27 Complexity in Ergonomics

Matthias Göbel



Complexity is widely seen as an emerging phenomenon of an increasingly engineered and networked society. This obviously includes work life and, hence, ergonomics issues as well. However, the complexity phenomenon seems to be inherent to all ergonomics issues. This again would require consideration of complexity as a fundamental principle for ergonomics. Before discussing this matter further, we need to clarify what the term “complexity” means. It has its root in the original Latin word “complexus” which signifies “entwined” or “twisted together”. A complex is thus a set of two or more joined components that are difficult to separate because of their interaction. As a consequence the components of a complex cannot be separated without destroying the entity (HEYLIGHEN 1997). One would consider a system more complex if more parts and connections (relationships) are involved. Complexity is thus neither complete disorder (because of the ordered structure and, in principle, reliable reaction) nor complete order (that would allow description using traditional deterministic methods). This situation “at the edge of order and chaos” (WALDROP 1992) explains why complexity has turned out to be very difficult to define and all the definitions that have been proposed fall short in one respect or another. Stating that complexity is no complete disorder, one should ideally be able to describe a complex system by a sufficiently large number of variables. However, as a decomposition into separate subsystems (expressed by linked polynomials) is not feasible (this would be the case only for complicated systems), an empirical analysis of a complex system is likely to be impractical due to the large number of cases and conditions to be studied and due to the initial value problem of systems with memory effect (feedback). This accounts for the frequent connotation of complexity with “difficult”. Depending on its characteristics and the conditions of operation, a complex system can be approximately characterised by simplifying rules on a larger scale, or show unexpected reactions.
C.M. Schlick (ed.), Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-01293-8_27, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

task execution. This is due to the fact that any conscious human reaction is bi-directionally linked to an individual learning process: Any movement is affected by previous motor learning. as a consequence. rather microscopic levels. for example: • Reaction delays immanent to humans. This is due to the large number of social instances involved and due to the inner complexity of any role playing instance in work life. MEISTER 1995 in WILSON 2000) but an inherent consequence of the complexity argument: As a work system is complex. amongst others. thus. The only practical option of a simplified consideration has the consequence that it is incomplete in terms of scientific reasoning and thus needs the introduction of additional expertise to estimate those aspects which may have an impact but were not covered by scientific reasoning. This again has important consequences. establishment of a thorough ergonomics theory. This is not due to a failure of ergonomics researchers (“if we cannot develop general laws we are not scientists and may as well go out of business”. one might ask the question what implications the complexity attribute has on theory and application of ergonomics. ranging from milli-seconds (reflex arc) to decades (ageing. First. Furthermore. Apart from the fact that ergonomics is multidisciplinary in nature and. • Non-monotonous performance characteristics of humans that follow an inverted U-characteristics for most parameters. one can indeed separate the different parts of it but one may not dissolve all the effective interactions. on: • ethics: how can the consideration of human needs be assured and how can equity in treatment of human rights be guaranteed (LUCZAK 1997b)? . Those constituents of our personality validate the complexity attribute of any system that involves actively performing humans. the conceptual and methodological base of ergonomics is still very fragmented and most models are incompatible to each other in the sense that they cannot be applied with a consistent dataset or they do not deliver a consistent output. and still face the challenge of its complex behaviour. any voluntary reaction or execution of a movement affects the individual’s experience on an endogenous and an exogenous level. hence. Widening the scope. the complexity attribute is also valid at lower. it sounds comprehensive to classify work systems on a rather macroscopic level as complex. Some further characteristics underpin the complex behaviour of a work system involving humans. makes use of a widespread range of methods and approaches. However. One would have to study each system on its own. 1 of the editorial). • Different response characteristics of humans to superimposed stresses (Luczak 1982). occupational diseases). and. it complicates or even disables a consistent analysis. • Individual interests affect human behaviour and.348 Göbel Coming back to the ergonomics context (see Fig. as well as by the whole cascade of individual and social experiences.

WILSON 2000) to argue whether ergonomics is a science or an art. BOENISCH et al. This allows introduction of expertise and correction of results if it turns out that they do not fulfil the expectations. However.1: User centred design process according to EN ISO 13407 Projects dealing with complex issues are thus mostly structured as iterative feedback circles (Fig. such a strategy might be very time-consuming and costly if numerous iteration cycles are required. 2 Dealing with Complexity in Ergonomics On a practical level complexity can only be mastered by simplification or reduction to what factors of the complex system can be controlled. 27. MORAY 1994.1). Requirement analysis Evaluation User requirem. 27. and yet its end is hardly predictable. and this again is a conceptual challenge.Complexity in Ergonomics 349 • application of ergonomics: how to develop reliable methods that deliver similar results independent from the conducting ergonomist and her/his methodological estimates? • design: how to develop design outcomes on incomplete (explicit or implicit) models of a work system or a human-machine system? How to minimise the following trial-and-error cycles in the development process? Such considerations motivated different authors (e. . However. specification Prototype design Fig. This is particularly the case for ergonomics applications that do not allow progression from a general to a detailed level due to their complexity. because they will have an effect whether or not they can be accessed.g. (2004) for example described the design process for an anaesthetics machine using 15 iteration cycles just for the conceptual level. one must not consider all other factors as non-existent (although this is a very human reaction). According to the aforementioned considerations it has to be both at the same time. MEISTER 2000.

27. Because of the structural link this encompasses the analysis problem and. consequently.350 Göbel For real work systems the practical problem arises that any (test-wise) implementation in the real work system requires an extensive change management process. what are the methodological requirements that support ergonomists? In an ideal case one would look for a consistent ergonomics model that dissolves the complexity problem (LUCZAK et al. Although those different modules (or fragments) mostly relate to well-known phenomena it is the purpose of this setting to enable an unrestricted combination of all principles. 3. Due to space limitations only a selection of principles is discussed here. . SINCLAIR 2007). This extends the scope of design: regulation options might be considered during design or they might be assigned to the managers for handling within the work system. 3 Ergonomics Extensions to the System Theory The following paragraphs discuss some suggestions on how to expand the system theory to allow further consideration of human characteristics. an approach to qualitatively integrate as many aspects of complexity as possible would however help to manage the complexity problem by explaining its phenomena. to explain complex system responses and to structure the design process.2) is an elementary (object based) approach. Realising that this is not feasible to date. 1986. the design problem as well (“general” and “developmental” ergonomics according to MEISTER 2000). and. having humans in the role of “guinea pigs” during iteration cycles. In both extreme cases such a work system would be either strictly organised or it would only assign authorities and leave all procedural planning to the managers. ULICH 1994) or as an extended framework for humans.1 Five Dimensions to Define a Work System The description as a work system (Fig. In a more general form human and technical system elements are displayed as basic elements of a socio-technical system (PASMORE 1988. technology and organization in interaction (EKLUND 2003). On a conceptual level real work systems do have to consider management activities in addition to straightforward execution processes. may raise ethical concerns. ZINK 1997. Coming back to the complexity problem.

Furthermore. at least five dimensions are necessary for a comprehensive description of a work system: • • • • • Elements (structures. time. the localization (spatial representation) of the objects as well as the sequence (time representation) has to be considered.) Interactions (tasks. etc. However. 27.) Sequences (order. etc.2: Work system model (according to LUCZAK 1997a. The dimensions mentioned are relevant for the planning as well as for the execution of tasks. processes.g. effects. If a physical representation is assumed. resources. 13) A work system consists of elements and relationships. This simplification enables an overview.) Localization (position. Interactions result in the change of the state of the interacting system elements. A representation containing five dimensions each with several parameters cannot be displayed easily. • Technical drawings: elements & location. results.) Each dimension is represented by a number of factors or parameters. . etc. • Flow charts: interactions & sequences. e. orientation. the reduction of a smaller number of dimensions assumes independence from the other (not displayed) dimensions and therefore must have a limited scope of validity for which independence can be assumed for a larger extend.) States (aims. actions. elements can be identified as objects while relationships are interactions (effects and reactions). Common models and representations mostly contain two to three of the dimensions mentioned. • Block diagrams: elements & interactions. etc. etc.Complexity in Ergonomics Result 351 Work object Tool Worker Environment Task Fig. p. Therefore.

Hierarchically structuring systems for ergonomics were. change of position of tool and hand during a task). scheduling of rest brakes or job rotation).g. motor skills. heat radiation). Such state variations are explicitly important as they may influence the behaviour of system elements on the level of: • Performance characteristics and mode of task execution (e.3) • schematically (independent of the element state). muscular fatigue while holding the tool). thus a recursive (fractal) system concept is required. 27.352 Göbel 3. these are effects of strain or fatigue. impact on work group or division). changing of the body posture of the operator due to muscular fatigue).4 Behavioral Characteristics of System Elements A system element can behave in three different ways (see Fig. GREY et al. Typically. changes of state due to interaction with the environment have to be considered (e. Beside feedback that is caused directly by the interaction (e. . 3. additional changes of the state may occur in the form of indirect changes like side effects or resulting structural changes (e.3 State Variation of System Elements Interactions (relations between system elements) result in changes of the state of involved system elements via reflexive feedback. This can last from minutes to years (e. In order to allow a description of such a system without being able to describe the whole system (as it is required for open systems) a hierarchical structure using similar techniques for all hierarchical levels.g. by OESTERREICH (1984). (1987) and. training or learning. In addition. considering the different level of regulations of human actions.g. for work design it has to be considered that indirect changes of system element states normally occur with time delay.g. • algorithmically (dependent on state or conditions). • Action planning. impairment due to long-term exposure). as well as changes in the activity level.g. 3. in terms of the anticipation of changed performance characteristics (e. or • State of hierarchically higher system elements (e. proposed by LUCZAK et al.g. Furthermore. among others. (1986).2 Representation as an Open Hierarchical System Work systems have to be considered as open systems as they are subsystems of a wider system company and society context (EMERY 1959).g. or • as active problem solver (generation of new solutions).

