2013.
75.
MüllerRPemselSShaoJ. Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: a literature review. Int J Proj Manag2014; 32: 1309–1320.
76.
DemiseN. OECD principles of corporate governance. In: DemiseNMiwaYNakabayashiM. (eds) Corporate governance in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Springer, 2006, pp.109–117.
77.
OECD. OECD principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD, 2004.
78.
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). Guidelines for emerging risk governance. Lausanne: IRGC, 2015.
79.
JohnsenSOKilskarSSFossumKR. Missing focus on Human Factors -organizational and cognitive ergonomics -in the safety management for the petroleum industry. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J Risk Reliab2017; 231: 400–410.
