Human Factors and Ergonomics: The Discipline

established Updated: 2026-05-31
human-factors ergonomics HFE human-centered-design system-compatibility axiomatic-design HSI IEA

Human Factors and Ergonomics: The Discipline

Status: established
Last updated: 2026-05-31
Sources: 9781119636113.Ch1.Pdf
Tags: [human-factors, ergonomics, HFE, human-centered-design, system-compatibility, axiomatic-design, HSI, IEA]

Summary

Human factors and ergonomics (HFE) is a design-oriented scientific discipline concerned with understanding human-artifact interactions from the unified perspective of science, engineering, design, technology, and management of human-compatible systems. The International Ergonomics Association defines HFE as "the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system and the profession that applies theory, principles, data, and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance" (Karwowski & Zhang, 2021).

Body

Context

Karwowski and Zhang (2021), in the opening chapter of the handbook, define and frame human factors and ergonomics (HFE) as a design-oriented scientific discipline concerned with human-artifact interactions, unifying science, engineering, design, technology, and management of human-compatible systems. They trace the discipline's history, its core and expanding domains, the central concept of human-system compatibility, and Karwowski's own theoretical apparatus of axiomatic design and symvatology, before turning to objectives, literacy, and future directions. Within this knowledge base the article is the root node: it names the four domains and emerging specializations that the other articles develop in detail — Information Processing and Sensation And Perception under cognitive ergonomics, Mental Workload and Neuroergonomics among the expanding fields, and Human Systems Integration as the integrative frame — and supplies the compatibility principle that situates them.

Key Points

The term "ergonomics" (ergon + nomos, "science of work") was proposed by the Polish scientist B.W. Jastrzebowski in 1857 as a discipline encompassing all human activity — labour, entertainment, reasoning, dedication — and he classified work into useful work (improvement) and harmful work (deterioration), with useful work divided into physical, aesthetic, rational, and moral. Contemporary ergonomics was independently introduced by Murrell in 1949, leading to the Ergonomics Research Society in Britain; the International Ergonomics Association was founded on 6 April 1959 in Oxford, with the first International Congress held in Stockholm in 1961. The IEA's definition treats HFE as "the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system and the profession that applies theory, principles, data, and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance" (PDF pp. 2–3, orig. pp. 3–4).

HFE has four traditional domains: physical ergonomics (anatomical, anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical characteristics — postures, materials handling, musculoskeletal disorders, workplace layout); cognitive ergonomics (perception, memory, information processing, reasoning, motor response — workload, decision-making, human-computer interaction, reliability, stress); organizational ergonomics or macroergonomics (sociotechnical optimization — communication, crew resource management, teamwork, participatory design, quality management); and human-computer interaction (design and evaluation of computer systems for human use) (PDF pp. 3–4, orig. pp. 4–5). Karwowski and Zhang also list emerging specializations: neuroergonomics, affective, healthcare, consumer, virtual, green, and nanoergonomics, human-systems integration, and cyberergonomics (ergonomics of artificial intelligence) (PDF p. 14, orig. p. 15).

Compatibility is the central concept. Karwowski (1997) introduced "human-compatible systems" to stress comprehensive treatment of compatibility across physical, perceptual, cognitive, emotional, social, organizational, managerial, environmental, and political levels. The compatibility approach considers three interacting domains — the human operator (perceptual, motor, cognitive, affective capabilities and limitations), the technology (products, machines, computer-based systems), and the environmental system (business processes, organizational structure, stressors) — with operator performance an outcome of matching human characteristics to the requirements and affordances of technology and environment (PDF p. 9, orig. p. 10).

Karwowski (2003) adapted Suh's axiomatic design with two axioms: the independence axiom (independence of functional compatibility requirements, the minimum set characterizing design goals) and the human incompatibility axiom (minimize the design's incompatibility content; among designs satisfying independence, the one with least incompatibility is best). Incompatibility content is I = log₂(1/C) = −log₂C, where C is the compatibility index (0 < C < 1). Ergonomics design spans four domains: customer (well-being, performance, safety, usability, productivity), functional (human capabilities and limitations), physical (design of compatibility), and process (management of compatibility). Karwowski (2001) proposed symvatology — from symvatotis (compatibility) and logos — as a corroborative science studying the interaction processes that define, transform, and control compatibility between artifacts and people. Its complexity-incompatibility principle (Karwowski et al., 1988) holds that as artifact-human system complexity increases, incompatibility and nonreducible ergonomic entropy increase and the potential for effective intervention decreases, reflecting Norman's (1988) paradox of technology. Following Ashby's (1964) law of requisite variety, Karwowski's (1995) law of requisite complexity holds that only design complexity can reduce system complexity (PDF pp. 17–21, orig. pp. 18–22).

