Human Factors: The Journal
of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society
http://hfs.sagepub.com/
Macroergonomics: Work System Analysis and Design
Brian M. Kleiner
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2008 50: 461
DOI: 10.1518/001872008X288501
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/50/3/461
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Additional services and information for Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://hfs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://hfs.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/50/3/461.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2008
What is This?
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014
GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL ISSUE
Macroegonomics: Work System Analysis and Design
Brian M. Kleiner, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia
Objective: Our goal was to briefly describe how macroergonomics was developed to
fill a void in human factors and ergonomics. Background: A study commissioned by
the Human Factors Society in 1978 resulted in the formalization of a new subdiscipline
of human factors, called organizational design and management, which eventually was
coined macroergonomics. Method: Differentiators of macroergonomics are presented
along with methods adapted from other domains as well as unique methods. Results:
Based on laboratory and field studies conducted at multiple universities, government
facilities, and industries, work system factors can be manipulated in the laboratory and
studied in the field successfully. Also, case studies in academia, industry, and government demonstrate 60% to 90% performance impact and positive qualitative changes
such as culture change. Conclusion: Macroergonomics offers a perspective as well as
methods and tools for more successful human factors and ergonomics design, development, intervention, and implementation. Application: Human factors engineers or
psychologists and ergonomists can use the perspective of macroergonomics to achieve
better results or can expand their involvement of macroergonomics through the use
of methods and tools.
An important development over the past 50
years has been the formalization and development
of organizational design and management in human factors and ergonomics science and practice.
Although the systems ergonomics perspective in
Europe provided a useful foundation for ergonomics practice, the discovery of specific methods
and tools formalized practice of sociotechnical
systems theory.
The sociotechnical systems approach to work
system design grew out of the need to revitalize
Europe after World War II in the 1950s. Emery and
Trist, from the Tavistok Institute in the United
Kingdom, are credited with the movement. This
movement placed emphasis on the role of the environment in an open system and the need to jointly
consider technology (e.g., hardware, software,
methods, tools) and personnel when designing
systems.
As described in the National Research Council
report Research Needs for Human Factors (Pew,
1983), “human factors specialists...are united by
a singular perspective on the system design pro-
cess: that design begins with an understanding of
the user’s role in overall system performance and
that systems exist to serve their users” (p. 2). A Futures Study, commissioned by the Human Factors
Society, reported in 1980 that more effective and
relevant human factors need to focus on the organizational design and management factors associated with systems (Hendrick, 1991).
A seminal article, titled “Ergonomics in Organizational Design and Management,” appeared in
Ergonomics in 1991 (Hendrick, 1991). Directly
related to the 1978 Futures Study, the article presented the need and a general framework for going
beyond the 10% to 20% performance gains typically realized in ergonomics to the 60% to 80%
improvements realized when attending appropriately to organizational design and management
factors.
The Organizational Design and Management
Technical Group was formed within the Human
Factors Society in 1981. In 1998, a survey of the
membership was conducted and resulted in a comprehensive list of methods, tools, and techniques
Address correspondence to Brian M. Kleiner, Virginia Tech – Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, 519B
Whittemore Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0118; bkleiner@vt.edu. HUMAN FACTORS, Vol. 50, No. 3, June 2008, pp. 461–467.
DOI 10.1518/001872008X288501. Copyright © 2008, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014
462
June 2008 – Human Factors
used by human factors engineers, psychologists,
and ergonomists who considered organizational
design and management factors in their work. This
members survey also led to the formal renaming
of the technical group to the Macroergonomics
Technical Group.
METHOD
Macroergonomics grew out of the need for the
ergonomics profession to take a “larger-systems”
perspective to achieve more than the typical 10%
to 20% performance gains previously experienced.
Although the large-system and sociotechnical
systems perspectives have been around much
longer, the organized subdiscipline of macroergonomics has existed since 1980. This thrust was
formed in direct response to a Futures Study commissioned by the Human Factors Society.
Five major characteristics or elements of sociotechnical work systems can be identified: (a) technological subsystem, (b) personnel subsystem, (c)
external environment, (d) internal environment, and
(e) organizational design. A simplified descriptive
model views work systems as comprising these
important and related subsystems (see Figure 1).
It should be noted that macroergonomics does not
prescribe complete knowledge in these areas, such
that the expertise of an industrial or organizational
psychologist is replicated; rather, it is prescribed
that the practitioner know “just enough” to perform more effective human factors or ergonom-
ics. That is, she or he must acknowledge the open
system and, to some extent, attend to the larger system factors that will ultimately support or negate
interface-level implementations or interventions.
Macroergonomics makes use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, and new methods
and tools are continually added to the toolbox. A
comprehensive section of macroergonomic methods can be found in Stanton, Hedge, Brookhuis,
Salas, and Hendrick (2005).
The subdiscipline has an increasing body of
validating laboratory research, but field research
is perhaps the most appropriate pursuit, given that
work system analysis and design are ultimately
the focus. Research in the field and especially the
use of qualitative methods, perhaps, take some human factors and ergonomics researchers out of
their comfort zones, but this does not make the
pursuit any less valid or important. Macroergonomics has been shown to affect a wide range of
performance, including individual musculoskeletal disorder reduction (Carayon, Smith, & Haims,
1999) and large-scale organizational culture and
performance (Hendrick, 1996).
Work System Structure
Through analyzing the key characteristics of
the sociotechnical system components identified
in Figure 1, researchers can develop a design of
the work system’s structure for effective functioning. The macroergonomic analysis of structure
(MAS) provides guidance on how to correct the
External Environment
Subenvironments
Personnel
Subsystem
Technological
Subsystem
Who performs
the work
How work
is performed
How organization
is designed
Organization and Management
Internal Environment
Psychosocial
and physical
Figure 1. Basic conceptual model of a work system.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014
WORK SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
structure for more optimal work system functioning. This, in turn, sets the stage for the related
analysis and refinement of the work system’s processes and ultimately for more successful human
factors and ergonomics design, intervention, or
implementation.
According to MAS, the structure of a work system is conceptualized as having three core dimensions: complexity, or the degree of differentiation
and integration; formalization, or the degree of
job standardization; and centralization, or the extent to which decision-making authority is shared
(Bedeian & Zammuto, 1991; Robbins, 1983; Stevenson, 1993). The work system elements in Figure 1 have been studied in relation to their effects
on the three organizational design dimensions.
MAS essentially integrates selected models as macroergonomics tools for assessing and modifying
or developing the design of a given work system.
For more details about MAS, the reader is directed
to Hendrick and Kleiner (2001).
Work System Process and Methods
As described in detail in Hendrick and Kleiner
(2001, 2002), macroergonomic analysis and design
(MEAD) is both a methodology and a unifying
framework for macroergonomics. It formalizes the
principles and methods of sociotechnical systems
theory and ultimately provides the organizational
support needed for the design and implementation
of an effective work system. This 10-phase methodology also generates training and other support
system contributions, but it is the organizational
aspects that distinguish this approach from others
(see Table 1) and offers a theoretically derived context through which other methods can be deployed.
MEAD can be customized for particular applications. The methodology promotes participation of
users who are involved in each phase.
The methodology builds on the sociotechnical
systems theoretical framework. As learned from
the 1978 Futures Study, traditional human factors
and ergonomics methods often did not consider
the broader and often powerful organizational design and management factors. Although sociotechnical systems approaches did focus on many
of these factors, these approaches failed to drill
down to the human-machine interface level. So,
MEAD is an attempt to solve the problem associated with sociotechnical systems (STS) being
too broad and human factors analysis being too
specific through integration and attention to mat-
463
ters such as optimal allocation of function to
human and machine, as well as support through
techniques such as training.
Important methods such as participatory ergonomics and/or work domain analysis can be performed within MEAD or can stand alone because
they were also developed with the sociotechnical
systems perspective. Participatory ergonomics is a
validated approach that focuses on actively involving workers or users in implementing ergonomic
knowledge, procedures, and changes with the objective of improving such performance criteria as
working environment, culture, safety, productivity, quality, and attitudes (Haines, Wilson, Vink, &
Koningsveld, 2002). For product design, a similar
method is participatory design.
Cognitive work analysis (CWA) describes human cognitive and collaborative work in complex,
dynamic, high-risk systems. Work domain analysis (WDA) is one of the frameworks of CWA and
can be used to gather work domain constraints as
part of a cognitive engineering design process
(Burns, Bisantz, & Roth, 2004) as a stand-alone
method or in the context of a larger framework
such as macroergonomics or human systems integration (Pew & Mavor, 2007).
MAS and MEAD, together with relevant methods and techniques such as participatory ergonomics, work domain analysis, and/or function
allocation, serve as starting points for human factors engineers, psychologists, or ergonomists who
seek to make their research more relevant or their
interventions or implementations more powerful.
As reported in Stanton et al. (2005), traditional
methods such as interviews, focus groups, laboratory experiments, and field experiments are complemented by an array of subdiscipline-specific
methods, including a macroergonomic organizational questionnaire survey; participatory ergonomics; the cognitive walkthrough method; Kansei
engineering; HITOP analysis; TOP Modeler;
computer-integrated manufacturing, organization,
and people system design (CIMOP); anthropotechnology; and the systems analysis tool (SAT).
RESULTS
Laboratory and Field Empirical Results
Empirical studies have been conducted to quantify and validate aspects of sociotechnical systems
theory and macroergonomics. For example, the
literature refers to “joint optimization” as a basic
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014
464
Theory
Sociotechnical systems
theory
Systems theory
Loosely on sociotechnical
systems theory
Theories of psychology
Japanese philosophies;
theory of constraints
Sociotechnical systems/
action research
Approach
Macroergonomics
Systems engineering
Human-systems
integration
Industrial/organizational
Lean production
Participatory design
Users/consumers
Process
Individual behavior
Technological systems,
subsystems, and small
systems/devices
Systems
Work-system/
organization
Primary Level
of Focus
TABLE 1: Comparison Among Macroergonomics and Other Domains
Groups
Production systems
Groups and organization
Functions of human
factors, manpower,
personnel, training/
system safety, health
hazards, and survivability
Integration of functions
Environment,
personnel, technology
Additional Foci
Attitude and adoption
Elimination of waste;
productivity; job
satisfaction
Behavioral change
System acquisition and
development of life
cycle cost
System
Productivity, health
and safety, satisfaction,
culture
Primary Performance
Impact
User-centered design
Practical production
system results
Strong research body
of knowledge
Especially applicable
to military systems
Integrates technical
functions
Macro-to-micro linkage;
especially applicable
to human factors and
ergonomics professionals
Additional ValueAdded Characteristics
WORK SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
tenet of sociotechnical systems theory. This refers
to the notion that the technological and personnel
subsystems should be designed with respect to
each other. However, because the literature did not
provide practical prescriptions for how managers
should allocate their time, Grenville (as described
in Hendrick & Kleiner, 2001; see Figure 2) studied actual firms in North America to begin to validate and quantify this relationship. The balance
model, developed by Smith and Sainfort (1989),
is similar to this sociotechnical concept.
When large-system challenges are at hand,
such as NASA’s Small Aircraft Transportation
System (SATS), a framework such as macroergonomics can be an organizing framework within
which both laboratory/simulator studies and field
data collection can be triangulated (e.g., BoehmDavis et al., 2007; Saleem & Kleiner, 2006) and
can lead to a better understanding of actual user
(e.g., pilot) performance in the laboratory as well
as the field (e.g., flights), using both quantitative
and qualitative and both macro and micro methods. Macroergonomics is also a useful orientation
for nonlinear process understanding and emergent
properties of work systems and systems of systems.
Case Studies
Another seminal publication by Hendrick
465
(1996) was the Economics of Ergonomics, published by the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. This publication was a major milestone that
was needed to help justify the discipline of human
factors and ergonomics externally. Most of the
case studies presented achieved impressive results
precisely because of their attention to organizational design and management factors. Nagamachi
and Imada (1992), pioneers in the formalization of
macroergonomics, demonstrated that with focus
on the psychological/cognitive and organizational
aspects (as well as the physical aspects), large,
positive impacts to safety and health can occur.
Macroergonomic methods such as participatory
ergonomics have been validated across a diverse
array of industries, including military, manufacturing, health care, construction, and even daycare
(Haines et al., 2002). Hendrick (2003) reported that
large-scale performance is expected and characteristic of the macroergonomic approach.
Impact of Macroergonomics
In summary, macroergonomics has been applied in the design and redesign of large-scale
systems (Kleiner, 2002), typically with large-scale
results, as previously reported. Macroergonomics
has also been instrumental in affecting communities and thus has societal implications (Carayon
Figure 2. Joint optimization versus department performance (in Hendrick & Kleiner, 2001). Reproduced with permission from Macroergonomics: An Introduction to Work System Design. Copyright 2001 by the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014
466
June 2008 – Human Factors
& Haims, 2003). Macroergonomics is also being
applied across a diverse set of sectors, from health
care to construction.
DISCUSSION
The Futures Study was a major milestone and
breakthrough for human factors and ergonomics.
For some, discussing or attending to organizational and management factors takes them out of
their scholarly or practice comfort zone, but others have realized that understanding and even
attending to such factors are exactly what the discipline needs to have an impact and to convey relevance to decision makers.
Macroergonomics and Other Large-System
Approaches
“Macroergonomics promotes an analysis of
work systems at the level of subsystems or contributing factors (i.e. personnel, technological, organizational, environmental, and cultural and their
interactions) before pursuing traditional microergonomics intervention” (Pew & Mavor, 2007,
p. 140). Whereas macroergonomics has been developed as a theoretically based and methods- and
tools-driven subdiscipline, a Venn diagram could
show philosophical or methodological overlap
with other areas. In his seminal Ergonomics publication, “Ergonomics in Organizational Design
and Management,” Hendrick (1991) credited Nigel Corlett from the United Kingdom with being
one of the informal founders of the perspective
inherent to macroergonomics. This large-system
perspective is sometimes referred to as systems
ergonomics.
Although systems ergonomics shares with
macroergonomics the sociotechnical systems
perspective (which originated in the United Kingdom), the macroergonomics subdiscipline has attempted to build on the perspective by generating
additional methods and tools. In addition, industry
has promoted large-system-focused interventions
and programs for decades. In many ways, the total
quality management (TQM) movement in the
United States paralleled the STS movement in Europe (see Kleiner & Hendrick, 1999). TQM is very
much related to the Toyota Production System,
which has evolved into the so-called lean production and six-sigma movements. Especially within
a supply chain context, lean production, six sigma,
and six sigma predecessors such as TQM are pro-
cess based within an open-systems, environmental context. The difference again may be in macroergonomics’ linkage between the macro (large
system) and the micro (interface), as described in
Table 1.
MANPRINT was coined in1984 by a U.S. Army
general to identify a new program in the Department of Defense designed to better integrate manpower, personnel, and training considerations
into the system acquisition process. MANPRINT
evolved into Human Systems Integration (HSI). As
detailed in the Handbook of Human Systems Integration (see Kleiner & Booher, 2003), Macroergonomics and HSI are also related. MANPRINT and
HSI were an important development because of
the large-system perspective in system acquisition
and development. ANational Academies Committee (Pew & Mavor, 2007) recently studied HSI and
concluded its applicability and generalizability to
domains outside of defense include health care.
Simply, HSI can be conceptualized as a combination of systems engineering and human factors.
Although HSI emphasizes various domains – human factors, manpower, personnel, training/system
safety, health hazards, and survivability – the difference is level of focus. Human systems integration technology and disciplines are focused most
directly on the design, development, and deployment of major technological systems; critical technological subsystems; and small systems/devices.
Macroergonomics, in contrast, is most applicable
to very highly complex organizations, highly complex organizations, and complex organizations
(Kleiner & Booher, 2003).
Finally, if the value-added contribution inherent to macroergonomics is the focus at the organizational level of work systems, then how is it
distinctive from industrial/organizational (I/O)
psychology? I/O psychology is focused mostly on
workplace behavior, and although I/O psychology
does purport to focus on individual, group, and organizational behavior, it is less focused on technology and the interfaces of technology and people.
Interestingly, another academic and practitioner
pursuit, systems engineering, is focused on integration across disciplines and technologies and
less focused (relatively) on behavior and interface
design. Thus, although all of these disciplines and
practices exhibit inherent strengths and are useful
for that for which they were designed, macroergonomics pulls knowledge from these (and other)
domains into a theory-driven subdiscipline that
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014
WORK SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
promotes learning “just enough” about the larger
system to perform more effective human factors
and ergonomics.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
What grew out of a practical need for future relevance and impact has become a core subdiscipline of human factors and ergonomics. Although
the need to consider organizational management
and design in human factors was identified 30
years ago, there are challenges ahead. The subdiscipline has matured to the point that quality
scholarship is being produced but tends to be published abroad or appears under headings other
than “Macroergonomics and the Environment.”
This is, perhaps, because there is greater adoption
if the perspective, methods, and/or tools are nested
within other domains. This is acceptable, though,
especially at a time when human factors and ergonomics is needed by society as a whole but needs
to present itself as a more relevant profession able
to deliver an impact. Thus, macroergonomics and
its large-system and organizational focus can provide perspective to the human factors engineer,
psychologist, or ergonomist and can provide methods and tools for making an even greater difference
in workplaces and to society.
REFERENCES
Bedeian, A. G., & Zammuto, R. F. (1991). Organizations: Theory and
design. Chicago: Dryden.
Boehm-Davis, D. A., Casali, J. G., Kleiner, B. M., Lancaster, J.,
Saleem, J., & Wochinger, K. (2007). Pilot performance, strategy,
and workload while executing approaches at steep angles and with
lower landing minima. Human Factors, 49, 759–772.
Burns, C. M., Bisantz, A. M., & Roth, E. M. (2004). Lessons from a
comparison of work domain models: Representational choices and
their implications. Human Factors, 46, 711–727.
Carayon, P., & Haims, M. C. (2003). Balanced work system and participation in quality management: Applications in the community.
AI and Society, 17, 97–113.
Carayon, P., Smith, M. J., & Haims, M. C. (1999). Work organization,
job stress and work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Human
Factors, 41, 644–663.
Haines, H., Wilson, J. R., Vink, P., & Koningsveld, E. (2002).
Validating a framework for participatory ergonomics (the PEF).
Ergonomics, 45, 309–327.
467
Hendrick, H. W. (1991). Ergonomics in organizational design and management. Ergonomics, 34, 743–756.
Hendrick, H. W. (1996). Economics of ergonomics. Santa Monica, CA:
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Hendrick, H. W. (2003). Determining the cost-benefits of ergonomics
projects and factors that lead to their success. Applied Ergonomics,
34, 419–427.
Hendrick, H. W., & Kleiner, B. M. (2001). Macroergonomics: An introduction to work system design. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society.
Hendrick, H. W., & Kleiner, B. M. (Eds.). (2002). Macroergonomics:
Theory, methods and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kleiner, B. M. (2002). Macroergonomics in large-scale organizational
change. In H. W. Hendrick & B. M. Kleiner (Eds.), Macroergonomics: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 273–289). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Kleiner, B. M., & Booher, H. R. (2003). Human systems integration
education and training. In H. R. Booher (Ed.), Handbook of human
systems integration (pp. 121–163). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kleiner, B. M., & Hendrick, H. W. (1999). Revisiting macroergonomics as an integrating mechanism for TQM and ergonomics. In
J. Axelsson, J. Eklund, & B. Bergman (Eds.), Proceedings of the
International Conference on TQM and Human Factors (pp.
128–133). Linkoping, Sweden: CMTO.
Nagamachi, M., & Imada, A. (1992). A macroergonomic approach for
improving safety and work design. In Proceedings of the Human
Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting – 1992 (pp. 859–861). Santa
Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Pew, R. W. (Ed.). (1983). Research needs for human factors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Pew, R. W., & Mavor, A. S. (Eds.). (2007). Human-system integration
in the system development process: A new look. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Robbins, S. R. (1983). Organization theory: The structure and design
of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Saleem, J. J., & Kleiner, B. M. (2006). A case-based review of critical incidents in general aviation for improved safety. International Journal
of Applied Aviation Studies, 6, 271–281.
Smith, M. J., & Sainfort, P. C. (1989). A balance theory of job design
for stress reduction. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
4, 67–79.
Stanton, N., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., & Hendrick, H. (Eds.).
(2005). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Stevenson, W. B. (1993). Organizational design. In R. T. Golembiewski
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 141–168). New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Brian M. Kleiner is a professor of industrial and systems
engineering, human factors, and ergonomics group and
director of the Center for Innovation in Construction
Safety and Health Research, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He received his Ph.D. in industrial engineering at the University at Buffalo in 1990.
Date received: November 2, 2007
Date accepted: April 8, 2008
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 1, 2014