Global drivers, sustainable manufacturing and systems ergonomics.

This paper briefly explores the expected impact of the 'Global Drivers' (such as population demographics, food security; energy security; community security and safety), and the role of sustainability engineering in mitigating the potential effects of these Global Drivers. The message of the paper is that sustainability requires a significant input from Ergonomics/Human Factors, but the profession needs some expansion in its thinking in order to make this contribution. Creating a future sustainable world in which people experience an acceptable way of life will not happen without a large input from manufacturing industry into all the Global Drivers, both in delivering products that meet sustainability criteria (such as durability, reliability, minimised material requirement and low energy consumption), and in developing sustainable processes to deliver products for sustainability (such as minimum waste, minimum emissions and low energy consumption). Appropriate changes are already being implemented in manufacturing industry, including new business models, new jobs and new skills. Considerable high-level planning around the world is in progress and is bringing about these changes; for example, there is the US 'Advanced Manufacturing National Program' (AMNP)', the German 'Industrie 4.0' plan, the French plan 'la nouvelle France industrielle' and the UK Foresight publications on the 'Future of Manufacturing'. All of these activities recognise the central part that humans will continue to play in the new manufacturing paradigms; however, they do not discuss many of the issues that systems ergonomics professionals acknowledge. This paper discusses a number of these issues, highlighting the need for some new thinking and knowledge capture by systems ergonomics professionals. Among these are ethical issues, job content and skills issues. Towards the end, there is a summary of knowledge extensions considered necessary in order that systems ergonomists can be fully effective in this new environment, together with suggestions for the means to acquire and disseminate the knowledge extensions.

Extending systems ergonomics thinking to accommodate the socio-technical issues of Systems of Systems.

Socio-technical issues for Systems of Systems (SoS) differ in several ways from those for systems, mainly because the individual systems that are components of the SoS are usually owned by different organisations, each responsible for the optimisation and operation of its own system. Consequently, management of the SoS is about negotiation and management of the interfaces. Because of issues of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), commercial confidence, and the like, there is seldom sufficient, timely information in circulation about the SoS. Surprises are endemic to SoS, and resilience is a fundamental requirement. This paper outlines the different characteristics of SoS compared to ordinary systems, discusses many of the socio-technical issues involved, and then outlines a generic approach to these issues, treating the SoS as a 'wicked problem'. Endemic to this is the need for governance, which is discussed briefly. This is followed by a description of the evident gaps in knowledge about the functioning of SoS, and a listing of tool classes, the development of which would enable progress to be made more effectively. Finally, the paper discusses how the SoS approach might be the best way to entrain ICT to address global drivers, thus pointing to the importance of the SoS approach.

The development of a tool to predict team performance.

The paper describes the development of a tool to predict quantitatively the success of a team when executing a process. The tool was developed for the UK defence industry, though it may be useful in other domains. It is expected to be used by systems engineers in initial stages of systems design, when concepts are still fluid, including the structure of the team(s) which are expected to be operators within the system. It enables answers to be calculated for questions such as "What happens if I reduce team size?" and "Can I reduce the qualifications necessary to execute this process and still achieve the required level of success?". The tool has undergone verification and validation; it predicts fairly well and shows promise. An unexpected finding is that the tool creates a good a priori argument for significant attention to Human Factors Integration in systems projects. The simulations show that if a systems project takes full account of human factors integration (selection, training, process design, interaction design, culture, etc.) then the likelihood of team success will be in excess of 0.95. As the project derogates from this state, the likelihood of team success will drop as low as 0.05. If the team has good internal communications and good individuals in key roles, the likelihood of success rises towards 0.25. Even with a team comprising the best individuals, p(success) will not be greater than 0.35. It is hoped that these results will be useful for human factors professionals involved in systems design.

Using corporate governance to enhance 'long-term situation awareness' and assist in the avoidance of organisation-induced disasters.

This paper considers the issue of how corporate governance can and should deal with the long-term understanding of systems health-what we may call 'long-term situation awareness' (i.e. which evolves and is coherent over time) for organisational systems (and their component sub systems) in the engineering domain. Many characteristics affect long-term situation awareness-the rate of change to processes, pressures for greater efficiency from existing resources, changes in personnel, cultural changes and changes to the operational environment of the organisational systems. Many disasters (e.g. Chernobyl, Flixborough, Piper Alpha) have a causal path that indicates a loss of group situation awareness, over a long period of time. The problem of the gradual, slow drift over many years towards unsafe conduct of company operations is discussed and examples of possible consequences provided. A 'parable' from the world of manufacturing is used to exemplify the problem. The paper goes on to discuss some ways by which this problem could be addressed and longer-term system situational awareness increased; essentially by good corporate governance, knowledge management and ownership of processes. Links are made to the literature on these topics, and a route map to help organisations to gain the benefits is offered.

Systems integration.

The paper presents a view of systems integration, from an ergonomics/human factors perspective, emphasising the process of systems integration as is carried out by humans. The first section discusses some of the fundamental issues in systems integration, such as the significance of systems boundaries, systems lifecycle and systems entropy, issues arising from complexity, the implications of systems immortality, and so on. The next section outlines various generic processes for executing systems integration, to act as guides for practitioners. These address both the design of the system to be integrated and the preparation of the wider system in which the integration will occur. Then the next section outlines some of the human-specific issues that would need to be addressed in such processes; for example, indeterminacy and incompleteness, the prediction of human reliability, workload issues, extended situation awareness, and knowledge lifecycle management. For all of these, suggestions and further readings are proposed. Finally, the conclusions section reiterates in condensed form the major issues arising from the above.

On complexity, process ownership and organisational learning in manufacturing organisations, from an ergonomics perspective.

The paper discusses some characteristics and implications of the complexity approach as applied to manufacturing organisations and their supply chains. It then discusses the acquisition of process capability within organisations, one of the essential processes for maintaining the organisation's ability to compete in a complex environment. The paper then discusses the concept of the Process Owner, as a means of preserving and evolving the organisation's knowledge under such circumstances, and discusses the consequences of this role. Finally, the knowledge lifecycle management implications are discussed, since these are among the resources that a Process Owner will require to maintain the effectiveness of the role. Throughout the paper the point is made that complexity demands more of an organisation than technical excellence; technology alone will not overcome the effects of complexity and the organisation's people must be included in the response to its challenges.