ABSTRACT
Wickens (1984) suggested that “Prior to the birth of human factors, or ergonomics, in World War II, emphasis had been placed on ‘designing’ the human to fit the machine. That is, the emphasis was on training” (p. 4-5). This is in stark contrast to the tenets of cognitive ergonomics. Singleton (1989) argues that work environments should be designed to be compatible with the physical characteristics and limitations of potential employees and cognitive ergonomics is concerned with work design features that may tax the cognitive capacities of the workforce. There is clearly no conflict between adapting the workplace to the capacities of employees and the provision of training. Wickens observations refer to conditions in which ergonomic considerations were largely disregarded provided an operative could be trained without prohibitive costs and engineering considerations predominated. Such a philosophy allowed companies to implement technologies without serious concern for the welfare of their employees. Furthermore the provision of ‘adequate’ training could allow ‘failure’ to be ascribed to the worker rather than the technology. The benefits that have accrued from ergonomic audits have largely negated this largely technology centred approach. However there is some evidence that this more ‘humanitarian’ approach to work practices, particularly the provision of counselling services for stressed employees, may have some regressive effects.
