What Went Wrong? What can go Right? A Prospectus on Human Factors Practice

Michael D. McNeese, Vincent F. Mancuso, Nathan J. McNeese, Edward Glantz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Human Factors has informed both research and practice for over 100 years [1]. In this time, many theories, methods, and design practices have been implemented. As a result, the way Human Factors as a discipline has been conceptualized and put into practice has undergone numerous changes. Human Factors, at its heart is the idea that technology influences humans, and that humans influence the performance efficiency and effectiveness of technology, and other humans. Recent approaches to Human Factors have created multiple baseline assumptions on understanding human system interaction. For example, McNeese et al. [2] identified four systems design paradigms wherein each produce a qualitatively different outcome: Technology-Centered, User-Centered, Data-Centered, Group-Centered. Although there is value and truth in each approach, individually each theme limits its scope by deemphasizing contributions from the others. Because isomorphic approaches abound in the field, this paper theorizes a more optimal approach to contemporary human factors - The Living Laboratory Framework – that posits a wholistic perspective addressing various underling parameters in complex problem solving and innovative design. In this contemporary approach, the theory–problems–practice becomes highly integrated, reflecting unique and dynamic methods to create human-system integration. Examples are provided in the domains of cyber operations and police cognition to demonstrate the value of this approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5222-5229
Number of pages8
JournalProcedia Manufacturing
Volume3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2015

    Fingerprint

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
  • Artificial Intelligence

Cite this