ACD 3 as a framework for design of ergonomic workplaces

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Workplace Ergonomics and Human Factors (E/HF) remains as relevant and important as ever to respond to contemporary workplace design challenges. Therefore, E/HF expertise must be involved in early and appropriate phases of the workplace design process, in order to leverage user needs and requirements to constrain the proposed design solution. In this process, design decisions are made.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this article is to describe the use of a systems-theoretical framework as a guide in collaborative workplace design, focussing on planning and documenting which decisions and activities should involve E/HF expertise.

METHODS:

As this is a conceptual paper, its method is to synthesise a framework from a combination of design process methodology-, general systems theory- and sociotechnical systems literature.

RESULTS:

The framework organises the design decisions to be made into hierarchical abstraction levels and cross-cuts them into five perspectives from which the design problem can be viewed holistically.

CONCLUSIONS:

The ACD³ framework is intended as an enabler of many types of design, including the design of work systems. It provides a framework that allows all stakeholders to converge around design decisions that ensure that the work system is optimised to human characteristics and the activity to be performed.

Keywords

Activity centred design ergonomic activities ergonomic design systems theory

1 Introduction

This paper originated as a companion article to the short course “Designing Work Systems Using the ACD³ (Activity-Centered Design) framework” at the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA). It proposes and elaborates a thinking tool for cross-disciplinary design teams to systemically approach the ergonomic design of a complex workplace. It draws on a combination of design research, systems theory, and Ergonomics and Human Factors (E/HF) knowledge, from the point of view of a design-influencing stakeholder.

E/HF involvement in design has repeatedly been shown to succeed only if E/HF expertise is brought in early and consistently enough in the design of workplaces; if not, it risks being reduced to a reactive, individual injury-focused intervention, brought in from a medical perspective. To counteract this, E/HF must be addressed early - and in appropriate phases - of the workplace design process. To gain appropriate influence, E/HF professionals need to foster a strong collaboration with other roles and professionals involved in the workplace design process. It must therefore be clarified to all parties how E/HF fits into workplace design process and what benefits it can give to the project as a whole.

ACD³ [1, 2] stands for “Activity-Centered Design in 3 dimensions”, and is a design tool used to facilitate design decision-making at different system levels. This allows design teams to better coordinate design decisions so that high-level decisions (like problem definitions, desired system effects and visions) are matched by the lower-level decisions (like work tasks, architectural configurations, technical solutions, instructions and organisation). The framework provides the design team with a common language and visual support to make sure that all design decisions are internally coherent with the overall purpose of the design project.

ACD³ is intended as an enabler of many types of design, including the design of work systems. It provides a structure and working process that allows all stakeholders to converge around design decisions that ensure that the work system is optimised to human needs and the activity to be performed. The framework drives the design team to question and formulate the design from many perspectives, from the problem to be solved all the way down to detailed interactions and technical solution principles. Its main principle is to make sure that the team consistently views and questions the design space at the same detail level, by using the abstraction-level concept to guide the decision-making. Furthermore, the framework is meant to provide a visualisation, a documentation structure and a language for the different, necessary interlinkages between design decisions at different levels. A further purpose is to indicate how the E/HF expertise at each stage must shift in scope and character across the phases of the workplace design process.

The aim of this paper is to describe the use of ACD³ as a guide for workplace design, with particular focus on which activities should involve ergonomics expertise, and how ACD³ has its roots in activity theory [3], systems engineering [4], product development [5], and human factors [6]. The variant known as ACD³-Production [7] is used here to structure the E/HF professional’s input into a workplace design process, and clarify the design decisions that are pertinent to ergonomics.

Some terms used in this paper to clarify the relation between E/HF activities and the workplace development process:

Design variable - A property related to the product that can be specified from the point of view of the designer.

Design decisions - A design decision is made when the possible value of a design variable is constrained. A design decision eliminates other solution variants once the choice is made.

Design levels - The abstraction level, or detail/granularity level, at which the design decisions are currently being constrained.

Design activities - Specific goal-oriented activities carried out by designers/developers for the purpose of identifying, assigning value to and communicating design variables.

E/HF activities - The use of ergonomics and human factors-related knowledge, methods and tools to optimise the use- and user aspects of the product development.

System resolution - Viewing of the product as a system that has multiple levels of abstraction, focusing on the relations between elements on that level.

Development work - The gradual formation of a product, technical system or service, with its starting point in a defined problem or a need. Development work is performed in a development process.

Technical development - The portion of product development that is purely concerned with setting and fulfilling requirement specifications to optimise technical performance.

2 The workplace design process according to Activity-Centred Design

A design process involves gradually constraining the proposed design solution to an exact description of its structure and contents — in ACD³ terminology, design decisions are made. A work system is by necessity a sociotechnical system, as its successful operation is dependent on the interplay between humans, tasks, technology and organisations [8 –12]. Designing this successful interplay requires a broader scope than just a human-machine interaction perspective; it will become necessary to also design the work itself, and the organisation around it that will make it possible. This is not frequently within the decision scope of an engineer, designer or ergonomist, so roles with sufficient authority and mandate to decide such aspects need to be involved in the top-down design process. To ensure their buy-in, it becomes crucial to explicitly define the entire work system’s purpose, and make sure that no sub-system’s design will inadvertently counteract that purpose. Designing a work system therefore includes consideration of and decision-making about Goals, People, Buildings/Infrastructure, Technology, Processes/Procedures and Culture, under the external influence of Stakeholders, Financial/Economic Circumstances, and Regulatory frameworks [12, p.3]; evidently, considerations from many different perspectives and system levels. Berlin [13] compared four cases of how different manufacturing companies deal with E/HF work at different systems levels, and it appears that their propensity for doing so proactively or reactively is very much a result of choosing which stakeholders to allow into the workplace design process, when, and by which means of involvement.

Optimisation of any work system requires a sociotechnical systems view, in order to avoid sub-optimisation caused by too much focus on any subsystem and inadvertently causing ripple effects that may endanger the safe and efficient operation of the work; many examples exist of undesirable events that have resulted from underestimating this interdependency [14].

At the same time, design work is closely associated with process-orientation [5]. There is a risk, depending on the expectations from other stakeholders, that designers and engineers are expected to work directly at a very concrete, technically specific level; if the purpose and intended effects of the system have not been clearly defined, the aforementioned risk of sub-optimisation of the whole system is present.

Zink et al. [15] point to the dangers of lacking vertical harmonisation (i.e., when change management processes are carried out even though they are not congruent with policy and strategy) or a lack of horizontal harmonisation (i.e. “lacking a logical fit between the single concepts”, p. 530). It is clear that a systems view, loosely defined, may not be sufficient. It appears that design decisions could benefit from being made in a specific, guided order that allows the design team to move consciously between different “system levels”, i.e. different design detail levels, when making decisions.

As the detail level of the development work becomes more specific over time, different E/HF aspects may be relevant as design input across different phases of designing the workplace. ACD³ proposes that any work system must be internally coherent regarding design decisions at the same abstraction level, or “design levels”. The use of these abstraction levels helps the design team to avoid “unintentional” design decision conflicts that may endanger the overall purpose and desired effect of the system, from the perspectives of function, activity or structure (Table 1).

Table 1
The five design levels of the ACD³-Production framework

Design level System view Principal design decisions

Effect Macrosystem (Sociotechnical) The impact/intended effects that the work system should achieve

Operation Mesosystem (Sociotechnical) How the work system should perform its functions in order to achieve the desired effects (defined by inputs/outputs), and how the workers and stakeholders use the work system

Architecture Human-machine systems (overall) The overall architecture and physical limits of the work system i.e. how humans, machines and support structures should be distributed spatially to achieve technical functionality and enable performance

Work Human-machine subsystems (workstations) How technology and users should interact to carry out work, and how the technology should respond to its users and environment.

Tools/Information Machine systems and instructions Which concrete technological enablers (materials, tools, instructions) are required for humans and machines to perform the work tasks

Design level	System view	Principal design decisions
Effect	Macrosystem (Sociotechnical)	The impact/intended effects that the work system should achieve
Operation	Mesosystem (Sociotechnical)	How the work system should perform its functions in order to achieve the desired effects (defined by inputs/outputs), and how the workers and stakeholders use the work system
Architecture	Human-machine systems (overall)	The overall architecture and physical limits of the work system i.e. how humans, machines and support structures should be distributed spatially to achieve technical functionality and enable performance
Work	Human-machine subsystems (workstations)	How technology and users should interact to carry out work, and how the technology should respond to its users and environment.
Tools/Information	Machine systems and instructions	Which concrete technological enablers (materials, tools, instructions) are required for humans and machines to perform the work tasks

If the design team successfully stays at the same design level during discussions, chances improve that discussions will not stall because of differing system-level focus among members when prioritizing solutions. For example, if the team is at a stage where they are guided towards designing the intended effects of the workplace, it is less likely that discussions will be about e.g. material choices, machine brands or other granular technical decisions.

Even though the design decisions are described at distinct levels, the design work at the different levels is often carried out iteratively and in parallel. This means that activities at several levels can and should take place in parallel rather than sequentially, and should be iterated both within and between the levels to arrive at well-aligned design decisions that fit into the workplace as a coherent whole. Iteration between the levels may also be justified since new information emerges later in the design work, creating a need to re-evaluate earlier design decisions (since not all pertinent information is available from the beginning).

3 Integrating E/HF activities into the workplace design process

Far too often, E/HF experts get involved in influencing a workplace from a reactive perspective when it is already in operation (e.g. through an occupational health and safety function). To counteract this, there is a need for design process methodologies that actively draw in an E/HF expert early in the design process, so that their input is sought proactively and can contribute to the elimination or mitigation of risks in the workplace, instead of addressing and ameliorating already sustained injuries [16]. The ACD³-Production framework can be a good guide to establishing what type of E/HF input is relevant for each type of design decision as indicated by the design level, as this may not be obvious to everyone in a cross-functional team. To depart from the idea that an E/HF expert cannot provide input until a representation of the workplace has already been designed, it is important to attach a clear idea of what kinds of E/HF knowledge can fruitfully inform the design decisions at each level.

The design levels in the ACD³-Production framework (Table 1) are based on making design decisions at the “abstraction level” which addresses the “system resolution” at which the work system is viewed — in other words, the work system can either be viewed as a “black box” that turns inputs into outputs [8], or the sub-system levels and their components can be made explicit. Regardless, the visualisation that results from using ACD³-Production can serve as a mediating object [3 , 18] for all members of the design team to focus on a visualised common ground for discussion. This helps the team determine what the purpose and problems are with the workplace, what desired system effects should be reinforced, and how to propose targeted design changes. The first level in particular may benefit strongly from an initial stakeholder analysis, e.g. the Change Agent Infrastructure (CHAI) method [19], with which the E/HF expert and the other team members identify and involve stakeholders who should influence and have insight into the design decisions at each design level. Furthermore, the content of each of the design levels can then be considered a “checklist” for achieving sufficient E/HF input to avoid building in risks to the system, but also to avoid over-constraining the subsequent design decisions prematurely.

Across the design levels that ACD³ specifies, E/HF work has a natural role to play in supporting the overall workplace design. Tasks carried out by E/HF professionals typically include investigation, evaluation, generating design alternatives and proposing interventions (which may sometimes include design modifications). Furthermore, E/HF activities involve continuously evaluating the appropriateness of design decisions against the work task and with workers.

The following subsections describe each of the design levels in ACD³-Production (which prescribes a shifting perspective at each design level to define increasingly detailed requirements), alongside appropriate E/HF activities within each of the design levels. The design levels are summarised at the end in Table 2, which specifies tasks that E/HF professionals should be involved in at each design level.

Table 2
Specific tasks for E/HF professionals to participate in and/or lead at different design levels

Design level Tasks for E/HF professionals Systems view and outputs

Effect – investigate and describe the main purpose(s) that justify the work system’s existence and goals (current or intended) – consider the entire sociotechnical environment of the workplace

– investigate the delimitations of the development work (e.g. existing subsystems that cannot be changed) – identify the problems the stakeholders face when pursuing the desired effects

– identify and describe stakeholders (workers, leaders, maintenance staff etc.)

– involve workforce representatives in participative processes at planning and problem identification stages

Operation – perform in-depth analysis of work system goals and functions – consider the work system as a whole

– design the intended production of the work system – formulate the intended activities in the work system

– explore ideas for overarching production principles – specify the division of activities between humans and machines

– investigate and specify intended use and user requirements

– specify requirements stemming from intended activities needed to reach the work system goals

– evaluate the intended activities with workforce representatives

Architecture – analyse the spatial and sequential needs for humans and machines in the available space – consider the physical boundaries of the space (and time frame) that the work will occur in

– investigate limitations and possibilities of the workplace’s physical expanse and its boundaries – specify the architectural layout that satisfies the intended production

– support the design of architectural concepts for the workplace

– involve workforce representatives in participative processes at layout-planning stage

Work – support the definition and specification of work tasks, including their organisation, staffing and scheduling – consider the interaction of resources (technology and users), e.g. at workstation level

– involve workforce representatives in participative processes to evaluate physical and cognitive interaction – specify the goals of the work done by humans

– specify resource organisation and tasks

– specify how, when and why workers should perform their activities and tasks

Tools/Information – test and evaluate individual worker-machine or worker-information interactions – consider the technological sub-systems of the work system

– identify usability and physical ergonomics issues, using mock-ups and/or model representations – specify the complete technical design specification of the tools and instructions

– involve workforce representatives in participative processes at “near-realisation stage”, trying out specific tasks using the proposed tools and information carriers

– suggest specific design modifications to ensure inclusion of the whole workforce, with regard to cognitive and physical variations

Design level	Tasks for E/HF professionals	Systems view and outputs
Effect	– investigate and describe the main purpose(s) that justify the work system’s existence and goals (current or intended)	– consider the entire sociotechnical environment of the workplace
	– investigate the delimitations of the development work (e.g. existing subsystems that cannot be changed)	– identify the problems the stakeholders face when pursuing the desired effects
	– identify and describe stakeholders (workers, leaders, maintenance staff etc.)
	– involve workforce representatives in participative processes at planning and problem identification stages
Operation	– perform in-depth analysis of work system goals and functions	– consider the work system as a whole
	– design the intended production of the work system	– formulate the intended activities in the work system
	– explore ideas for overarching production principles	– specify the division of activities between humans and machines
	– investigate and specify intended use and user requirements
	– specify requirements stemming from intended activities needed to reach the work system goals
	– evaluate the intended activities with workforce representatives
Architecture	– analyse the spatial and sequential needs for humans and machines in the available space	– consider the physical boundaries of the space (and time frame) that the work will occur in
	– investigate limitations and possibilities of the workplace’s physical expanse and its boundaries	– specify the architectural layout that satisfies the intended production
	– support the design of architectural concepts for the workplace
	– involve workforce representatives in participative processes at layout-planning stage
Work	– support the definition and specification of work tasks, including their organisation, staffing and scheduling	– consider the interaction of resources (technology and users), e.g. at workstation level
	– involve workforce representatives in participative processes to evaluate physical and cognitive interaction	– specify the goals of the work done by humans
		– specify resource organisation and tasks
		– specify how, when and why workers should perform their activities and tasks
Tools/Information	– test and evaluate individual worker-machine or worker-information interactions	– consider the technological sub-systems of the work system
	– identify usability and physical ergonomics issues, using mock-ups and/or model representations	– specify the complete technical design specification of the tools and instructions
	– involve workforce representatives in participative processes at “near-realisation stage”, trying out specific tasks using the proposed tools and information carriers
	– suggest specific design modifications to ensure inclusion of the whole workforce, with regard to cognitive and physical variations

3.1 Effect

The goal of the first design level of the ACD³-Production framework is to explicitly formulate the designed system’s intended effects (e.g. in a production context: to produce higher-quality products at the same cost). Another purpose is to investigate and determine what each stakeholder values and requires of the solution, which leads to the formulation of a high-level requirement specification that does not yet constrain the workplace technically, but clarifies its purpose.

The focus is on the effects that the workplace should achieve and the problems the stakeholders face in achieving them, thus the design work is stakeholder-centred. This design level is informed by the entire sociotechnical environment that the workplace will be introduced into, with a particular focus on the users of the workplace (where “users” refers to both those who directly use the workplace and those who indirectly are affected by it, such as maintenance personnel). The main design output from the effect design level is the formulation of the desired effect that the workplace is intended to achieve in the work system, while the main requirements from the design level specify the needs that the work system must fulfil.

For E/HF professionals, the main goals at this design level are: to identify requirements from the workers and the work situation; how the environment affects and places demands on the future workplace; and how the workplace should affect its environment. This includes involving workforce representatives in participative processes at the planning and problem-identification stage. The output is then to formulate system effect-goals from a worker perspective. Furthermore, ergonomics approaches can support the design, e.g. by evaluating existing similar workplaces as a form of benchmarking.

3.2 Operation

The purpose of the second design level is to investigate and determine how the work system should perform its functions in order to achieve the desired effects, as well as which overarching production principles that are needed to turn input into output (e.g. using kitting and parallel assembly flows).

The focus is on the work activities, making the work use-centred, and the system level scope considers the work system as a whole (i.e. this design level “zooms in” relative to the previous sociotechnical system resolution). The main output from this design level is a formulation of the intended activities within the work system, and how they are divided between humans and machines. This design level specifies requirements stemming from the activities that are needed to reach the system goals (and consequently, achieve the effects).

The main objectives for E/HF professionals at this design level are to specify the tasks that the worker performs within the work system, and to define requirements based on the intended production activities.

3.3 Architecture

The purpose of the third design level of ACD³-Production is to investigate and determine how resources (i.e. humans, machines and support structures) should be distributed spatially to achieve the technical functionality that enables performance (e.g. the layout of a factory with a flow of material). This includes investigating what constitutes a workplace (i.e. identifying both its physical expanse and its boundaries) and determining the main principle of the layout and flows of materials, people, energy and information.

The development work in this design level is layout-centric. The main design output from this design level is the architectural layout that satisfies the intended production (as elaborated by the previous design level), and the main requirements identified at this design level specify the demands that the machine parts (including tools and instructions) must meet in order to enable or afford the intended production.

The main objectives for E/HF professionals at this design level are to participate in and support the design of architectural solution concepts for the workplace with regard to worker body sizes and movements, as well as supporting the formulation of detailed design requirements. This includes involving workforce representatives in participative processes at the layout planning stage.

3.4 Work

The purpose of the fourth design level is to investigate and determine how the resources (technology and users) in the work system should interact to carry out work, how the technology should respond to the users and the environment, and how the technical subsystems of the work system will work together (e.g. a mix of manual assembly and human-robot collaboration).

Consequently, the focus of this design level is to investigate and determine how, when and why workers should perform their activities and tasks. The main outputs at this level are the specification of organisation and tasks, therefore the design work now becomes focused on worker goal specification. The design outputs may focus on training and instructions for the workers.

The main objectives for E/HF professionals here are to support the definition and specification of work tasks, their organisation, staffing and scheduling.

3.5 Tools / Information

The purpose of the fifth design level of the ACD³-Production is to investigate and determine what concrete technological enablers the resources (primarily humans) require to perform the work tasks that have been defined and constrained in the higher design levels (e.g. hand tools that can accommodate all users’ hand sizes, and fixtures to guide correct product assembly)

The focus at this design level is the supporting system of the work system, i.e. how technology serves the workers to achieve their goals specified at the Work level. The main output from the design level is a complete technical design specification of the tools and instructions.

The main objectives for E/HF professionals here are to support the design of tools, information flows, usage manuals and instructions. This is mainly done by:

testing and evaluating individual human-machine or human-information interactions

identifying usability and physical ergonomics issues, using model representations

involving workforce representatives in participative processes at “near-realisation stage”

suggesting design modifications to ensure inclusion of the whole workforce with regard to cognitive and physical variations.

3.6 Summary

The ACD³-Production framework has great potential to reinforce the timely involvement of E/HF stakeholders in the workplace design process, so that their inputs have a chance to inform the design before it is too constrained. This also helps to clarify to what degree E/HF stakeholders have a mandate for decision-making. For example, when a stakeholder has a limited scope of responsibility (or mandate) to influence the design at a lower design level, a new stakeholder with the appropriate mandate at a higher design level may need to be involved in the process to “unlock” the possibility for change. ACD³-Production can then act as a tool to guide the discussion, so that the new and old stakeholders discuss the work system at the same abstraction level and avoid “talking past” each other when trying to achieve a consensus on the design.

4 Discussion

Contemporary developments that are currently challenging many organisations (and their workplace designers) include demographics (in certain European and Asian countries a shrinking and aging work population), new rapid developments brought about by digitalised technology and work tasks, and a continual evolution of workplace conditions. These challenges mean that workplace ergonomics is as relevant and important as ever. Remembering to include E/HF competence in a timely manner as organisations move from understanding the challenges to actually implementing design changes will be crucial, and ACD³-Production stands a good chance of supporting such involvement by highlighting which design decisions are interdependent.

A prerequisite for the ACD³ framework to work and provide value, is that one or more actors in the work design process should “own” the responsibility of following up that the team uses the ACD³ design levels to guide and document design decisions. However, using the framework is not a solo job, but a team effort, so the “process owner” should have the mandate and network to call in core team members whose influence on the workplace design is crucial (especially E/HF, but also the affected workforce). The competence required to use the framework is to have a basic understanding of project management processes, and to have been introduced to the ACD³ framework previously. In addition to these basic requirements, it is possible that ACD³ owners who have knowledge in systems thinking, design processes and ergonomics may have an extra “edge” and depth of understanding when using the framework.

According to Berlin et al. [16], ergonomists frequently work from an OHS perspective and are not always given access to working proactively in the design process, so there is a need for earlier involvement of E/HF professionals in such design or modification processes to truly draw out value from their knowledge and competence of human well-being in parallel with system performance. By suggesting very specific activities that the ergonomist can engage in at different stages of the work, ACD³ aims to increase the understanding among other stakeholders of what the E/HF professional can bring as valuable input.

E/HF professionals also need methods to be able to perform the suggested activities with consistency, especially methods that support the prioritisation of requirements, identification of solutions, management of design information as well as the evaluation of design solutions (in terms of trade-offs and cost-benefits) [20]. It also important to integrate worker experience inputs during the whole design process, since it might be hard to know what input to seek early in the process, especially if the objectives change (which has been highlighted by Bittencourt et al. [21]. Further work with ACD³-Production will focus on which methods are most useful at each design level and how to include worker experience in an efficient and effective manner.

For the ACD³ approach to work, it is important to start with a sociotechnical approach to ergonomics and occupational safety to avoid missing the bigger picture, e.g. consideration of all the affected stakeholders. Wilson [22] provides a useful background to systems thinking within ergonomics and highlights six features of Systems E/HF. Another example is Dainoff [23] who presents a sociotechnical approach to occupational safety. When dealing with the identification of stakeholders, a stakeholder analysis method that works well with ACD³ is the aforementioned CHAI [19], which originally stems from a study [16] of how ergonomists and industrial engineers manage stakeholder relations when acting as ergonomics change agents in workplaces.

5 Conclusion

A collaborative framework to guide the design of workplaces, and the inclusion of E/HF expertise in that process, has been proposed and described. It includes a prescriptive guide for what type of activities an E/HF professional can contribute with in the different stages of designing (or modifying) a workplace, ideally from a top-down perspective so that the team is assured that no detailed solutions (regarding technology or human organisation) run counter to the system’s intended purpose and desired effects; and in particular, do not harm or diminish the health and motivation of the humans in the work system.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Berlin

, Bligård

L-O

, Simonsen

. Using the ACD³-ladder to manage multi-phase requirements on end-user products. 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vancouver. 2017.

Bligård

L-O

, Simonsen

, Berlin

, editors. ACD elevated 3 - A new framework for activity-centered design. NordDesign Trondheim 2016. 2016.

Karlsson

ICM

. User requirements elicitation - A framework for the study of the relation between user and artefact. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology. 1996.

INCOSE. What is Systems Engineering? International Council on Systems Engineering. 2016.

Eppinger

, Ulrich

. Product design and development. Product Design and Development. 1995.

IEA. International ergonomics association web page, 2016. [Available from: http://www.iea.cc/.]

Berlin

, Bligård

L-O

. An activity centered design framework for determining design decision levels in production systems. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 2016; 455–63.

Bellgran

, Säfsten

. Production development: Design and operation of production systems: Springer Science & Business Media. 2009.

Carayon

. Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Applied Ergonomics. 2006;37(4):525–35.

10.

Hendrick

. Ergonomics in organizational design and management. Ergonomics. 1991;34(6):743–56.

11.

Clegg

. Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics. 2000;31(5):463–77.

12.

Davis

, Challenger

, Jayewardene

, Clegg

. Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: A Call for bravery. Appl Ergon. 2014; 45(2):171–80.

13.

Berlin

. Human Factors Experiences in Context - Comparing Four Industrial Cases Using a Soft Systems Framework. The Ergonomics Open Journal. 2011; 4: 131–44.

14.

Hendrick

, Kleiner

. Macroergonomics: An Introduction to work system design. Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2001.

15.

Zink

, Steimle

, Schroder

. Comprehensive change management concepts. Development of a participatory approach. Appl Ergon. 2008; 39(4):527–38.

16.

Berlin

, Neumann

, Theberge

, Örtengren

. Avenues of entry: How industrial engineers and ergonomists access and influence human factors and ergonomics issues. European Journal of Industrial Engineering. 2014; 8(3):325–48.

17.

Broberg

, Andersen

, Seim

. Participatory ergonomics in design processes: The Role of boundary objects. Applied Ergonomics. 2011; 42(3):464–72.

18.

Österman

, Berlin

, Bligård

L-O

. Involving users in a ship bridge re-design process using scenarios and mock-up models. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2016; 53: 236–44.

19.

Berlin

, Berglund

, Lindskog

. Change agent infrastructure (CHAI)— a stakeholder analysis tool for ergonomics- and work environment-related change projects. Advances in Intelligent Systemsand Computing. 2017;715–26.

20.

Punchihewa

HKG

, Gyi

. Reducing work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs) through design: Views of ergonomics and design practitioners. Work. 2016; 53(1):127–42.

21.

Bittencourt

, Duarte

, Béguin

. From the past to the future: Integrating work experience into the design process. Work. 2017; 57(3):379–87.

22.

Wilson

. Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Applied Ergonomics. 2014; 45(1):5–13.

23.

Dainoff

. A sociotechnical approach to occupational safety. Work. 2017; 56(3):359–70.