Participatory Design for Optimizing the Implementation of New Transport Technology

  • Elise CrawfordEmail author
  • Yvonne Toft
  • Ryan Kift
  • Geoff Dell
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)


The achievement of a seamless transportation system can potentially offer many efficiencies and passenger experience benefits. In support of this objective, many business units are moving towards a model similar to air traffic control. However, lack of attention to the user experience at the control desk can negatively extend to the user experience of customers. Considering current advancements and risk potential, it is prudent to learn from the systems integration experiences of others. To achieve this aim, this study captured the unique experiences of end-users of new technology for safety-critical control systems. The results showed that a lack of end-user participation during the design process could put optimal system performance at risk. An ‘exemplary’ participatory process is shared, along with some of the benefits of following this method for end users. The paper closes with future research directions.


Human factors Human-systems integration Participatory design Systems engineering Safety-critical systems 



The authors wish to thank all participants for their contributions and the following organizations: Air Services Australia: Rockhampton, Brisbane, and Melbourne; Stanwell Power Station; Metrol Rail Melbourne; Queensland Rail, Rockhampton, and Ergon Energy Rockhampton.


  1. 1.
    Allgöwer, S.: Facts, trends and stories on Integrated mobility’, Como. 10, Siemens, AG, Infrastructure & Cities Sector, Mobility and Logistics Division, Munich (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, R.: UNIFE World rail market study 2016: presentation of highlights.
  3. 3.
    Hollnagel, E.: The ETTO Principle: Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off. Ashgate, Farnham (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crawford, E.G.C., Kift, R.L.: Keeping track of railway safety and the mechanisms of risk. Safety Sci. (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crawford, E.G.C., Toft, Y., Kift, R.L.: New technology adoption: risky business for the railways. In Burgess-Limerick, R. (ed.) Safer and More Productive Workplaces: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the HFESA, pp. 105–114. HFESA Inc., Sydney (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Eason, K.: Ergonomic interventions in the implementation of new technical systems. In: Wilson, J.R., Sharples, S. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work, 4th edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Besnard, D.: Assessing the performance of human-machine interaction in e-drilling operations. In: Albrechtsen, E., Besnard, D. (eds.) Oil and Gas, Technology and Humans: Assessing the Human Factors of Technological Change. Ashgate, Farnham (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toft, Y.: Creating designs ‘fit’ for people. [manuscript]: a transdisciplinary approach (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crawford, E.G.C., Toft, Y., Kift, R.L.: Attending to technology adoption in railway control rooms to increase functional resilience. In: Harris, D. (ed.) EPCE 2014, vol. 8532, pp. 447–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown, T.: Change by Design. Harper Business, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferreira, P.N., Balfe, N.: The contribution of automation to resilience in rail traffic control. Paper presented at the EPCE 2014, Crete, Greece (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson, J.R., Sharples, S.: Evaluation of Human Work, 4th edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elise Crawford
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yvonne Toft
    • 1
  • Ryan Kift
    • 1
  • Geoff Dell
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations