ABSTRACT
It is sensible to consider the historical development of a thing as a basis for understanding its future direction and form. The practice of human factors is not today what it was when it first emerged over 100 years ago. That is hardly surprising, since, as Meister argues (1999, p29), the discipline of human factors is fundamentally concerned with the relationship between humans and technology in a work context, and as technology has changed it has redefined that relationship. At the turn of the 20th century most work was physical and relied upon the skill,
strength and stamina of the worker. By the time of WWII, work was still largely manual but machines were in widespread use to enhance human productivity and performance. Considerations of physiology gave way to considerations of psychology, particularly the role of skilled behaviour. Taken at its most basic the shift has been from a physical relationship, emphasising human anatomy, biomechanical and physiological properties, to a cognitive relationship that emphasises human information processing capacity and reliability. This has continued throughout the technological revolution brought about by electronics and computerised automation during the latter part of the 20th century. At the same time the work relationship is placed within a human organisation that has been transformed by technology, managerial and socio-economic trends (Adrian Furnham, 2005, p61.) In this 60th year of the Ergonomics Society it is appropriate to look back at the
history and evolution of the practice of human factors. In doing so it will be argued that we can see the trends outlined above, but more importantly, we can recognise important paradigm shifts in the methods of practice. In other words, it is not the simple changes in focus due to technology that are important, but the changes in method that have been demanded by new technological and commercial influences. It will be argued that there have been three generations of human factors practice,
each characterised by the dominance of particular methods of application. Today’s practitioners need to be aware of these shifts as a basis for learning and responding to new challenges. The argument summarised here is intended to be a compass as well as a guide to the areas of knowledge that are pertinent to contemporary practice.
