Extending System Design Tools to Facilitate Systemic Innovation in Prospective Ergonomics

  • André LiemEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


Through an extensive literature review, this article aims to promote systemic innovation, which is presently too much influenced by context and too limited by rationality. As such, the article argues for the use of systems design methods and tools for anticipating future needs in the development of innovative products and services. Building upon theoretical concepts, such as “Bounded Rationality”, “Situated Design” and “Practice Theory”, systems design methods and tools, such as the Function-Task Interaction Matrix Method and Dependence Structure Matrix, should be made more comprehensive by extending technical and user elements with contextual elements. These matrices help to identify problem fields as well as opportunities by juxtaposing and force-fitting technical, user, and contextual elements.

Conclusively, the application of extended system design tools, such as EDSM define and FTCIM define, represents and incorporates design information. It also demonstrates how scenario-based methods can be effective in identifying innovative products, services and contexts.


Systems design Systemic view Methods and tools 


  1. 1.
    Karwowski W (2005) Ergonomics and human factors: the paradigms for science, engineering, design, technology and management of human-compatible systems. Ergonomics 48(5):436–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci 36(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dul J, Bruder R, Buckle P, Carayon P, Falzon P, Marras WS, Wilson JR, van der Doelen B (2012) A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55(4):377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baxter G, Sommerville I (2011) Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interact Comput 23(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carayon P (2006) Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Appl Ergon 37(4):525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Senge P, Roberts C, Ross RB, Smith BJ, Kleiner A (1994) The fifth discipline field. In: Strategies and tools for building a learning organisation. Currency/Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katz D, Kahn RL (1966) The psychology of organizations. HR Folks International, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chapanis A (1996) Human factors in systems engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Samaras GM, Horst RL (2005) A systems engineering perspective on the human-centered design of health information systems. J Biomed Inform 38(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brangier E, Robert JM (2010) Confèrence pour l’ergonomie prospective: Anticiper de futures activités humaines en vue de concevoir de nouveaux artéfacts. In: Conference Internationale Francophone sur I’Interaction Homme-Machine. ACM, pp 57–64Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mont O (2000) Product-service systems. Shifting corporate focus from selling products to selling product-services: a new approach to sustainable development. IIIEE, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manzini E, Vezzoli C (2003) A strategic design approach to develop sustainable product service systems: examples taken from the ‘environmentally friendly innovation’ Italian prize. J Clean Prod 11(8):851–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morelli N (2003) Product-service systems, a perspective shift for designers: a case study: the design of a telecentre. Des Stud 24(1):73–99MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jordan P (2000) Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bourdieu P (1990) The logic of practice. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schatzki TR (2005) Peripheral vision the sites of organizations. Org Stud 26(3):465–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lave J (1996) Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind Cult Act 3(3):149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suchman L (2007) Feminist STS and the sciences of the artificial. In: New handbook of science and technology studies. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Selten R (1999) What is bounded rationality. Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001), pp 13–36Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huppatz DJ (2015) Revisiting Herbert Simon’s “Science of Design”. Des Issues 31(2):29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Whittington R (2006) Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Org Stud 27(5):613–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simonsen J, Svabo C, Strandvad SM, Samson K, Hertzum M, Hansen OE (2014) Situated design methods. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bjögvinsson E, Pelle E, Hillgren P-A (2012) Design things and design thinking: contemporary participatory design challenges. Des Issues 28(3):101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dougherty E (2004) The balance of practice. Left Brain: Right Brain, 25 February 2010.
  27. 27.
    Schatzki TR (2001) Introduction: practice theory. In: Contemporary theoryGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. Towards a theory of structuration. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Certeau M (1984) The practice of everyday life. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reckwitz A (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: a development in cultural theorizing. Eur J Soc Theor 5(2):243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson G, Huff A (1997) Everyday innovation/everyday strategy. In: Hamel G, Prahalad CK, Thomas H, O’Neal D (eds) Strategic flexibility. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swedberg R, Himmelstrand U, Brulin G (1987) The paradigm of economic sociology: premises and promises. Theor Soc 16(2):169–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Galvao AB, Sato K (2005) Affordances in product architecture: linking technical functions and users’ tasks. In ASME 2005 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 143–153Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Steward DV (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 3:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sato K (2004) Context-sensitive approach for interactive systems design: modular scenario-based methods for context representation. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Hum Sci 23(6):277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Joore P, Brezet H (2015) A multilevel design model: the mutual relationship between product-service system development and societal change processes. J Clean Prod 97:92–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DesignNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations