An Introduction to the Special Issue on Practitioner Case Studies

Abstract

This Special Issue of the IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors originates in the Human Factors (HF) Practitioner Track at the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) triennial world congress in Vancouver (Canada, 2021). The aim of the HF Practitioner sessions at this congress was to learn from real life cases, and to give feedback to academics, the majority of participants, on the applicability of their research outputs. You will find an overview of case studies in the first contribution to this Special Issue (Pikaar & Caple, 2021). First, let us define what a “Practitioner Case Study” is all about. A Practitioner Case concerns actual interventions in work situations or work systems. A Practitioner Case Study is a report on the systematic design, or redesign, and implementation of a work system. Thus, HF in real life projects is primarily a design activity. HF activities are a small part of a project. Other disciplines are involved, and usually leading. In addition to a description or specification of the design and realization of the work system, a case study report preferably includes feedback on project results, feedback on applied HF best practices, and feedback on methodology. Human Sciences and HF Engineering (or Ergonomics) clearly are different activities. While researchers are experts in one or two scientific disciplines, the HF Professional needs to apply many different ergonomic disciplines. The HF Practitioner will have qualifications in a discipline related to HF, which enables a good understanding of the relevant engineering disciplines. The HF Professional interprets and integrates the results of scientific research, often for complex man-machine systems. Another important question is: “What is a Practitioner?” Obviously, HF Companies, employing registered Human Factors Professionals, perform practitioner work. Research Institutes and Universities may also employ registered ergonomists. These registered practitioners are assessed by one of the many Ergonomist Certification programs around the world endorsed by the International Ergonomics Association (IEA). They might even be active in real commercial projects. Part of such projects will be dedicated to academic research, and part may be dedicated to an actual intervention. This is where we draw the line: a Practitioner Case Study shall always include an intervention as a result. A Practitioner Case Study is not a scientific experiment within a company setting (i.e., an intervention with the purpose to test a hypothesis), nor a task analysis without the intention to intervene. An ergonomics practitioner is expected to define the issues to be assessed, use validated scientific methods, and develop recommendations and design solutions as part of a multi-disciplinary team that would be considered reasonably practicable to implement. HF Practitioners need methodology developed and validated by scientists, such as techniques for task analyses, workload assessment, or task allocation. Therefore, it is also useful to provide project related feedback on the applicability of theories, methods and techniques. Back to the 2021 IEA Congress. A total of 32 abstracts were submitted to the Practitioner Track, of which 17 case studies were presented at the Congress. It is possible that practitioners decided to present their findings to an audience that did not only involve practitioners, but also researchers and industry partners from their areas of interest. They may have been in Congress tracks based on industry sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing, transport, or construction. Alternatively, they could have been in hazard related streams, such as musculoskeletal or slips, trips, and falls. Hence, more case studies may have been hidden in other tracks, possibly at the cost of losing a multidisciplinary approach. The other track related cases have not been shared with the Practitioner track