MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229565517 · doi:10.32920/14637564

Adapting Engineering Design Tools to Include Human Factors

2021· preprint· en· W4229565517 on OpenAlexafffund
Judy Lynn Village, Michael Greig, Saeed Zolfaghari, Filippo A. Salustri, Patrick Neumann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWorkplace Safety and Insurance Board
KeywordsEngineering design processProcess (computing)EngineeringProcess managementComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS In a longitudinal collaboration with engineers and human factors specialists at an electronics manufacturer, five engineering design tools were adapted to include human factors. The tools, many with required human factors targets, were integrated at each stage of assembly design to increase the proactive application of human factors. This article describes the process of adapting the five tools within the collaborating organization. Findings suggest 12 key features of human factors tools, most importantly that they “fit” with engineering processes, language, and tools; directly address business goals and influence key metrics; and are quantifiable and can demonstrate change. To be effective in an engineering design environment, it is suggested that human factors specialists increase their understanding of their organization’s design process, learn which tools are commonly used in engineering, focus on important metrics for the business goals, and incorporate human factors into engineering-based tools and worksystem design practices in their organizations. TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Rationale: Design engineers use diverse tools in design, but few incorporate human factors, even though optimizing human performance can further improve operational performance. There is a need for practical tools to help engineers integrate human factors into production design processes. Purpose: This article demonstrates how five engineering design tools were adapted to include human factors and were integrated into design processes within the case study organization. It also provides features of an effective human factors tool and recommendations for practitioners. Method: A longitudinal collaboration with engineers and human factors specialists in a large electronics manufacturing organization allowed in vivo adaptation and testing of various tools in an action research methodology. Qualitative data were recorded from multiple sources, then transcribed and analyzed over a 3-year period. Results: The adapted tools integrated into each stage of the design process included the human factors process failure mode effects analysis, human factors design for assembly, human factors design for fixtures, workstation efficiency evaluator, and human factors kaizens. Each tool had a unique participatory development process; 12 features are recommended for effective human factors tools based on the findings herein. Most importantly, tools should “fit” with existing engineering processes, language, and tools; directly address business goals and influence key metrics; and be quantifiable and demonstrate change. Conclusions: Engineers and management responded positively to the five tools adapted for human factors because they were designed to help improve assembly design and achieve their business goals. Several of the human factors tools became required targets within the design process, ensuring that human factors considerations are built into all future design processes. Adapting engineering tools, rather than using human factors tools, required a shift for human factors specialists, who needed to expand their knowledge of engineering processes, tools, techniques, language, metrics, and goals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.371
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.038 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207