Cognitive Engineer’s Multifaceted Role in Participatory Design Processes

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


The paper discusses the importance of Participatory Design Processes in the design/redesign of work systems. It emphasizes the role of cognitive engineers, as well as the importance of their constructive engagement with domain practitioners, in order to develop effective design solutions. This position is documented by the role accomplished by a cognitive engineer during the design process of a prototypical interface for an electricity distribution management system, which was intended to replace the existing hard-wired artifacts (Mimic Diagram, Control panel, Control Desk) in a traditional control room. The paper presents in detail what tools and techniques were used, and which domain practitioners participated at different phases of the interface design cycle (i.e. ethnographic analysis, cognitive work analysis, prototype design and evaluation) to elicit the intended design knowledge. The paper concludes discussing why is it important to establish the role of cognitive engineers in design teams in industry.


Participatory design Cognitive engineer Domain practitioners 


  1. Baxter G, Sommerville I (2011) Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interact Comput 23(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Béguin P (2003) Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interact Comput 15(5):709–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bødker S, Christiansen E, Ehn P, Markussen R, Mogensen P, Trigg R (1993) The AT project: practical research in cooperative design, DAIMI No. PB-454. Department of Computer Science, Aarhus UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Crabtree A (1998) Ethnography in participatory design. In: Proceedings of the 1998 participatory design conference, pp 93–105Google Scholar
  5. Crabtree A (2010) Participatory design – user evaluation. In: Human computer interaction. The University of Nottingham (Handouts in HCI)Google Scholar
  6. Drivalou S (2005) Supporting critical operational conditions in an electricity distribution control room through ecological interfaces. In: Proceedings of EACE 2005, 29 September–01 October, Chania, Greece, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  7. Drivalou S (2008) Building-up cognitive artefacts for a complex socio-technical system. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, 14–17 July, Las Vegas, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Drivalou S (2013) Control rooms in an era of technological and organizational change. In: Workshop “networks and control rooms: practices and challenges in the context of smart”, 20 March, Durham, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  9. Drivalou S, Marmaras N (2003) Tracing interface design solutions for an electricity distribution network control system using the abstraction hierarchy. In: Proceedings IEA 2003, XVth triennial congress, 24–29 August, Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  10. Drivalou S, Marmaras N (2006) Retrofitting artefacts. In: Proceedings of IEA 2006, 10–14 July, Maastricht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Drivalou S, Marmaras N (2009) Supporting skill-, rule-, and knowledge-based behaviour through an ecological interface: an industry-scale application. Int J Ind Ergon 39:947–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flach J (2017) Supporting productive thinking: the semiotic context for cognitive systems engineering (CSE). Appl Ergon 59:612–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frauenberger C, Good J, Keay-Bright W (2010) Phenomenology- a framework for participatory design. In: PDC 2010, November 29 – December 3, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould JD (1995) How to design usable systems. In: Baecker RM, Grudin J, Buxton WAS, Greenberg GS (eds) Readings in human-computer interaction, 2nd edn, pp 93–121. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. Kensing F, Blomberg J (1998) Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput Support Coop Work 7:167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kleiner BM (2004) Macroergonomics as a large work-system transformation technology. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 14(2):99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klump R, Schooley D, Overbye Τ (2002) An advanced visualization platform for real-time simulations. In: 14th power system computation conference (PSCC), June, Sevilla, SpainGoogle Scholar
  18. Light A, Luckin R (2008) Designing for social justice: people, technology, and learning. Futurelab.
  19. Marmaras N, Pavard B (1999) Problem-driven approach to the design of information technology systems supporting complex cognitive tasks. Cogn Technol Work 1:222–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miettinen R, Hasu M (2002) Articulating user needs in collaborative design: towards an activity theoretical approach. Comput Support Collaborative Work 11(1–2):129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muller MJ, Druin A (2010) Participatory design: the third space in HCI. In: Jacko J, Sears A (eds) Handbook of HCI, pp 1050–1075. Erlbaum, MahwayGoogle Scholar
  22. Mumford E (2006) The story of socio-technical design: reflections in its successes, failures and potential. Inf Syst J 16:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rasmussen J (1985) The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 15:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Goodstein LP (1994) Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Reich Y, Konda SL, Monarch IA, Levy, SN, Subrahmanian E (1996). Varieties and issues of participation and design. Des Stud 17(2):165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robertson M (2001) Macroergonomics: a work system design perspective. In: Proceedings of the SELF-ACE 2001 conference – ergonomics for changing work, vol 1Google Scholar
  27. Rouse WB (2003) Engineering complex systems: implications for research in systems engineering. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 33(2):154–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salmon PM (2016a) Bigger, bolder, better: methodological issues in ergonomics science. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 17(4):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salmon PM (2016b) Bridging the gap between ergonomics methods research and practice: methodological Issues in Ergonomics Science Part II. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 17(5–6):459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanderson P, Burns C (2017) Rasmussen and the boundaries of empirical evaluation. Appl Ergon 59:649–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simonsen J, Hertzum M (2008) Participative design and the challenges of large scale systems: extending the iterative CP approach. In: Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design Bloomington, Indiana, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  32. Simonsen J, Robertson T (2013) Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith RC, Bossen C, Kanstrup AM (2017) Participatory design in an era of participation. CoDesign 13(2):65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tory M, Moller T (2004) Human factors in visualization research. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 10(1):72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson JR (2014) Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Appl Ergon 45:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations