7.1. Introduction

From an educational standpoint, students and novice designers may not always easily comprehend the shift from a theoretical to a practice-based approach in design, and often lack the experience of practice in order to develop contextual and holistic understandings of what they have been taught. To bridge this gap between design theory and practice, it is necessary to develop prospective ergonomic (PE) mindsets among academics and practicing designers through modes of reasoning, methods and tools as social sustainability and service-oriented design thinking are becoming more important for developing innovative products and experiences. This implies that they should be engaged more frequently in mentorship and scholarship activities through collaboration with the industry, involving a broader network of stakeholders and targeting different levels of value innovation.

In this chapter, the earlier mentioned research questions will be discussed with respect to how innovation-driven PEs can be contextualized and reframed within overarching and subordinate fields of ergonomics and distinguished from strategic design and management.

Hereby, orientation, methods, practices and value are the criteria which will be used for discussing the similarities and differences between macroergonomics and strategic management, PE and strategic design, preventive ergonomics and industrial design, corrective ergonomics and detail design.

Finally, this chapter will conclude with a general discussion on PE and its relation to strategic design and strategic management with respect to the development of new products and services.

7.2. Orientation

In this work, differences and similarities between PE and strategic design have been discussed with reference to generic strategies based upon innovation attitudes and ambitions within and among an ecosystem of organizations and stakeholders.

With respect to the motivations for developing future products and services, it can be said that in strategic design, innovation is centered around the growth and development of the organization, whereas in PE a balance between performance/productivity on the one hand and human well-being on the other is sought after.

However, a common perspective established between strategic design and PE is the aim to develop new products and services by imagining future user needs and responding with creative design solutions in a Fuzzy–Front End of Innovation process. Compared to strategic design, where product planning activities also address incremental product extensions, PE mainly focuses on radical innovation centered on human well-being and interests. The clustering of PE projects with a strategic intent in Whittington’s systemic quadrant of generic strategies is a proof of this (see Figure 6.4).

In industrial design and preventive ergonomic projects, context, the initial problem or brief are usually defined. Industrial design approaches the design problem through various perspectives: form, ergonomics, technology, marketing and ecology. However, in preventive ergonomics, user and usability aspects will be emphasized. Similarly, the comparison between industrial design and preventive ergonomics also applies when comparing detail design with corrective ergonomics.

7.3. Processes and methods

In strategic and industrial design projects, finding “what to develop” in the fuzzy-front-end is usually driven by the designer with the help of passive involvement of users and other stakeholders (user-centered design). In this positivist, problem solving approach, structured processes and methods for product planning and goal finding are being applied. In PE, reflective and participatory methods and tools complement the structured and systematic processes, methods and tools for determining what to design and how to design it. The designer then acts as a facilitator who deliberately plans and manages co-creation sessions by orchestrating a compilation of design methods and tools to be directly applied and/or to be introduced in a participatory manner. He also constructively extracts stakeholders’ views and competencies to anticipate and create future incremental or radical innovation based on user needs.

Concerning preventive ergonomic interventions, prescriptive analytical research and user-centered methods are being advocated to discover and understand user needs. Constrained by existing resources and contexts, the ergonomist creates new products or systems in a given context and according to a predetermined design brief. In some cases, such as in the ICSFRC project, a constructivist way of designing took place, in this case to design the interior of a fast-response car. Due to the highly contextual constraints, which are the predetermined interior spaces of the Mitsubishi and Volvo, on the spot model making and prototyping, sketching, and trial and fit sessions were the predominant activities, which signified a reflective design process. Corrective ergonomics intervened on strategic, industrial and detail design levels. Projects where corrective interventions lead to an industrial and detail design outcome were positivist in nature, driven by research and analysis. Examples are the Bus Shelter and DHM projects. The USB project, which is characterized by a strategic design – corrective ergonomic intervention – is evolutionary in nature. Since the design is a means to an end (the main objective is to enlarge the clientele for UOB’s ladies’ card), a reflective design approach has been chosen to opportunistically capitalize on unpatented technologies (electronics), as well as Valen Technologies’ injection molding capabilities, in order to create low-cost USBs.

7.4. Practices

The difference between strategic design and PE with respect to practices is that the latter adopts a broader view toward stakeholders’ interests. Reported PE cases incorporate a strategic intent and are positioned in the systemic quadrant. This means that although processes and methods are carefully planned, objectives and interests are more nuanced. Unlike in pure strategic design projects, where organizational interests and profitmaking are very much prioritized, PE acknowledges the individual interests and capabilities of different internal and external stakeholders at a microlevel. Furthermore, it acknowledges that these interests are pluralistic and different for each individual. In terms of innovation, the imagination and design of “human activities” through services, systems or products are being prioritized, sometimes in contrast to strategic design and management, where these are embedded in organizational aims.

For cases that are categorized under preventive or corrective ergonomics, the user is mainly considered as a passive actor in a design project. Furthermore, human activities are existing and observable.

7.5. Value creation

The nature of ergonomics, which focuses on human well-being, inherently promotes long-term profitability in organizations. The concept of achieving long-term profitability and at the same time human well-being can be achieved through socially responsible internal productivity measures within various units of the organization, for example by eliminating hazardous and occupationally unsound working processes, there may be lesser absenteeism, which leads to cost reduction.

When discussing value creation through innovation, PE is a field which facilitates the development of radically new products, systems and services, centered around the creation of human needs and improvement of human well-being. Hereby, an outward looking ergonomic perspective is being adopted in long-term profit making.

From a strategic management and design viewpoint, value can be achieved by focusing on long- and/or short-term profits. The outward looking perspective of strategic design, which aims at increased sales or innovative products and services, is being complemented by cost reduction when adopting a broader strategic management perspective toward profit maximization.

7.6. Implications for design education

Since design education is a topic which seeks coherence among the different cases, as outlined and discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, a pedagogical reflection will be made in this section on how to relate the teaching of strategic design and industrial design with different ergonomic interventions, especially PE. Furthermore, newly redefined paradigms in higher education (HE) and research, specifically mentorship, scholarship and service, will be discussed in terms of how they can contribute to the field of PE.

From an overarching market perspective, four trends will be presented to provide a background for discussing how design programs are to be developed taking into consideration PE. These trends are as follows: (1) mass education and rationalization, (2) connections between education and research, (3) globalization and internationalization and (4) collaboration with industry and commercialization (see Figure 7.1 [LIE 14]).

7.7. General perspectives on PE and strategic design

The analysis of the 12 cases underlines that the development of innovative products and services is a common goal for strategic design and PE. However, there are some differences between them. Innovation within the context of strategic design is more about profit-making while PE seeks a balance between performance and productivity on the one hand and human welfare on the other. Compared to strategic design, where radical or incremental innovation is primarily driven by the intention of the designer with more or less passive involvement of users and other stakeholders, PE focuses on anticipating future needs in order to respond with creative design solutions. Even though these ideas are in their infancy stages, they take into account the systemic human, social, economical and technological constraints. In a synthetic way, this thesis puts forward five ideas:

1. 1) strong relations exist between PE and strategic design which describe different viewpoints:
   1. i) both fields share a common ground in “modern” strategic management/innovation;
   2. ii) both fields support a deliberate way of “doing things”, where planning is an important factor to achieve certain outcomes, whether specific/concrete or plural;
   3. iii) the adoption of PE and strategic design processes are relevant for managing the early stages of development projects as well as for developing strategic directions.
2. 2) PE embraces certain characteristics. For each case which has been analyzed and categorized as a typical case intervened through PE, we are able to conclude that:
   1. i) PE promotes a system-oriented way of redefining the future with respect to experiencing products and services in context. Hereby, a humancentered perspective is being adopted, where humans are expected not only to be part of systems but also to shape them [HOL 14];
   2. ii) PE strengthens the systemic strategy approach by accentuating the importance of human needs, capabilities and limitations in innovation processes;
   3. iii) PE centers on long-term collaborative advantage. As outcomes are plural and people interact in context, PE intervention promotes collaboration among stakeholders through emergent networks;
   4. iv) PE complements the positivistic characteristics of strategic design by adopting hermeneutic, reflective and participative modes of reasoning to aim for performance and well-being;
   5. v) the generally “post-positivistic” nature of design is given an added dimension through PE intervention, encouraging strategic design to adopt broader views toward innovation but at the same time developing stands;
   6. vi) value creation at individual, organizational, business eco-system and societal levels is being achieved by collaborating well in emergent knowledge networks.
3. 3) As a result, PE offers a more enriched vision on human factors compared to other types of ergonomic interventions. It emphasizes that:
   1. i) new technologies contribute more and more to the development of intangible experiences, which are embodied in services. To develop these innovative experiences, the study and practice of design needs to transition from being object to experience oriented;
   2. ii) ergonomics, which historically has a connection with technology/engineering as well as the social sciences, promotes a broader approach toward innovation than strategic design;
   3. iii) this enriched vision is similar to how different authors perceive PE:
      • – according to Zink [ZIN 13], ergonomics has been dealing with economic, social and environmental issues but not in a simultaneous and balanced manner;
      • – several authors claim that a good organizational structure is a prerequisite for systems ergonomics and human factor principles to be effective [GRO 13, SO 13];
      • – Norros [NOR 14] argues for a systems approach in ergonomics, as well as the need to understand the technology in use in order to promote creativity and learning;
      • – from a human-computer interaction perspective, Bannon [BAN 11] claims that ergonomics should not only limit itself to the “human technology” fit but consider more the indirect elements that shape people’s everyday lives such goals and activities, values, cultures as well as tools and environments;
      • – the Human Factors and Ergonomics Committee (HFC) under the guidance of Dul et al. [DUL 12] redefines the ergonomic profession by applying theoretical principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance;
      • – similarly, Robert and Brangier [ROB 09] state that PE focuses on the development of future products and services by anticipating user needs. However, their approach is primarily positivistic, in the sense that the creation of knowledge to explain and predict future events is based upon verified facts. Credibility is solely gained through forward-looking representations of future scenarios or simulated experiments. Somehow, PE has not considered the emergent development of processes, strategies and concepts, as well as their outcomes, which have been initiated through unplanned interactions among stakeholders. This means that the methods and tools which have been put forward and used in PE are mainly positivistic in nature (personas, scenarios, drawings, projection). However, the use of constructivist approaches and methods, such as focus groups, dialogues, creative problem solving workshops, etc., have just been introduced as part of the PE methods and tools package. Therefore, at this point in time it is safe to say that PE is pragmatic in the sense that it aims to necessarily and inevitably construct representations of the future;
      • – Nelson et al. [NEL 12] proposed to align the product development process with different ergonomic interventions. Developed around speculative scenario building and use, PE is being compared with the early stages of the design process, where future products and/or service proposals are sought after;
      • – Norman [NOR 10] calls for the human systems integration community to mobilize themselves to become proactive designers and solution-givers.
   4. iv) The juxtapositioning of PE and strategic design upon a strategic management platform is very relevant for today’s management, ergonomic and design science because interdisciplinary research in the social sciences is being encouraged through globalization trends.
4. 4) A forward looking and future-oriented view in ergonomics may not always be a commonly accepted phenomenon in the field [BAR 62]. However, social demands and current economic issues require improved professional practices, which also count for ergonomics. The various cases, which are presented in this book, highlight some of the newly required practices:
   1. i) ergonomic practitioners need to be more sensitive to social, environmental and political factors when developing human-machine systems;
   2. ii) ergonomic practitioners need to be more proactive in creating and synthesizing innovative products and services;
   3. iii) design practitioners need to understand and consider different management and design perspectives with respect to worldviews before choosing a suitable design approach in their project;
   4. iv) the emphasis on intangibility requires designers to collaborate more actively with ergonomists, sociologists and psychologists to achieve breakthrough innovation;
   5. v) through the connection with design, the ergonomic and management professions are being infused (challenged) with new ways of (creative) thinking and communication;
   6. vi) in terms of education, PE should be taught within the context of design thinking because design thinking refers to design-specific cognitive activities which apply in the design of products, systems, services, organizations and societies. However, PE intervention contributes with a broader foundation for design thinking with respect to worldviews, strategy perspectives, design reasoning mode, processes and methods. Furthermore, the intervention of PE on design thinking also promotes a new way of knowledge transfer, which transitions teaching to mentorship and research to scholarship. For the implementation of a PE-oriented design thinking course, the focus should be more than strategic design and innovation. It should focus on social innovation and value creation by emphasizing and discussing behavioral, cultural, social, technological, ecological and political developments in addition to market and economical situations.
5. 5) Even though there are not many evident cases (4 out of the 12 ergonomic interventions) exemplifying the impact of PE intervention, research in the field should continue to develop along the following perimeters that we are seeking to define:
   1. i) strategic aiming for pluralistic outcomes;
   2. ii) systems driven within a systemic perspective;
   3. iii) human-centered and social innovation oriented.

7.8. Author’s perspectives on PE and strategic design

The purpose of this work was to revisit the topics “prospective ergonomics (PE)” and “strategic design” from an overarching strategic/innovation management perspective. Based upon 12 cases, theoretical perspectives on PE have been extended by elucidating the relationship among worldviews, generic strategies and models of design reasoning.

The main idea is that generic innovation strategies as well as strategic design principles extend the field of PE. Pure positivism does not represent a PE approach in developing new products and services. Instead, a combination of positivist and constructivist worldviews is fundamental for adopting PE in a systemic strategy context. Both systemic strategizing and PE acknowledges that innovating is a complex activity bounded by social, technological, economic, environment and political constraints, which may lead to plural outcomes.

Methodologically, PE should adopt a broader perspective toward the development of products and services. With the emergence of constructive ergonomics [FAL 15] and systems ergonomics [WIL 14, DUL 12, EDW 14], the scope of PE can be extended by intervening in the fuzzy front end of innovation. In this way, new alignments are being redefined between PE and strategic design, between preventive ergonomics and industrial design and between corrective ergonomics and detail design (Figure 7.2). The “forward-looking” approach in anticipating innovative products and service, which has been marked as a core element of PE by Robert and Brangier [ROB 09], emerges very well in these new alignments.

However, differences between PE and strategic design have become subtler. Both fields recognize and apply structured processes and prescribed methods as a means to its ends but PE considers the human-centered aspect in its orientation toward innovation. Unlike strategic design, which predominantly aims for profit maximization and problem solving, PE plans for pluralistic outcomes in its innovation process.

To summarize the educational section of this chapter, a PE approach may prepare design students to be better equipped to meet future changes and challenges through the cultivation of their abilities in design management, problem solving, lifelong learning and reflective thinking [SCH 95, FRI 00]. This means that besides scholarly research, the process of being “design active” should be considered as a form of new knowledge creation [FRA 93].

Within knowledge and practice frameworks of PE and strategic design, social, interdisciplinary and inquiry-based learning platforms should be implemented through comprehensive and collaborative studio projects to answer the need for new design themes and to comply with current design processes and methods. Pedagogically, this may also imply the need for “Vertical Studio Teaching” centered on project-based learning within a master/apprentice relationship [LIE 10], which extends beyond traditional learning by being more inclusive toward the engagement of various stakeholders within specific system contexts.

As a final note in this chapter, I would like to bring up the “prospective turn” in ergonomics, where I consider PE not as “science” but as “design”. Instead of planning innovation to be globally and generally focused, PE knowledge should be localized, particular and timely.