By Pedro Ferreira
The continuous and accelerating rate of change seems to be the new normal for every profession and work context. This much can also be said about our own lives. It seems increasingly difficult to make sense of the boundaries between family, personal life, and work. We struggle to make sense of the organisation around us and the roles we are meant to be fulfilling seem increasingly blurry or hybrid.
Ergonomics has evolved across many boundaries, both scientific and professional practice. In my mind, this has always been one of the key challenges when conveying to stakeholders the relevance and added value of ergonomics. Exchanges with different colleagues worldwide have further reinforced this belief. The blurriness and dynamics at the boundaries of ergonomics seem an unsurmountable problem.
Recently, I have come to question these assumptions: How is this a problem? How does it really manifest itself? As you explore such questions, a much better understanding of the situation and its context emerges. Rather than looking outwards for causes and solutions, I started to focus on my own perceptions and perspectives. What has always appeared like an impossible challenge feels increasingly like an open array of opportunities.
It’s not about the tools and methods but rather the methodology itself. While I’ve always advocated my methodology as one that focuses on the person and its context at work, my self-questioning led me to realise how much I had allowed myself to be drawn into this inescapable tendency to look at the person as yet another part of a system. Much is said today about “technical, organisational and human factors” or even “organisational and human factors”. But ask yourself how much these common expressions do not push you towards levelling out the existing and fundamental differences despite placing these factors in “different boxes”?
The ultimate question is, what differences do I see between a “human” and a “person”? If we aim to explain performance and behaviour, and look at these as the result of a combination of body and brain activity, then little opportunity is there to understand the person. The richness of ergonomics, particularly its multi and inter-disciplinarity, lies in the ability to see the person as more than a mechanistic set of physiology and cognition. Communicating the value of ergonomics must not come from an (implicitly or explicitly) oversimplification of the person but rather by challenging the beliefs of stakeholders in regard to what a person is. In the end, what ergonomics practitioners share with their stakeholders is the desire to make better use of the unique human abilities to cope with the high complexity and uncertainty of our world. This can only be pursued by understanding the persons far beyond the generic human standards.
