Skip to main content
No Access

Avenues of entry: how industrial engineers and ergonomists access and influence human factors and ergonomics issues

Published Online:pp 325-348

This study compares how Canadian industrial engineers (IEs) and ergonomists ‘position themselves’ to influence human factors and ergonomics (HFE) issues. The study examined how these stakeholders perceived their influence on HFE issues, constraints they operated under, and strategies used. The results contribute to an understanding of decisions and processes surrounding HFE practices, showing that organisational entry points and stakeholder expectations on IEs and ergonomists affect their influence on HFE issues. Ergonomists influenced HFE issues by leveraging their knowledge of other stakeholders’ priorities, and were more dependent on accessing the issue via a ‘problem owner’. IEs were often entrusted with greater freedom to act on improvements. Expressing HFE improvements in terms of business benefits was a successful strategy for both. It was found that ergonomists operated as ‘partial solution builders’, trying to influence the HFE issue as an expert, lobbyist or facilitator. Based on the results, an existing framework was modified.


human factors, ergonomics, occupational health, organisational politics, industrial engineering, influence, stakeholders, qualitative research, macroergonomics, goal hooking


  • 1. Broberg, O. (1997). ‘Integrating ergonomics into the product development process’. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 19, 4, 317-327 Google Scholar
  • 2. Broberg, O. (2007). ‘Integrating ergonomics into engineering: empirical evidence and implications for the ergonomists’. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing. 17, 4, 353-366 Google Scholar
  • 3. Broberg, O. , Hermund, I. (2004). ‘The OHS consultant as a ‘political reflective navigator’ in technological change processes’. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 33, 4, 315-326 Google Scholar
  • 4. Bryman, A. , Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods. 2nd ed., New York:Oxford University Press Inc Google Scholar
  • 5. Jonker, J. , Pennink, B. (2010). The Essence of Research Methodology. Berlin:Springer Google Scholar
  • 6. Karlsen, J.T. (2008). ‘Forming relationships with stakeholders in engineering projects’. European Journal of Industrial Engineering. 2, 1, 35-49 AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Lincoln, Y.S. , Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, USA:Sage Publishing Google Scholar
  • 8. Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications Google Scholar
  • 9. Mekitiak, M. (2009). Industrial Engineers on their Current Practice: Implications for the Integration of Social and Technical Sub-Systems in Work System Design. (accessed 18 December 2012), Toronto, Ontario, Canada:Ryerson University , MSc thesis, [online] 132/ Google Scholar
  • 10. Perrow, C. (1983). ‘The organizational context of human factors engineering’. Administrative Science Quarterly. 28, 4, 521-541 Google Scholar
  • 11. Piegorsch, K.M. , Watkins, K.W. , Piegorsch, W.W. , Reininger, B. , Corwin, S.J. , Valois, R.F. (2006). ‘Ergonomic decision-making: a conceptual framework for experienced practitioners from backgrounds in industrial engineering and physical therapy’. Applied Ergonomics. 37, 5, 587-598 Google Scholar
  • 12. Poggi, I. (2005). ‘The goals of persuasion’. Pragmatics and Cognition. 13, 2, 297-336 Google Scholar
  • 13. QSR NVIVO (2008). NVIVO 8 – Getting Started. (accessed 18 December 2012), QSR International Pty Ltd., Users manual, [online] DocumentFile/289/NVivo8-Getting-Started-Guide.pdf Google Scholar
  • 14. Theberge, N. , Neumann, W.P. (2010). ‘Doing ‘organizational work’: expanding the conception of professional practice in ergonomics’. Applied Ergonomics. 42, 1, 76-84 Google Scholar
  • 15. Waterson, P. , Kolose, S.L. (2010). ‘Exploring the social and organisational aspects of human factors integration: a framework and case study’. Safety Science. 48, 4, 482-490 Google Scholar
  • 16. Wells, R.P. , Neumann, W.P. , Nagdee, T. , Theberge, N. (2012). ‘Solution building versus problem convincing: ergonomists report on conducting workplace assessments’. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors. 1, 1, 50-65, 10.1080/21577323.2012.708699 Google Scholar
  • 17. Westgaard, R.H. (2000). ‘Work-related musculoskeletal complaints: some ergonomics challenges upon the start of a new century’. Applied Ergonomics. 31, 6, 569-580 Google Scholar
  • 18. Whysall, Z.J. , Haslam, R.A. , Haslam, C. (2004). ‘Processes, barriers, and outcomes described by ergonomics consultants in preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders’. Applied Ergonomics. 35, 4, 343-351 Google Scholar
  • 19. Wulff, I.A. , Westgaard, R.H. , Rasmussen, B. (1999a). ‘Ergonomic criteria in large-scale engineering design – I: Management by documentation only? Formal organization vs. designers’ perceptions’. Applied Ergonomics. 30, 3, 191-205 Google Scholar
  • 20. Wulff, I.A. , Westgaard, R.H. , Rasmussen, B. (1999b). ‘Ergonomic criteria in large-scale engineering design – II: evaluating and applying requirements in the real world of design’. Applied Ergonomics. 30, 3, 207-221 Google Scholar