HFE connects to human-systems integration, which applies systems engineering to large-scale complex systems through human-centered domains (Air Force, 2005, 2008, 2009): manpower, personnel, human factors engineering, environment, safety and occupational health, habitability, and survivability (PDF pp. 24–25, orig. pp. 25–26). Chapanis (1995) set out the discipline's objectives — reducing errors, increasing safety and system performance; improving reliability, maintainability, and availability while reducing personnel and training needs; improving the working environment, ease of use, acceptance, and appearance while reducing fatigue and stress; and reducing losses while improving economy of production (PDF p. 4, orig. p. 5). Karwowski (2003) further proposed three dimensions of ergonomics literacy: knowledge and skills, ways of thinking and acting, and practical capabilities (PDF p. 16, orig. p. 17).

Conclusion

Karwowski and Zhang (2021) conclude by orienting HFE toward the future. Karwowski (2018) defines human factors/ergonomics of the artificial as the subdiscipline studying interrelationships among humans, intelligent systems, and other artificial cognitive agents, and developing human-centered principles for designing AI systems that benefit humanity. They locate HFE within Moray's (1994) seven future problems — water, food, energy, pollution, urbanization, violence and terrorism, health and medicine — and the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (2015), and note the discipline's institutional base in the IEA (52 federated societies, over 20,000 professionals as of 2020), the HFES (26 technical groups), and the Board on Human-Systems Integration (founded 1980 as the Committee on Human Factors). The throughline is compatibility: HFE is the science and profession of making systems compatible with people.

References

Air Force (2005). AF SAB 2005, System-of-Systems Engineering for Air Force Capability Development. Report SAB-TR-05-04. Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force, Department of Defense. To be validated.

Air Force (2008). U.S. Air Force Human Systems Integration Handbook, Planning and Execution of Human Systems Integration, Directorate of Human Performance Integration, Human Performance Optimization Division, 711 HPW/HPO, TX. To be validated.

Air Force (2009). United States Air Force FY09 human systems integration management plan. Falls Church, VA: Air Force Human Systems Integration Office, Office of the Vice Chief of Staff. To be validated.

Ashby, W. R. (1964). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Methuen & Co. To be validated.

Chapanis, A. (1995). Human factors in system engineering. New York: Wiley. To be validated.

Edholm, O. G., & Murrell, K. F. H. (1973). The Ergonomics Society: A history, 1949–1970. London: Ergonomics Research Society. To be validated.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857a). An outline of ergonomics, or the science of work based upon the truths drawn from the science of nature, Part I. Nature and Industry, 29, 227–231. To be validated.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857b). An outline of ergonomics, or the science of work based upon the truths drawn from the science of nature, Part II. Nature and Industry, 30, 236–244. To be validated.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857c). An outline of ergonomics, or the science of work based upon the truths drawn from the science of nature, Part III. Nature and Industry, 31, 244–251. To be validated.

Jastrzebowski, W. B. (1857d). An outline of ergonomics, or the science of work based upon the truths drawn from the science of nature, Part IV. Nature and Industry, 32, 253–258. To be validated.

Karwowski, W. & Zhang, W. (2021). The discipline of human factors and ergonomics. In G. Salvendy & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (5th ed., pp. 3-37). John Wiley & Sons. karwowski2021discipline

Moray, M. (1994). The future of ergonomics — the need for interdisciplinary integration. In Proceedings of the IEA Congress (pp. 1791–1793). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. To be validated.

Norman, D. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday. To be validated.

United Nations (2016). 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for transforming the world. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. To be validated.

Open Questions

  • How should HFE adapt its methods for AI-based systems that can learn and change behavior?
  • What specific competencies are needed for practitioners working in cyberergonomics?
  • How can the complexity-incompatibility principle be operationalized in design practice?
  • What metrics best capture human-system compatibility across different domains?