“interactions: Exploring Aspects of Design Thinking” by Richard Anderson and Jon Kolko

“Evolution of the Mind: A Case for Design Literacy” by Chris Pacione

“Design Thinking in Stereo: Brown and Martin” by Paula Thornton

“Designing Interactions at Work: Applying Design to Discussions, Meetings and Relationships” by Roger Martin and Jennifer Riel

Given that I’ve been using the UGLee Pen on a daily basis for the past couple weeks, now is the perfect time for a preliminary review.  The pen was designed by James Lee, M.D. (full disclosure: Dr. Lee provided 3 pens free of charge for the review).  Also, in case you’re wondering, the “UG” in UGLee stands for “ultimate grip.”  Below are my preliminary impressions:

• Design accommodates left-handed writers.  It also fits right-handed writers – at least with similar sized hands.
• Barrel length, including notch, appropriately fits larger hands.  I still have to investigate its fit with smaller handed writers.
• Grip requires less tension between thumb and index finger to write.  This was noticed after the first use and became more apparent over time.  
• Ink allows for smooth, smudge-free writing.  Important for all writers, but even more so for a left-handed writer like myself.
• “UGLee” is an apt name.  While not the most stylish pen on the market, if forced to choose, I’ll take “function” over “form” any day.

I’ll be providing a more comprehensive review in the near future that will compare the UGLee Pen with several other ergonomic pens.  I’ll also provide a summary of the general findings from the literature on pen ergonomics.

Texting is defined as “…engaging in the review of, or preparation and transmission of typed messages via wireless devices.”  Inattentive driving is a misdemeanor and can result in one being “…sentenced to jail for not more than ninety (90) days or may be fined not more than three hundred dollars ($300), or may be punished by both fine and imprisonment” if convicted.  

The co-sponsors (4 KB, .pdf) include Senators McGee, Werk, Bock, and Schroeder and Representatives Wills and Wood.

If passed, Idaho would join 19 other states that ban text messaging while driving.

The article starts by quoting the October 1999 article, “Beyond the Information Revolution,” written by Peter Drucker.  This set the stage for examining different perspectives of how human factors and ergonomics professionals understand knowledge workers.  The three perspectives (Macroergonomics; Cognitive Systems Theory; and Human Systems Integration) have a fourth perspective, Sociotechnical Systems Theory, as an underlying foundation. 

The author goes onto discuss several subtopics including:

• Balance Theory
• Joint Cognitive Systems
• Cognitive Task Analysis
• Situation Awareness
• Resilience Engineering
• Cognitive Work Analysis
• Ecological Interface Design
• Macrocognition

The article closes with a couple cogent comments and questions that human factors and ergonomics practitioners should strive to answer:

“Too often we perceive the benefits of the work we do as obvious, and get upset when the rest of the world does not agree. Would a shift in framing the outcomes of HFE research and intervention to correspond with higher level goals of the “customer” organization improve the current impact factor?” (p. 345)

“A basically entrepreneurial/individualistic worldview among the practitioners and researchers concerned with knowledge work has lead to an explosion of methods, approaches, and techniques. Are we, as a community of practice embodying both macroergonomics and cognitive systems engineering, ready to develop the “trading zones” that maximize the opportunity to come to some consensus/convergence within the HSI model? Can we harvest this profusion of insights to enhance individual and system performance and to have a real impact on health, safety, and satisfaction?” (p. 345)

References

Dainoff, M.J. (2009).  Can’t we all just get along? Some alternative views of the knowledge worker in complex HCI systems.  International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25, 328-347.

Early Warning Signs and Signals
     1.  Work performance
               Risk of errors and mistakes
               Reduced efficiency and energy
               Lowered level of motivation
     2.  Physical and somatic symptoms
               Fatigue and exhaustion
               Headaches and/or digestive problems
               Sleeplessness
      3.  Behavioral indicators
               Irritability and anger
               More easily frustrated
               Suspiciousness

Advanced Symptoms of Burnout
      4.  Self-medication, such as with alcohol or tranquilizers
      5.  Cynicism, sarcasm, and attitudinal negativity
      6.  Serious self doubt
      7.  More and more time working, with less getting done

To determine the level of stress you’re currently experiencing, you can complete the Perceived Stress Scale. The 10-item scale asks questions pertaining to stress you’ve experienced during the last month.

References

Quick, J.C., Saleh, K.J., Sime, W.E., Martin, W., Cooper, C.L., Quick, J.D., & Mont, M.A. (2006).  Stress management skills for strong leadership: Is it worth dying for?  The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 88, 217-225.

• 6% = “extremely”
• 12% = “quite a bit”
• 34% = “somewhat”
• 30% = “a little”
• 18% = “not at all”

A follow up question revealed that 28% of respondents reported that “workplace demands” were a major source of stress in their lives.  Understanding the impact of stress on one’s life is important first step in learning to control its negative effects.

Stressors

People are stressed by a wide variety of things.  What may drive one person to the breaking point might hardly be noticed by another.  Sonnentag and Frese (2003) have identified several categories of stressors with corresponding examples.  They include:

• Physical (e.g., noise, heat, cold, vibrations, chemical, toxic substances, dirt, etc.)
• Task-related (e.g., time pressure, work overload, work complexity, monotonous work, disruptions, etc.)
• Work-schedule (e.g., night work, shift work, long hours, overtime, etc.)
• Social (e.g., interpersonal conflicts, harassment, bullying, etc.)
• Role (e.g., ambiguity, conflict, etc.)
• Career-related (e.g., job insecurity, poor career opportunities, etc.)
• Organizational (e.g., mergers, downsizing, reorganization, technology implementation, etc.)
• Traumatic (e.g., disasters, major accidents, dangerous activities, etc.)

Stressors can cause a variety of short- and long-term reactions in individuals at the physiological, emotional, and behavioral levels.  Some reactions include:

• Anxiety
• Alcoholism and drug abuse
• Burnout
• Cardiovascular disease
• Changes in appetite
• Depression
• Fatigue
• Frustration
• Hypertension
• Memory loss
• Physical illness
• Sexual dysfunction
• Sleeplessness
• Tension
• Trouble concentrating

Stress reactions can lead to a variety of organizational problems including absenteeism, decreased worker performance, increased turnover rate, increased heath care costs, temporary or permanent disability, and work-place violence – just to name a few.

References

Gallop Poll (2001).  Attitudes in the American Workplace VII.  Wallford, CT: The Martin Company. http://www.stress.org/2001Harris.pdf

Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003).  Stress in organizations.  In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 12 – Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 453-491).  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

• Stress and Stressors
• Stress and Burnout
• Stress and Human Performance
• Stress Interventions
• Stress and Leadership
• Stress Resources

What’s amazing is how she’s able to concisely articulate her thoughts in less than a minute and a half – now that’s verbal parsimony!

Watch for yourself and see if you aren’t at least a little inspired.

Jacqueline Novogratz on how to recognize a linchpin from Seth Godin on Vimeo.

The review is conducted through the lens of human information processing, but alternative approaches were also touched upon including the ecological approach and activity theory. Some of the topics covered include:

• Augmented Cognition
• Distributed Cognition
• Hedonomics
• Macroergonomics
• Multimodal Interfaces
• Neuroergonomics
• Situation Awareness
• Ubiquitous Computing
• Vigilance

The authors close by raising several questions that could be addressed in future reviews:

1. What are the limits of neuroergonomics and augmented cognition for providing online adaptations of interfaces and tasks that will benefit operators’ performance?
2. How can automation be incorporated most effectively into air traffic management and other large-scale systems to improve their effectiveness?
3. In what ways can designs of products and systems be improved to satisfy the needs of older adults and other special populations?
4. What human factors issues need to be addressed in the use of future technologies (e.g., nanotechnology)?
5. How can cognitive architectures based on general information-processing principles best accommodate situational factors?
6. In what ways can large amounts of information of varying reliability be presented to improve users’ decision making?
7. How are design guidelines for universal access to be balanced with those that are culturally specific?
8. How best can biological, behavioral, and cultural approaches to human factors be integrated?

References

Proctor, R.W., & Vu, K.L. (2010).  Cumulative knowledge and progress in human factors.  Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 623-651.

“The Idaho Technology Council’s mission is to become the premier member-driven technology association dedicated to fostering the growth of technology companies in the state of Idaho, primarily in the areas of information technology, agriscience, and energy. The ITC provides a valuable forum for industry, research, educators, investors, and government throughout the state. It also advocates for creating a strong technology ecosystem and a high quality, high paid workforce.”

As an Idaho native that left the region for six years and returned to Boise in 2006, I applaud such an effort and hope that the ITC makes great strides toward attaining their mission. Moreover, as a human factors and ergonomics professional that assists companies with developing technology that better fits the needs of people, I see this as a great opportunity to step forward and provide support where possible.

It’s going to take an association that leverages the widest possible range of local talent to truly assist the many fledgling (and established) technology companies in the area. In the long run, that type of multidisciplinary approach will assist both the companies involved and the wider community as a whole. And that’s the type of sustainable advantage Idaho needs.

Individuals interested in learning more can check out the following sources:

• “My Thoughts on the Idaho Technology Council” by Mark Solon of Highway 12 Ventures
• “Group Forms to Drive Growth in “Innovation Economy’”by Zach Hagadone of the Idaho Business Review
• “Boise Joins the Idaho Technology Council”by Bethann Stewart of the Idaho Statesman

Technological change gave rise to human factors and system safety thinking. The practical demands posed by technological changes endowed human factors and system safety with the pragmatic spirit they have to this day. But pragmatic is no longer pragmatic if it does not match the demands created by what is happening around us now. The pace of sociotechnological change is not likely to slow down any time soon. If we think that World War II generated a lot of interesting changes, giving birth to human factors as a discipline, then we may be living in even more exciting times today. If we in human factors and system safety keep doing what we have been doing, simply because it worked for us in the past, we may become one of those systems that drift into failure. Pragmatics requires that we too adapt to better cope with the complexity of the world facing us now. Our past successes are no guarantee of continued future achievement. (p. xv)

Human factors was preceded by a mental Ice Age of behaviorism, in which any study of mind was seen as illegitimate and unscientific. Behaviorism itself had been a psychology of protest, coined in sharp contrast against Wundian experimental introspection that in turn preceded it. If behaviorism was a psychology of protest, then human factors was a psychology of pragmatics. The Second World War brought such a furious pace of technological development that behaviorism was caught short-handed. Practical problems in operator vigilance and decision making emerged that were altogether immune against Watson’s behaviorist repertoire of motivational exhortations. Up to that point, psychology had largely assumed that the world was fixed, and that humans had to adapt to its demands through selection and training. Human factors showed that the world was not fixed: Changes in the environment could easily lead to performance increments not achievable through behaviorist interventions. In behaviorism, performance had to be shaped after features of the world. In human factors, features of the world were shaped after the limits and capabilities of performance. (p. x)

Tomorrow I’ll post his thoughts regarding the possible future of the discipline if its’ practitioners do not face some hard ”truths” and make necessary changes to maintain relevance to the business community – and society at large.

Rosen, Salas, Lyons, and Fiore (2008), adapting a table from Salas, et al. (2006), presented a list that characterizes members of expert teams.  They (pp. 221-222):

1. Develop shared mental models.
   • They anticipate each other’s needs and actions.
   • They can communicate implicitly.
   • They interpret cues in a complimentary manner.
2. Learn and adapt.
   • They self-correct.
   • They learn from past decision-making episodes.
   • They adapt coordinating processes to dynamic environments.
   • They compensate for each other.
3. Maintain clear roles and responsibilities.
   • They manage expectations.
   • They understand each other’s roles and how they fit together.
   • They maintain clarity of roles while maintaining flexibility.
4. Possess clear, valued, and shared vision.
   • They develop their goals with a shared sense of purpose.
   • They guide their decisions with a common set of values.
5. Develop a cycle of pre-brief -> performance -> debrief.
   • They regularly provide individual and team level feedback to one another.
   • They establish and revise team goals and plans.
   • They dynamically set priorities.
   • They anticipate and review issues/problems of members.
   • They periodically diagnose team decision making “effectiveness,” including its results, and its processes.
6. Are led by strong team leaders.
   • They are led by someone with good leadership skills and not just technical competence.
   • They believe the leaders care about them.
   • Leaders of expert teams provide situation updates.
   • Leaders of expert teams foster teamwork, coordination, and cooperation.
   • Leaders of expert teams self-correct first.
7. Have a strong sense of “collective,” trust, teamness, and confidence.
   • They manage conflict well; they confront each other effectively.
   • They have a strong sense of team orientation.
   • They trust other team members’ “intentions.”
   • They strongly believe in the team’s collective ability to succeed.
8. Cooperate and coordinate.
   • They identify teamwork and task work requirements.
   • They ensure that, through staffing and/or development, the team possesses the right mix of competencies.
   • They consciously integrate new team members.
   • They distribute and assign work thoughtfully.
   • They examine and adjust the team’s physical workplace to optimize communication and coordination.

References

Rosen, M.A., Salas, E., Lyons, R., & Fiore, S.M. (2008). Expertise and naturalistic decision making in organizations: Mechanisms of effective decision making. In G.P. Hodgkinson & W.H. Starbuck (Eds.), The oxford handbook of organizational decision making (pp. 211-230). New York: Oxford University Press.

Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., Goodwin, G. F., & Fiore, S. (2006). The making of a dream team: When expert teams do best. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 439-453). New York: Cambridge University Press.

1. Are tightly coupled to cues and contextual features of the environment.
   • They develop psychological and physiological adaptations to the task environment.
   • They are sensitive to and leverage contextual patterns of cues in decision making.
2. Have a larger knowledge base and organize it differently from non-experts.
   • They have a more conceptually organized knowledge base.
   • They have more robust connections between aspects of their knowledge.
   • They have a more abstracted and functional knowledge base.
3. Engage in pattern recognition.
   • They perceive larger and more meaningful patterns in the environment.
   • They are able to detect subtle cue configurations.
   • They are able to retrieve courses of action based on situation/action matching rules.
4. Engage in deliberate and guided practice.
   • They devote time and effort to improving knowledge and skills.
   • They have high motivation to learn and long term learning goals.
5. Seek diagnostic feedback.
   • They seek out input from other experts.
   • They self-diagnose their performance, indentify weaknesses in their knowledge and processes, and correct them.
6. Have better situation assessment and problem representations.
   • They spend more time evaluating the situation.
   • They create deeper, more conceptual, more functional, and more abstracted situation representations.
7. Have specialized memory skills.
   • They functionally increase their ability to handle large amounts of information.
   • They anticipate what information will be needed in the decision making.
8. Automate the small skills.
   • They quickly and effortlessly do what requires large amounts of attention for non-experts.
   • They have more cognitive resources available for dealing with more complex aspects of decision making.
9. Self-regulate and monitor their progress.
   • They evaluate their own understanding of a situation.
   • They judge the consistency, reliability, and completeness of their information.
   • They make good decisions about when to stop evaluating the situation.

References

Rosen, M.A., Salas, E., Lyons, R., & Fiore, S.M. (2008).  Expertise and naturalistic decision making in organizations: Mechanisms of effective decision making.  In G.P. Hodgkinson & W.H. Starbuck (Eds.), The oxford handbook of organizational decision making (pp. 211-230).  New York: Oxford University Press.

• Aerospace Systems
• Aging
• Augmented Cognition
• Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
• Communications
• Computer Systems
• Education
• Environmental Design
• Forensics Professional
• Health Care
• Human Performance
• Individual Differences in Performance
• Industrial Ergonomics
• Internet
• Macroergonomics
• Perception and Performance
• Product Design
• Safety
• Surface Transportation
• Systems Development
• Test and Evaluation
• Training
• Virtual Environments

You can learn more from their descriptions or by visiting their individual websites.

• Aging
• Automation
• Checklists
• Decision Making
• Firearms
• Future of HFE
• Human Error
• Innovation
• Leadership
• Macroergonomics
• Neuroergonomics
• Persuasive Design
• Situation Awareness
• Sustainability
• Teams & Teamwork
• Training
• Usability
• User Engagement
• User Experience

I’m looking forward to a 2010 filled with countless opportunities to further educate readers about the discipline of human factors and ergonomics!

As I noted in a previous post, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security realizes the importance of human factors on homeland security – also see “High Priority Technology Needs, May 2009″ (9.5 MB, .pdf).  Unfortunately, as the previous incidents illustrate, it’s a complex issue that still needs significant appropriate attention to solve.  Moreover, as Raja Parasuraman noted in the May 2003 issue (147 KB, .pdf) of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Bulletin:

“The recognition of HF/E as central to security initiatives represents a small but nevertheless significant victory.  Even more important will be to monitor developments to ensure that continual integration of HF/E into future technological and procedural initiatives aimed at boosting security in domains other than transportation.” (p. 6)

While progress has been made on the research side, additional work is still needed on the implementation side.  This is an opportunity for human factors and ergonomics practitioners to step forward and seek out opportunities to collaborate with government entities, security companies, etc. to assist with developing next-generation security technology and systems to ensure they will be appropriately designed to meet the needs of people while increasing security.

• “User experience” is just a new name for old thinking, and “User experience practitioners” exhibit the same hubris that has long plagued “brand thinking”: the large name-as-mindshare mentality that a company can own a space, a segment, or even a consumer.
• These negative qualities of our last century’s focus on brand and experience have been forced upon the business of design and the design of business, but it is only interaction and the ability to change behavior that will serve as fundamental pillars upon which to drive successful new endeavors.
• Instead of seeking to own and prescribe a singular experience, we must strive to adapt to the peculiarities and nuances of human behavior.

To say this article will rile many in the interaction design / usability / user experience / branding communities is probably an understatement.  But, I believe the author highlights several issues that members of these communities should seriously contemplate.  As for myself, I find it an introductory “warm up” in preparation for reading his book “Thoughts on Interaction Design.”

I was intrigued by Dr. Lockwood’s definition of design thinking:

“…is essentially a human-centered innovation process that emphasizes observation, collaboration, fast learning, visualization of ideas, rapid concept prototyping, and concurrent business analysis, which ultimately influences innovation and business strategy.  The objective is to involve customers, designers, and businesspeople in an integrative process, which can be applied to product, service, or even business design.  It is a tool to imagine future states and to bring products, services, and experiences to market.” (p. xi)

Also, how can one not help but be inspired by the book’s dedication:

“This book is dedicated to the creative class.  To all the right-brainers out there – and the left-brainers with a creative spark – our opportunity to make a difference is now!  There has been no greater time of need for social, economic, and environmental improvement than today, and no better people to make a difference than “design thinkers”: those who venture outside the box, who are open-minded, who enjoy collaborative ideation, who have an eye on design and eye on the future, who have a passion for change, who tell visual stories, and who do all of these things with a spirit of goodness.  We can make the world a much better place, by design, in every moment.”