This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 01 November 2014, At: 14:21Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

ErgonomicsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Marketing ergonomics to industrial designersIAN MCCLELLAND aa Applied Ergonomics Group, Nederlandse Philips Bedrijven BV, Corporate Industrial Design ,Building SX-3, P.O. Box 218, MD Eindhoven, 5600, The NetherlandsPublished online: 27 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: IAN MCCLELLAND (1990) Marketing ergonomics to industrial designers, Ergonomics, 33:4, 391-398, DOI:10.1080/00140139008927142

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139008927142

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ERGONOMICS, 1990, VOL. 33, No.4, 391-398

Marketing ergonomics to industrial designers

IAN MCCLELLAND

Applied Ergonomics Group, Nederlandse Philips Bedrijven BV,Corporate Industrial Design, Building SX-3, P.O. Box 218,

5600 MD Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Keywords: Industrial design; Design process.

This paper reviews the relationship betweenergonomicsand industrial designbasedon papers presented at the 'Marketing Ergonomics' conference. The discussion isorganized under the sections:

• know your user,• what should we influence?• use of basic data and information,• research methods and techniques,• concluding remarks.

The main conclusions are that the effective application of ergonomics willdependon the ergonomist being an active participant in the design process. Theergonomists must also see their role in strategic terms in relation to the objectiveofsynthesizingappropriate designsolutions. The demand that high levelsof usabilityare designed into products must be placed on the design process as much as on theindividualdesigner.It is argued that influencingthe attitudes and skillsof individualdesigners is necessary but not sufficient to ensure that ergonomics issues receiveappropriate attention during product development.

1. IntroductionFirst, may I thank the organizers for this opportunity to comment. This paper is adevelopment of the discussion presented at the conference and the paper circulated tothe delegates after the conference.

I was asked to review a number of papers included under the theme IndustrialDesign and Industrial Engineering.] In the event the papers under review were muchmore concerned with product design and products rather than with 'systems' ororganizational design. Therefore I have taken as my focus industrial design andindustrial designers rather than industrial engineering. However, as I hope will be clear,many comments are relevant to many areas of design beyond only industrial design. Inmy discussion I have also selected what I see as some of the major underlying issueswhich ergonomists need to confront,

In approaching these papers and the sessions I had in mind the following questions:

• what is the current practice and thinking about ergonomics in relation toindustrial design?

• how can ergonomists be more effective?• what are the strengths and weaknesses of ergonomics?• how should ergonomists develop their Skills?

[ Sessicn 2: Mossink; van der Veen and Regensburg; van der Meulen and van Stappen.Session 12: Steenbekkers and Molenbroek; Maartense; Oldenkamp. Session 16: Lindqvist;Schoone-Harmsen; Kanis and Weegels; Mosse!.

0014-Q139/90 S3-OO © 1990 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

392 I. McClelland

Consequently I have organized the discussion in the following way:• know your user,• what should we influence?• use of basic data and information,• research methods and techniques,• concluding remarks.

2. Know your userThe notion that ergonomics is a 'product' and industrial designers are the users ofthatproduct is an easy one to imagine and one which has obvious connections with theconference theme.

To extend the analogy; to know how best to 'design the product' we have tounderstand our users and the context of use. I will not attempt to define industrialdesign but I will highlight some of the characteristics which I see influencing theprofessional relationship with ergonomics.

2.1. Industrial designersIndustrial designers are primarily concerned with arriving at design solutions that areaesthetic, functional, user oriented, and innovative. They are concerned with issues atthe 'macro' level such as lifestyles,work styles, ethics and culture, but their daily work isfocused on the 'micro' level of product design such as the use of colour, material, formand shape and so on. Much of their work relies on careful rational analysis but also onintuition and inspiration; to seesolutions to design problems that have so far eluded theattention of others.

2.2. Industrial designIndustrial designers generally see themselves as working within 'a design process'.What that phrase precisely means is not easy to describe. The type of characterizationoften used (e.g. McClelland and Brigham 1990) cannot come close to capturing thedynamics and subtleties involved in the daily work.

I! is an intensely complicated process, typically involving the co-ordination of manypeople and often spanning long periods of time. At Philips, for example, industrialdesigners frequently find themselves working on a diversity of products all at differentstages of development. I! is therefore often necessary to maintain effectivecommunication with a variety of project teams.

For me much of the flavour is well captured by Carroll et al. (1985). Although theirdescription is written with human computer interaction in mind the points apply to anymajor product development activity. I adapt:

Design is a 'process'. It is neither a state nor an artefact that can be described as astatic entity. It is a dynamic socio-technical activity.The design process involves both 'bottom up' and 'top down' approaches, andoften an intense interaction between the two.The design process is 'radically transformational' involving the development ofinterim or partial solutions which may never be part of the final design.Designing to a particular set of goals almost always results in different goalsemerging as a final design solution evolves.

Working successfully within the design process rests heavily on developing a keenunderstanding of the 'cultures' and work styles involved. A keen sense of knowing howto match ones professional skills to complement those around you is also desirable. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Marketing ergonomics 393

daily work of an industrial designer, whether working as external consultant or withinindustry, is driven by satisfying the major players in this process who will usuallyrepresent commercial and technical interests.

Ergonomists should also recognize that industrial designers also have their ownobjectives, their own 'products', and, in fact, their own concerns about marketing theirservices successfully to their clients.

3. What should weinfluence?The influence of the ergonomist on the design of a product is a key 'measure of success'(e.g. Carroll and Campbell 1989, Chapanis 1985 and Harris 1984). To achieve thisergonomists have traditionally been concerned with influencing legislation,standards, codes of practice, design guidelines, and professional education. Thegeneral rationale is that incorporating ergonomics data and recommendations intothese areas should eventually lead to improving the likelihood of designers correctlyrecognizing ergonomics issues as they emerge and, consequently, also improve thequality of design decisions which follow.

Four papers characterized work which stem from these traditional concerns.Lindqvist (Part II of this issue) discussed a new private initiative aimed at promotingSwedish ergonomics through providing information on how to solve problems,products available, contacts and services.The other three papers came from staff at theTechnical University Delft. Schoone-Harmsen discussed the development of a methodaimed at the analysis of user risk and subsequent design of safer products. Kanis andWeegels discussed how industrial design might use specific accident data. Mosseldiscussed the approach of designers to describing the handling characteristics ofproducts.

I compared these papers with three others which discussed specificdesign projects.Mossink discussed the development of a packaging workstation. Van der Veen andRegensburg discussed the development of a welding table. Oldenkamp discussed avehicle for use by the physically disabled.

These papers demonstrated how much the data and information required in thedaily work of design is very specificto a particular context. They also demonstrated therange of issues that often have to be considered, many of which will not directly involveergonomics issues.

What struck me particularly was that the knowledge and skills derived from thetraditional areas of concern; legislation, standards, codes of practice, design guidelines,professional education, etc. become part of the backdrop when industrial designers getinvolved in the development of a specificproduct. The daily work of a designer tends tobe focused on the immediate demands dictated by the daily round of decision making.Decisions tend to be driven by demands which have a high profile and can be readilyarticulated in business and technical terms. Consequently it is very easy for theergonomics issues to be overlooked unless they can be articulated in equivalent orcomparable terms at the appropriate time.

So therefore our concern must be; how is information about user aspects and theassociated design decisions managed within the design process? How.this question isanswered will directly influence aspects such as:

• identifying important ergonomics issues soon enough,• identifying correctly what information is required,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

394 I. McClelland

• opportunities for acquiring the information required,• resources available to support user testing, etc.

The answer clearly liesin influencing the design decision making process as much as thequality of the design decisions themselves. Therefore we must first recognize thatattempting to exert this influence is a strategic issue.

3.1. The integration of ergonomics and designThe issue of integrating ergonomics into the design process has been widely discussedand advocated over many years (e.g. Bishop and Guiness 1966). Two conference series,Interface in the USA and Ergodesign in Europe, have both explicitlyaimed at bringingtogether the industrial design and ergonomics professions. In his introduction,Grandjean (1984) sees the essential purpose of Ergodesign as a step towards theintegration of the professions. This is reinforced by Berns (1984) who discusses theintegration of design and ergonomics based in part on Singleton's model (1974).

In addition to these conferences standard texts such as Bailey (1982) andMcCormick and Sanders (1982) include chapters on the subject.

In recent years the rapid development of software technology has precipitatedintense interest in the role of ergonomists in the design process. Examples includeRubenstein and Hersh (1984). They discuss a comprehensive strategy with detailedexamples showing how much good human factors work must be built into the designprocess. Shackel (1986) discusses the role of usability metrics as a basis for buildingergonomics principles into product development. Baecker and Buxton (1987), in acollection. of readings endorsing a multidisciplinary approach to softwaredevelopment, devote a major section to design and implementation. Gould (1988 a)argues for close collaboration between designers and ergonomists throughout thedevelopment cycleof systems. In a later paper Gould (1988 b)argues that organizationalissues pose the greatest difficulty in developing usable products. Although theseauthors (and others) focus on software technologies many of the principles discussedand the conclusions reached are applicable to all product development work.

The traditional concerns of ergonomists with legislation, standards, codes ofpractice, design guidelines, and professional education are still valid and require ourattention.

But experience shows us that the ergonomist should also aim at influencing thedesign process itself. This means direct involvement in the daily management of thedesign process; learning to understand what it means, what it involves and how weshould develop our skills to work more effectively within it. Recent work aimed at abetter understanding ofthis process (e.g. Gould et al., 1985, Rosson et al. 1987), needs tobe extended to cover other areas of product design apart from software development.

4. Use of basic data and informationThe above-mentioned design projects emphasized the importance of context indetermining the type of data and information required. Four other papers wereconcerned with the generation and use of data. Steenbekkers and Molenbroekdiscussed the collection and use of anthropometric data for children. The focus of theothers was on the manipulation of existing data (Lindqvist, Kanis and Weegels, andMossel), These three papers are described above.

A number of basic issues are raised here. First, obtaining the data and informationrequired from the data available. This has often been a problem for both designers and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Marketing ergonomics 395

ergonomists alike. In the opening session Chapanis (Part I of this issue) reminded us ofearly efforts to translate ergonomics data into a form which was application orientedand usable by designers, e.g. Woodson and Conover 1966. These early efforts werelargely confined to paper as a medium.

The technologies now at our disposal are more diverse, not least of which aresoftware based tools. The use of these new and rapidly developing technologies topresent data in a more focused and usable form is an opportunity that requiresexploration. However if these technologies are to be successfully used then a betterunderstanding is required of the form of presentation which would be most useful to adesigner in the context of their daily work. Important extensions of the work reportedby Lindqvist and Steenbekkers and Molenbroek, for example, would be tosystematically investigate the causal factors which stimulate the use of the informationpresented, and the method of presentation.

Another issue is the need for experts. It can be argued that anthropometric data is,comparatively, well understood in terms of what is available and how it can be used toaid design work.

However here the involvement of an expert is still often advocated. There are manyareas where the data available is not so concrete as anthropometric data. Yet it is stillthe ambition of many to provide information and guidelines which can be used withoutthe direct involvement of the specialist (e.g. Smith and Mosier 1986). However it isworth noting that an investigation into the use of the Smith and Mosier guidelinesshowed that 51% of users were described as human factors specialists (Mosier andSmith 1986).

Furthermore many guidelines are now focusing more attention on presentingmethods and techniques rather than simply factual data (e.g. Gould 1988). A majorquestion for ergonomists is how far can we expect designers to make accurate andeffective use of the information and guidelines available without expert involvement?

Software based tools certainly open up new horizons in terms of presentation aidsas well as aiding accurate interpretation. However in my view such developments willnot overcome the need for the professional involvement of ergonomists in design workas the prime carrier and interpreter of the information available.

In relation to future directions the 'take up rate' within the design community ofergonomics data and information clearly needs investigating. We should know moreabout:

Who? Who wants the information?When? When, within the design process, should the information provided, and

how?What? What kind of information is required?Why? Why is the information required? What questions need answering?

These questions (and more) need to be thought through carefully in relation to thegeneration of data as well as methods of presentation to the user community. The dailywork of industrial designers is primarily focused on application areas, but investigatingthese issues should also contribute to a better understanding of the directions for morefundamental research. This in turn may lead to more useful data being made available.

5. Research methods and techniquesHere I focus again on the presentations which dealt with specific design projectsdescribed above; Mossink, van der Veen and Regensburg and Oldenkamp. In all these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

396 I. McClelland

presentations there was an expressed desire to evaluate the outcome of the design work.In some cases some evaluation work was carried out, but we also heard how thefamiliar problems or time scales and budgets were major constraints on what, inpractice, could be undertaken. In fact, as is often the case, the opportunity to use formalexperimental methods to evaluate the design solutions seemed to be very limited.

In my opinion there is a need to develop experience in the use of 'soft and informal'methods or data collection. We require methods which enable designs to be evaluatedsystematically within the context or tight budgets and limited time. Examples of someolthe methods which can be considered can be found in Jones (1981).Experience in theuse and value of such methods is already gaining ground (e.g. Boies et al. 1986). Moreexperience in the use or such methods is required.

An important dimension to such methods is the extent to which the designer canbecome a co-investigator. Thomas (1982), Rosson et al. (1987) and Sears (1986), forexample, all refer positively to the benefits of rapid and effective knowledge transferderived from the direct involvement of designers in investigations.

A closely related topic is the traditional remedial role of ergonomics in relation toproduct design. By this I mean that the major focus for ergonomics work has beenevaluative work; investigating design weaknesses or failures based on experience in use.

This type of work is still required, examples of which are included in thepresentations. But we also had examples of where the emphasis was on developingdesign solutions where current user experience was limited or not available. In suchcircumstances design teams are often faced with the task of predicting userrequirements against an unknown or unclear background. There is a need fortechniques which aid prospective work. I would focus on two particular areas. The firstis 'user needs analysis'; analyzing user requirements ahead of time in terms of utility andusability requirements, and user-interface concepts. Techniques are required whichhelp to predict requirements and anticipate appropriate design solutions.

Whiteside et al. (1988) provide a valuable commentary on this issue in discussingtheir experiences in applying the principles of usability engineering within theinforrnation technology industry. They argue for the use of 'context research' to assistwith the design or future software based systems and the need to work 'prospectively'.

The second area is 'user-interface specification'. This term tends to be associatedonly with designing computers. But, as we are all aware, there are an increasing numberof products which involve the user in complex interactions. Many more industrial.designers are getting involved in designing these type of products. This type of designwork places much greater emphasis on understanding user requirements and hence onthe skills that an ergonomist can provide. Designing successfully also requires theaccurate and careful specification of the interaction processes involved for whicheffective tools, from paper based to software based, need to be developed.

6. Concluding remarksGiven the purpose of the conference I found the papers generally rather inwardlooking. The predominant view of the authors seemed to be; our projects are goodexamples of applying ergonomics and we think we have a marketable 'product'. Mostauthors went no further. There was too little discussion over the need to look further, tounderstand more about the 'acceptance characteristics' of our 'product' and howergonomists can complement the skills and expertise of industrial designers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Marketing ergonomics 397

The prospects for ergonomists making a substantial contribution to industrialdesign and product development work are excellent. There has not been a time whenthe climate for good ergonomics work has been so sympathetic. But to realize thepotential the demand for a more systematic user centred design approach must beplaced on the 'design process' and not just on the individual industrial designer.Influencing the attitudes and skills ofindividual designers is necessary but not sufficientto ensure that ergonomics issues receive appropriate attention during productdevelopment. We should focus on understanding and contributing to the managementof design, and be more conscious that the ergonomist is part of a process. To achievethis objective ergonomics should be developed in terms of a design strategy as much asa science. This requires a shift in perspective, from the traditional remedial role, beingevaluator and critic, to a more prospective, process oriented way of thinking.

Operationally the ergonomist must be less of an applied scientist and more of adesigner. As an ergonomist, working within industry, applied science is the basis for myskills, but operationally, my primary objective is to help design more usable products.To do this it is necessary to see the role of the ergonomist as a partner in the designprocess and not as an external agent. Being a partner, you develop a necessaryunderstanding of the working relationships which have to be built if an effectivecontribution is to be made. This also requires an acceptance that responsibility fordesign decisions has to be shared. This demands many changes on the part of theergonomist which are necessary if current approaches to product design are to beinfluenced in any profound way.

The work of an industrial designer is designing the products of tomorrow. Todaysproducts are history. Todays work is concerned with the future, often working onproducts that are not yet known by the eventual users. If we want to see usabilitydesigned into products from the outset, then we must be part of the process that isbuilding that future. That means involvement and another way of thinking.

ReferencesBAECKER, R. M. and BUXTON, W. A.S. 1987, Readings in Human Computer Interaction (Morgan

Kaufmann Pub. Inc., Los Altos).BAILEY, R. W. 1982, Human Performance Engineering (Prentice Hall Inc., EnglewoodCliffs, NJ).BERNS, T. A. R. 1984, The integration of ergonomics into design, Behaviour and Information

Technology, 3, 277-284.BISHOP, E.W.and GUINESS, G. V. 1966, Human factors interaction with industrial design,Human

Factors, 8, 279-289.BOIES, S. J., GOULD, 1. D., LEVY, S. E., RICHARDS, J. and SCHOONARD, J. W. 1986, The 1984

Olympic Message System-a case study in system design, IBM Research Report, RC11138, York Town Heights, NY.

CARROL, J. M.and ROSSON, M. B. 1985, Usabilityspecifications as a tool in iterativedevelopment.In H. R.Hartson (ed),Advances in Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 1(Ablex PublishingCorporation, Norwood, NJ).

CHAPANIS, A. 1985, Somereflectionson progress,Proceedings ofthe Human Factors Society, 29thAnnual Meeting.

GOULD, J. D. 1988 a, How to design usable systems. In M. Helander (ed.), Handbook ofHuman­Computer Interaction (Elsevier, Amsterdam).

GOULD, J. D. 1988b, Designing for usability: The next iteration is to reduce organisationalbarriers, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 32nd Annual Meeting.

GOULD, J. D. and LEWIS, C. 1985, Designing for usability: Key principles and what designersthink, Communications of the ACM, 28 (3).

GRANDJEAN, E. 1984, Foreword, Ergodesign '84, Behaviour and Information Technology, 3,261-262.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

398 Marketing ergonomics

HARRIS, D. H. 1984, Human Factors success stories, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society,28th Annual Meeting.

JONF.s, C. J. 1981, Design Methods (Wiley-Tnterscience, London).LINDQVIST, B. 1990, SWERG0-Swedish Ergonomics Export Program for Solutions and

Products, Ergonomics, 33, 317-319.MCCLELLAND, L and BRIGHAM, F. R. 1990, Marketing ergonomics-how should ergonomics be

packaged? Ergonomics, 33, 519-526.MCCDRMICK, E. J. and SANDERS, M. S. 1982, Human Factors in Engineering and Design

(McGraw-Hili Book Co., New York).MEISTER, D. 1987, Systems design, development, and testing. TnG. Salvendy (ed.) Handbook of

Human Factors, Chs 1,2 (Wiley-Tnterscience, New York).MOSIER, J. N. and SMITH, S. L. 1986, Application of guidelines for designing user interface

software, Behaviour and Information Technology, 5, 39-46.ROSSON, M. B., MAASS, S. and KELLOG, W. A. 1987, Designing for designers: an analysis of design

practice in the real world, CHI Conference Proceedings, CHI '87, 137-142.RUBINSTEIN, R. and HERSH, H. M. 1984, The Human Factor (Digital Press, Digital Equipment

Corporation).SEARS, R. J. 1986, Market value innovation: designing the experience, Innovation, Fall.SHACKEL, B. 1986, Usability-eontext, framework, definition, design and evaluation, Proceedings

of the SERC CREST course; Human factors for informatics usability (HUSAT ResearchCentre, University of Technology, Loughborough).

SINGLETON, W. T. 1974, Man-Machine systems (Penguin, Harmondsworth).SMITH, S. L. and MOSIER, J. N. 1986, Design Guidelinesfor User-system Interface Software (Mitre

Corporation, Bedford, MA).THOMAS, J. C. 1982, Organizing for Human Factors. In Y. Vassiliou (ed.) Human Factors and

Interactive Computer Systems (Ablex Pub Corp., New York).WHITESIDE, J., BENNETT, J. and HOLTZBLATT, K. 1988, Usability Engineering: our experience and

evolution. Tn M. Helander (ed.], Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (ElsevierScience Publishers, North Holland).

WOODSON, W. E. and CONOVER, D. W. 1966, Human Engineering Guidefor Equipment Designers(University of California Press, Berkeley, CAl.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

14:

21 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014