Convincing Systems Engineers to Use Human Factors During Process Design

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 787)


A controlled between-groups experiment was conducted to demonstrate the value of human factors for process design. Twenty-four Sandia National Laboratories employees completed a simple visual inspection task simulating receipt inspection. The experimental group process was designed to conform to human factors and visual inspection principles, whereas the control group process was designed without consideration of such principles. Results indicated the experimental group exhibited superior performance accuracy, lower workload, and more favorable usability ratings as compared to the control group. The study provides evidence to help human factors experts revitalize the critical message regarding the benefits of human factors involvement for a new generation of systems engineers.


Human factors Human-systems integration Systems engineering User-centered design Mental workload Usability 


  1. 1.
    Bailey, G.: Iterative methodology and designer training in human-computer interface design. In: Ashlund, S., Henderson, A., Hollnagel, E., Mullet, K., White, T. (eds.) Proceedings of INTERCHI 1993, INTERCHI 1993, pp. 198–205. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruseberg, A.: Presenting the value of human factors integration: guidance, arguments, and evidence. Cogn. Technol. Work 10, 181–189 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgess-Limerick, R., Cotea, C., Pietrzak, E.: Human Systems Integration is Worth the Money and Effort! The Argument for the Implementation of Human Systems Integration Processes in Defence Capability Acquisition. Department of Defence, Commonwealth of Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hendrick, H.W.: The ergonomics of economics is the economics of ergonomics. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting, vol. 40, pp. 1–10 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hendrick, H.W.: Applying ergonomics to systems: some documented “Lessons Learned”. Appl. Ergon. 39, 418–426 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rouse, W., Kober, N., Mavor, A. (eds.): The Case for Human Factors in Industry and Government: Report of a Workshop. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sager, L., Grier, R.A.: Identifying and measuring the value of human factors to an acquisition project. In: Human Systems Integration Symposium, Arlington, VA (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaver, E.F., Braun, C.C.: The Return on Investment (ROI) for Human Factors and Ergonomics Initiatives. Benchmark Research & Safety Inc., Moscow (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yousefi, P., Yousefi, P.: Cost Justifying Usability: A Case Study at Ericsson (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steicklein, J.M., Dabney, J., Dick, B., Lovell, R., Moroney, G.: Error Cost Escalation Through the Project Life Cycle. Report JSC-CN-8435. NASA Johnson Space Center (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rauterberg, M., Strohm, O.: Work organization and software development. Ann. Rev. Autom. Program. 16, 121–128 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sen, R.N., Yeow, P.H.P.: Cost effectiveness of ergonomic redesign of electronic motherboard. Appl. Ergon. 34, 453–463 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yeow, P.H.P., Sen, R.N.: Ergonomics improvements of the visual inspection process in a printed circuit assembly factory. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 10, 369–385 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walkenstein, M., Eisenberg, R.: Benefiting design even late in the development cycle: contributions by human factors engineers. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting, vol. 40, pp. 318–322 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, L., Isla, R., Doniz, K., Harkness, H., Vicente, K., Doyle, D.J.: Analysis, redesign, and evaluation of a patient-controlled analgesia machine interface. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, vol. 39, pp. 738–741 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russ, A.L., Zillich, A.J., Melton, B.L., Russell, S.A., Chen, S., Spina, J.R., Weiner, M., Johnson, E.G., Daggy, J.K., McManus, M.S., Hawsey, J.M., Puleo, A.G., Doebbeling, B.N., Saleem, J.J.: Applying human factors principles to alert design increases efficiency and reduces prescribing errors in a scenario-based simulation. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 21, 287–296 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    See, J.E.: Visual Inspection: A Review of the Literature. Report SAND2012-8590. Sandia National Laboratories (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139–183 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instruction for user. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, 57–78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reason, J.T.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steiner, S.H., MacKay, R.J.: Statistical engineering and variation reduction. Qual. Eng. 26, 44–60 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swain, A.D., Guttmann, H.E.: Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Application. Report NUREG/CR-1278-F SAND-0200. Sandia Corporation (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature (outside the USA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations