Transcript Virtuous Reality Presented to the Australasian Association of Engineering Education Conference 2001 Yvonne Toft Prue Howard David Jorgensen “The classic of all design deficiencies which.

Virtuous Reality
Presented to the Australasian Association of Engineering Education Conference 2001
Yvonne Toft
Prue Howard
David Jorgensen
“The classic of all design deficiencies which have come to
our attention was a combination safety shower and
eyewash constructed at a northern missile site. In order to
operate the eyewash, it was necessary for a man, who
might already be blinded by acid, to put his head in the
eyewash bowl and then turn on the water valve with his
right foot. The only problem was that the foot-operated
valve was about four feet to his rear and higher than his
waist. As an additional feature, if a man did happen to hit
the valve, he got a full shower from overhead as well as
getting his eye washed out. However, the whole problem
became academic in winter because the whole system froze
up.” Anonymous, 1959
Background
•
Need to develop graduates with attributes
and abilities previously not core (IEAust
review)
–
–
–
Ability to work in multi-disciplinary teams
Utilisation of a design systems approach
Understanding of social, cultural and ethical
responsibilities
Requirements
• Engineers need to consider not only specified
technical needs of a system, but also user:
–
–
–
–
–
Attitudes
Abilities
Capacity
Expectations
Understanding
• To achieve this, engineers need to incorporate
human factors in the design process
Ergonomics (or Human Factors)
“…scientific discipline concerned with interactions
among humans and other elements of a system in
carrying out a purposeful activity. Ergonomics
aims to improve human wellbeing and overall
system performance by optimising human-system
compatibility. Human-system interaction design
considerations include physical, cognitive, social,
organisational and environmental factors.”
Do engineers have knowledge about the
human component of their system?
Literature suggests not!
• human error major causal factor
• 80 - 90 percent accidents (multiple studies)
• 2 out of 3 in Australia (Feyer & Williamson 1991,
Williamson & Feyer 1990)
• high rate operator related to design error (Rasmussen
& Pedersen 1984, Reason 1990)
• active errors and latent errors (Rasmussen & Pedersen
1994)
“Catch 22” of human supervisory control
• New technologies -> new tasks
–
–
–
–
operators becoming increasingly remote
operator - knowledge based reasoning powers for system emergencies
more opaque -> not knowing happening / can do
operators considered unreliable / inefficient
• “Catch 22” (Reason after Bainbridge 1987)
– designers errors significant contribution to accidents & events, the
same designer who seeks to eliminate humans still leaves operator to
do tasks which the designer cannot automate, most successful
automated systems with rare need for manual intervention need
greatest investment in training
– task alien -> drilling / training but unpredictable -> active errors
Potential to have an impact on every human
“Automation” is the execution by a machine
agent of a function that was previously
carried out by a human” (Parasuraman & Riley
1997)
–
–
–
–
medical technology
banking
automobiles
aviation
Should ergonomic principles be an
integral part of engineering design?
“…unless a systematic analysis of equipment is made
involving people experienced in the environment of its
intended use, the probability of foreseeable risks being
identified is low.” Dwight 1991
Consequence ...
•
Designers & other stakeholders open to litigation
•
Exposure to risk of injury through latent design errors
This is not sustainable!!
National Occupational Health &
Safety Commission
• Development learning package for engineers to gain
a greater understanding of their role in safety (1990)
• Safe Design project (2000)
“…design professional associations need to identify
and define the key competencies which should be
included in the curriculum of undergraduate courses
to cover the area of safe design”
Not more red tape … Engineers
already do safety to death!!
What else?
– safety an important consideration but certainly not the
only reason for considering human-system interaction
– quantitative evidence of benefits in usability, efficiency
and productivity
– win / win situation, greater user satisfaction and
productivity gains
Would engineers accept the inclusion
of ergonomic principles in
undergraduate engineering education?
Cross sectional survey of members AaeE
Aims:
• to determine the attitude of professional engineering educators in
Australasia toward ergonomic principles in engineering practice;
• to determine if the intensity of the attitude response was related to
previous exposure to ergonomic training; and
• to ascertain if engineering educators would support the inclusion of
ergonomic principles in undergraduate engineering curriculum.
Key survey findings
• Positive attitude toward the major principles of ergonomics in
their own professional practice
• Intensity of positive attitude was greater if exposed to
previous formal (or informal) ergonomic training
• Ergonomics not systematically included in undergraduate
engineering programs at present
• Over 80% of participants affirmed that they thought it should
be included in undergraduate engineering curriculum
• Majority respondents did not believe that engineering
educators had the skills / knowledge needed to teach
ergonomic principles themselves
Plus there is more ...
• Literature supported that engineering is experiencing a
paradigm shift globally toward a more holistic approach
• Engineers will need to have an enhanced understanding of
the societal context of their work
• Authors argue culture change required, a move from
technical rationality to social responsibility
“…the courage to break with one’s engineering paradigm as required and to
operate pragmatically and unscientifically in the public world rather than
theoretically and scientifically in the special world of engineering”
IE Aust Competency Standards
Latest IE Aust competency standards for design reflect
these changes
But ...
• evidence suggests that little exists in current curriculum of
engineering design courses which would develop an
understanding of user interaction with systems
• designers are not typical users and frequently their clients
are not typical users either
...leads to a disparity in what is perceived as ‘designing for users’.
CQU model for integration of
ergonomic principles
Action Research Project
• 1st cycle - raising awareness through guest
lectures
• 2nd cycle - two teams working together on
same project with different outcomes
• 3rd cycle - integrated course with shared
outcomes
Model implementation
Mechanical Systems Design (3rd year, BET)
Human Factors (3rd year, BOHS)
Share 50% common project
• common module
• common video (teaching team introducing project brief)
• shared facilitation of teams (not by lecturer discipline)
• flexible delivery
• pre selected teams (3-4 per team)
• shared outcome
Project Brief
To design a rock-climbing frame to be used
by climbers who have disabilities.
– The disability was defined as paraplegia, and
specifically the climbers had use of their body
from the waist up
– The context of use would be Adventure Based
Learning (an irregular activity used specifically
to build self esteem and confidence)
Project objectives
• To develop team work skills that will build confidence and
make you a more effective team member in projects in
which you will be involved
• To develop a detailed design of a system that will meet the
problem definition that the team has identified, that is
sound from both a technical and human factors
perspective. As this requires knowledge of both
mechanical engineering design and ergonomics, this will
require a team approach and collaborative learning to
achieve the objective.
• To provide basic awareness of the other discipline and its
link to your own
Assessment
Wk 3
Team contract (NG)
Wk 6
Project concept proposal (10%)
Mid term team evaluation (NG)
Wk 14
Reflection on teamwork (Essay & Journal - 20%)
Final project documentation (20%)
Throughout term discipline specific activities (50%)
Student learning
• ergonomic students learnt about the engineering design
process, they learnt about feasibility, about materials and
costing - that this system needed to be made and the
complexity of considerations required
• engineering students learnt that people interact with the
system at all stages, a richer understanding of the context
of the use and understood how a system could be a better
product with the user in mind from the concept stage. They
had beginning understandings of humans as people
bringing their individual characteristics to the system, not
just as another specification to be considered
• confidence in their communication increased and take on
alternative roles
Our learning
• Advantage to be able to draw on well established project
protocols from engineering and the experience of
developing successful flexible learning packages from
OHS
• Students are people and interacted within our system, their
fears and concerns about the process were their reality and
needed to be acknowledged
• Interdisciplinary teams can be developed at distance but
attention to logistical detail was paramount to the success
• Confident leadership and role modeling from the
facilitation team was critical
• We had developed strong, effective teams who were
fiercely loyal to each other and wanting respect of each
other
Where to next?
• Web based learning community for the
engineering and ergonomics students
• Development of a learning package for
engineering educators to help them facilitate
an understanding of the human component
in engineering system design within their
own classes