http://pro.sagepub.com/Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

Proceedings of the Human Factors and

http://pro.sagepub.com/content/44/6/557The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/154193120004400603

2000 44: 557Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingJohn Long

Past, Present, Future: 10 Lessons Learned (10 Lessons Remaining)−Cognitive Ergonomics   

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

can be found at:Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingAdditional services and information for    

  http://pro.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://pro.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://pro.sagepub.com/content/44/6/557.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jul 1, 2000Version of Record >>

at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on November 15, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on November 15, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

COGNITIVE ERGONOMICS-PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE: 10 LESSONS LEARNED (10 LESSONS REMAINING)

John Long Ergonomics & HCI Unit, University College London

26 Bedford Way, London WClH OAP, UK

This paper reviews the past, present and future of Cognitive Ergonomics, as a discipline. The past, and ti particular its shortcomings, is characterised in terms of an earlier description offered by Long (1987). The present is characterised in terms of the lessons assumed to have been learned by Cognitive Ergonomics, since that publication. The future is characterised in terms of lessons, which still remain to be learned. Last, the paper raises some general issues concerning Cognitive Ergonomics.

Introduction

Cognitive Ergonomics emerged in the late 1970s on the back of the ‘personal’ computer and the ‘“awe user. The contrast was with the ‘mainframe’ computer and the ‘professional’ user. The emergence was associated with developments in Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence (Card, Moran and Newell, 1983). ‘Cognitive’ Ergonomics was in contrast to ‘Physical’ or ‘Traditional’ Ergonomics (Long, 1987). According to Long, “The advent of the computer, together with changes in Psychology, has given rise to a new form of Ergonomics termed ‘Cognitive Ergonomics”‘. This paper considers the past, present and future of Cognitive Ergonomics (CE), respectively in terms of Long’s original paper, some lessons learned since its publication, and some lessons, which still remain to be learned.

According to Long (1987), “The most general definition of Cognitive Ergonomics is thus the application of Cognitive Psychology to work to achieve the optimisation (between people and their work) with respect to well-being and productivity”. He goes on to argue: “Cognitive Ergonomics, then, is a configuration relating work to science. In this context, its aim can be defined as the increase in compatibility between the user’s representations and those of the machine”. Long further claims that CE shows “how the system designer can be provided with information which will help improve cognitive compatibility” and supports “the practical aim of helping designers to produce better systems, and the use of theoretical structures and empirical methods to achieve this end”. In this paper, the above general characterisation of CE, especially as concerns its shortcomings, is considered to be the past, with respect to which present lessons are assumed to have been learned (this basis is less invidious to identify

lessons required than the characterisations of others, however superior the latter maybe in other respects). Lessons still remaining, if learned, would constitute one possible future for CE. Finally, a number of general issues, concerning CE, raised by this paper, are identified.

This paper is structured, following the discipline framework proposed by Long and Dowell (19X9), as the “acquisition and validation by research of knowledge supporting practices, which solve the general problem, having a particular scope”. When applied to CE for present purposes, the framework produces a structure with the following sections: Particular Scope; General Problem; Practices; Knowledge; and Discipline. Each section successively addresses CE past, in terms of Long (1987); CE present, in terms of lessons learned (LL); and CE future, in terms of lessons remaining (LR).

Particular Scope of Cognitive Ergonomics

Long (1987) references three different, but related, particular scopes for CE. First, with reference to the discipline, the scope is people, their work, well-being and productivity “the emphasis being on the person doing the work and the manner in which it is carried out, rather than on the technology or on the environment” (per se). Second, with reference to humans interacting with computers, as a new technology-driven phenomenon, the scope is: “agent(s); inshument; functions; entities; and location” Last, with reference to difficulties experienced by users of computers, the scope is: domain of application; task: and computer interface. The overlap is obvious, for example, technology, instrument and computer interface. However, the scopes do not appear equally complete, for example, only the first scope makes reference to well-being and productivity

at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on November 15, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Two main lessons have been learned. LL I : CE has n single particular scope. Multiple particular scopes, or descriptions thereof, as

proposed by Long, would require specific justification, since each scope would require a separate mapping to CE knowledge and practices, as well as to one another, so militating against coherence and parsimony.

LL 2: Cognitive Ergonomics has theparticular scope of: users; technology; work; andperformance.

CE has always included user(s) and technology in its particular scope. However, except in process control, work has not always been considered separately from the user behaviours required to carry it out, nor performance as more general than user or human performance. There is wide consensus within CE currently for such a particular scope (Diaper, 1989; Dowel1 and Long, 1989; Barnard, 1991; Green and Hoc, 1991; Hollnagel, 1991; Newman, 1994; Storrs, 1994; Carroll, 1995; Long, 1996; Dowel1 and Long, 1998; Flach, 1998; Vice&e, 1998; and Woods, 1998).

Two main lessons remain to be learned. LR 1: CE particular scope needs to relate user(s) and

technology together, as an interactive worksystem. Performance of work, involving user(s) and technology,

cannot ultimately be a function of either alone, but only of both together. All too often, however, performance is not expressed joitly, for example, as (human) errors. Performance, then, must be considered a function of the interactive worksystem. User(s) and technology must be considered as a worksystem.

LR 2: CE particular scope needs to distinguish perfornmnce as task quality and as interactive worksystem costs.

Task quality expresses how well a task is performed by the worksystem. Worksystem costs express the workload incurred (by the user(s) and technology) in performing the task that well. The distinction between task quality and worksystem costs is one required by CE design practices and supported by CE design knowledge (see later).

General Discipline Problem of Cognitive Ergonomics

According to Long (1987), the general problem of CE is the provision of advice to designers “to produce better systems

more usable systems”. In addition: “the system designer can be provided with information to inform designers .” etc. The shortcoming here is the restriction of the general problem to advising designers, rather than more generally to design itself.

Two main lessons have been learned. LL 3: CE general discipline problem is design. Design here is to be understood widely and to include

design, evaluation and iteration, etc (see later). The problem is not simply the provision of advice, but the need to support design of both CE design knowledge and design practices.

LL 4: CE design has the particular scope of user(s); technology; work; andperformmce.

In other words, the general CE problem of design requires the specification of: user(s); technology; work; and

performance. It is not just a matter of advising designers about, for example, the user interface. There is a general consensus for design and its relation to the particular scope of CE (Benyon, 1998; Dowel1 and Long, 1998; Green, 1998; Hockey and Western, 1998; Hollnagel, 1998; Reason, 1998; and Salvendy, 1998).

Two main lessons remain to be learned. LR 3: CE general problem needs to express design, as

design problems and design solutions. It is not sufficient to express design in terms of the CE

particular scope of: user(s); technology; work; and performance. For the sake of completeness, the CE general problem needs to embody both the start-point of design, the design problem, and the end-point of design, the design solution. How otherwise would design start and stop?

LR 4: CE general problem needs to express design problems and design solutions, in terms of the interactive worksystem andperformance.

It is not just a question of expressing design in terms of the particular scope, that is: user(s); technology; work; and performance. The CE general problem needs, in addition, to express the relationship between the (desired) task quality of the interactive worksystem and the (acceptable) costs. It is the relationship, which constitutes both the target and the achievement of design.

Practices of Cognitive Ergonomics

According to Long (1987), Cognitive Science (CS) acquires the knowledge that CE applies. Cognitive Science has two primary practices, those of analysis, to produce an ‘acquisition representation’, and generalisation, to produce the knowledge itself, as required to describe and explain mental phenomena. CE also has two primary practices, those of particularisation of the CS knowledge to produce an ‘applications representation’, such as guidelines, etc., and synthesis, as required to optimise “the relationship between people and their work with respect to well-being and productivity”. The practices of CS and CE are thus different, the latter applying the knowledge acquired by the former.

Two main lessons have been learned. LL 5: CE design practices include design, evaluation

and iteration. The practice of particularisation transforms CS knowledge

into guidelines, checklists, etc., that is, it does not itself contribute directly to design, only indirectly. The practice of synthesis, in contrast, contributes to design directly. However, synthesis here identities no additional CE practices than the notion of design itself. CE practices, then, need to be specified more completely.

LL 6: CE design practices address: user(s); technology: work; andperformance.

CE design practices need to support the particular scope of CE. There is general consensus for these design practices and their particular scope (see earlier references).

Two main lessons remain to be learned. LR 5: CE practices need to diagnose design problems

and to prescribe design solutions.

at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on November 15, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

It is not sufficient to distinguish overall practice as ‘design’ or ‘synthesis’, or indeed the differing CE practices of design, evaluation and iteration (see earlier). CE practices need to relate specifically to design problems and design solutions (see earlier). Thus, a CE practice is needed to construct design problems, that is to diagnose and a CE practice is needed to construct design solutions, that is, to prescribe.

LR 6: CE practices diagnose performance as the design problem and prescribe an interactive worksystem as the design solution.

The lesson proposes a specific relationship between the CE particular scope, the general problem and detailed CE pCtiCl3.

Knowledge of Cognitive Ergonomics

According to Long (19X7), there are two basic types of knowledge - science and non-science (that is, “experiential knowledge, both craft and personal”). Scientific knowledge is particulaised into guidelines and checklists to advise designers, such that they produce more usable systems. These forms of advice are considered to be a CE ‘applications representation of the scientific knowledge.

Two main lessons have been learned. LL 7: CE knowledge needs to support practices of

design, evaluation and iteration. It is unclear why Long’s ‘application representation’ is

not a third type of knowledge, along with science and non- science, since it is self-evidently neither of these types. If it is a type of knowledge, then it is not simply ‘advice to designers’. Last, design knowledge needs to be related directly to completely specified design practices, such that these practices are supported (and not only generally advised).

LL 8: CE knowIedge needs to reference its particular scope of: users; technology; work; andperformance.

In other words, CE design knowledge needs to reference what is designed, but not simply as a description of the interface, or the user’s behaviours or some other individual aspect of the particular scope. For example, if the latter includes some notion of performance, then knowledge in the form of guidelines needs to reference such performance (for consensus, see earlier references).

Two main lessons remain to be learned: LR 7: CE knowledge needs to support design practices of

diagnosing design problems and prescribing design solutions.

It is not sufficient for CE knowledge to support design indirectly, nor to support directly only general practices. The knowledge must address directly the specific design practices (that is, of diagnosis and prescription).

LR 8: CE knowledge needs to support diagnosis of performance as the design problem and prescription of the interactive worksystem as the design solution.

Again, this remaining lesson emphasises the specific relationship required between CE knowledge and CE practices, as well as between these constituents and the CE general problem and particular scope.

Discipline of Cognitive Ergonomics

According to Long (19X7), “the most general defmition of Cognitive Ergonomics is thus the application of Cognitive Psychology to work”. In addition, “Cognitive Ergonomics is a configuration relating work to science”. Last, “Its aim is the increase of compatibility between the user’s representations and those of the machine”. CE particularises scientific knowledge into application representations, which are then synthesised to optimise “the relationship between people and their work with respect to well-being and productivity”. CE, then, is conceived as an applied science discipline.

Two main lessons have been learned. LL 9: CE is a design discipline. As such, it is essentially an engineering, rather than a

science, discipline. Engineering, here, may be informal (craft) or formal and may be related to science (although not as an applied science).

LL 10: CE, as (I design discipline, needs design knowledge to support design practices of design, evaluation and iteration, solving the general problem, having the particular scope of: user(s); technology; work; and performance.

In other words, CE, as a discipline, needs to instantiate as appropriate all the requirements of a discipline (see Long and Dowell, 19X9), just like other disciplines (for consensus, see earlier references).

LR 9: CE needs to validate its design knowledge as design principles, and design practices by solving design problems.

In other words, having the constituent elements of a discipline is not enough. The elements need to be validated to ensure the status of the knowledge as formal design principles with respect to the practices etc. Further, the (scientific) validation of any associated scientific knowledge does not by itself constitute validation of the CE knowledge, practices, design principles, etc. Validation needs to be formal (rather than informal) to make CE a formal engineering design discipline (rather than a craft one).

LR 10: CE, ns an engineering design discipline, needs design knowledge to support design practices of diagnosing design problems and prescribing design solutions, solving the general probIem having the particular scope of an interactive worksystem (user(s) and technology) with a desired performance, expressed as task quality and worksystem costs.

This remaining lesson emphasises the intimate relations, that is, the coherence of the CE discipline character&&ion. Such coherence is notably missing in Long (1987) and, to a lesser extent, in the lessons learned.

Additional Issues

During the course of preparing this paper, a number of general issues were identified. They are briefly referenced here for the sake of completeness. Space precludes any more extensive address.

at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on November 15, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from

0) Cognitive Ergonomics and Ergonomics. No attempt has been made here systematically to relate CE and Ergonomics as concerns the past, lessons learned and lessons remaining. It is possible that these lessons apply to both the discipline and the sub-discipline. However, such an application is not a necessary one.

(ii) Cognitive Ergonomics and HCI. No attempt has been made here to distinguish the disciplines of CE and HCI (as opposed to the phenomenon thereof). Although the professional pragmatics of the two disciplines may be different, in practice, and for many, the two terms are interchangeable. For example, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the CE, as opposed to the HCI, contributions to consensus, concerning the discipline constituents (see references).

(iii) Cognitive Ergonomics and Cognitive Engineering. No attempt has been made here to distinguish CE and Cognitive Engineering. Similar comments are in order as concerns Cognitive Ergonomics and HCI.

(iv) Cognitive Ergonomics and Engineering. CE never works in a vacuum. It is usually associated with some form of engineering, for example, mechanical, electronic, software, etc. depending on the domain of application. Lessons learned and remaining are almost certainly not independent of the associated types of engineering.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to consider the past, present and future of CE, respectively in terms of Long’s 1987 paper, some lessons, learned since its publications and some lessons which still remain to be learned. It is fair to say that some progress has been made, as concerns the different aspects of the constituents of CE as a discipline. However, enough lessons still remain to keep Cognitive Ergonomists more than busy in the new millennium.

References

Barnard, P. (1991). Bridging between basic theories and the artefacts of human-computer interaction. In J.M.Carroll (ed.), Designing Znferacfion, pp.103.127. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Benyon, D. (1998). Cognitive engineering as the development of information spaces. Ergonomics, 41, 153.155.

Card, S.K., Moran, T.P. and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology ofHuman-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Carroll, J.M. (1995). Scenario-basedDesign. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Diaper, D. (1989). The discipline ofHC1. Interacting with Computers, 10,3-65.

Dowell, .I. and Long, J. (1989). Towards a conception for an engineering discipline of human factors. Ergonomics, 32, 1513.35.

Dowell, J. and Long, J. (1998). Target paper: Conception of the cognitive engineering design problem. Ergonomics, 41,126-139. -

Flach, J.M. (1989). Cognitive systems engineering: putting things in context. Ermnomics. 41. 163-167.

Green, fR.G. andHoc, f-M. (1991).‘What is cognitive ergonomics? Le Travail Humain, 54, 291-304.

Green, T.R.G. (1998). A conception of a conception. Ergonomics, 41, 143.146.

Hockey, G.R.J. and Western, S.J. (1998). Advancing human factors involvement in engineering design: a bridge not far enough? Ergonomics, 41, 147-149.

Hollnagel, E. (1991). Cognitive ergonomics and the reliability of cognition. Le Travail Humain, 54,305.321.

Holhnigel, E. (1998). Comment on ‘Conception ofthe cognitive engineering design problem’ by John Dowell and John Long. Ergonomics, 41,160-162.

Long, J. (1987). Cognitive ergonomics and human-computer interaction. In P. Warr (ed.), Psychology at Work. England: Penguin,

Long, J. (1996). Specifying relations between research and the design of human-computer interactions. Znt. Jnl. of Human-Computer Studies, 44,875.920.

Long, J. and Dowell, J. (1989). Conceptions for the discipline of HCI: Craft, Applied Science and Engineering. In A. Sutcliffe and L. Macaulay (eds.), Proc. Fifth Conference of the BCS HCI SIG. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Newman, W. (1994). A preliminary analysis of the products of HCI research using pro forma abstracts. In B. Ad&on, S. Dumais and J. Olson (eds.), Proceedings of CHZ’94, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Reason, J. (1998). Broadening the cognitive engineering horizons: more engineering, less cognition and no philosophy of science, please. Ergonomics, 41, 150.152.

Salvendy, G. (1998). A response to John Dowell and John Long, ‘Conception of the cognitive engineering design problem’. Ergonomics, 41, 140.142.

Storrs, G. (1994). A conceptualization of multi-party interaction. Interacting with Computers, 6, 173.189.

Vicente, K. (1998). An evolutionary perspective on the growth of cognitive engineering: the Riso genotype. Ergonomics, 41, 156-159.

Woods, D.D. (1998). Designs are hypotheses about how artefacts shape cognition and collaboration. Ergonomics, 41, 168-173.

at UNIV PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND on November 15, 2014pro.sagepub.comDownloaded from