this can be characterized by a response curve or a field of response curves.g.e. however all three types of characteristics can be represented by human as well as by technical system elements. i. Human behaviour can be restricted to schematic or algorithmic behaviour by corresponding task instructions. in work systems in which the task leaves structural options. in a muscle. (C) problem solving Schematic behaviour (independent of the element state) causes a constant relation between input and output of the elements. A system element that behaves in a problem solving manner is able to actively generate (new) solutions. (B) algorithmic. Available time does not play a role for schematic and algorithmic behaviour (as long as time allocation does allow for the task to be processed). Generally. Problem solving behaviour is associated mostly with human behaviour.3: Characteristics of system element behaviour: (A) schematic. as well as the lower levels of goal-directed action concepts (HACKER 1986. Typically. A relationship between input and output exists only due to the fact that the element generates an output that results in a change of the system element state of the work object in a way that corresponds to the set task as perfectly as possible. The relationship varies depending on one or more internal or external measure or element states. The differentiation of the three types corresponds approximately with the cognitive types of task suggested by RASMUSSEN (1986). as e. HOLLNAGEL 2002). in which the task execution is not completely determined. 27. ROUSE 1981). Algorithmic behaviour (dependent on the element state) is characterized by a variable relationship between input and output. at least one problem solving element is necessary to transform the task into actions with the objective of fulfilling the task. OESTERREICH 1984). HUNT & ROUSE 1984. although the differentiation here is motivated differently. but may have a crucial impact on the output of problem solving (WICKENS 1984.Complexity in Ergonomics 353 (A) Input Output (C) Input Analysis (B) Input Output Synthesis Action Output Evaluation Fig. and the relative task complexity can be reduced with experience or training by incorporating algorithmic or schematic behaviour strategies (RASMUSSEN 1976. . Behaviour like this is typical for the application of checklists or the work of software programs.

A different memory would result in different actions and in different assessment of actions. problem solving behaviour always contains a creative process to generate a solution iteratively by comparison of actual and desired state. 3. using experience to estimate the consequences of a theoretical option and. However. NORO & IMADA 1991).g. The importance of the memory is linked to the feedback and enables expertise to be built up by comparing the current situation with former situations and developments. assessing solutions and anticipating system changes (see Fig.4: Reference to memory in the problem solving cycle (rhombus = decision) This is true for a current situation of action as well as for the assessment of a fictive design solution. The content of the storage determines the type of solution (and as a consequence the quality of the solution). 27. as analysis. .5 Memorization in Problem-Solving System Elements Problem solving consists of a creative process to generate a solution referring to stored information (memory). when putting into reality. Technically the memory can also be extended by increasing the number of people involved (e. Evaluation Task Analysis Synthesis Action Action Result Memory Memory Memory Fig.354 Göbel While schematic and algorithmic behaviour can be described and therefore anticipated.4). This happens in the sense of anticipation (LUCZAK 1995). filling the memory by experiences from real world. through participatory approaches. 27. synthesis and action refer to the stored information and therefore each assessment of success is based only on this stored information. the more expertise is available the more difficult it may become decision making. Each step of the problem solving cycle requires referring to the stored information with respect to categorizing observations. as well as at least one feedback loop.

WICKENS 1984).g. However. This is demonstrated in the connection of problem solving system elements in a parallel or hierarchical (cascaded) order.5: Balance between task-related. 4 Integration of the Different Approaches: Parallel and Hierarchical Cascades Problem Solving The proposed approaches are not new in principle. In this case the different objectives cannot be expressed using a uniform scale and. with respect to the consumption of resources) have to be considered (Fig. the planning of action has to ensure the feasibility in principle on the lower hierarchical levels as well as the conformity with the higher hierarchical levels that can normally not be actively affected. CARAYON & SMITH 1993). Task System element states Individual needs Fig. SANDERS 1983. hence. they may not be weighed up rationally (see SMITH & SAINFORT 1989. availability of resources) and optimization criteria (e. builds the basis to reflect complex system behaviour. Additionally.Complexity in Ergonomics 355 3. This arises for example with humans. In fact. This means that the input for the planning element consists of the task. resource-related and individual objectives therefore have to be balanced. again. resource-related (system element states) and individual objectives (rhombus = decision) Analysis Synthesis Action For the development of action strategies task-related. expressing them within the formal frame of systems theory this allows any combination of the different approaches.6 Integration of Different Objectives Beside the objective of fulfilling the task for the task execution as well as the preceding action planning. .g. such as short-term and longterm effects as well as efficiency of the effect and the risk of being unsuccessful. many more factors have to be balanced. information of relevant states of other system elements as well as individual needs (KAHNEMAN 1973. 27. This.5). ancillary conditions (e. 27.

on the one hand.356 Göbel 4. Thereby all information would have simultaneously to be made explicit for consistent cooperation. 27. If such an information exchange is feasible only to a limited extend (what is most likely for problem solving units. The objective is attained if one of the problem solving elements has found a solution. Analysis Synthesis Action Result Task ? Analysis Synthesis Action Fig. in the opportunity of incorporating more experience. This is represented as well in form of parallel problem solving. trying to decode encrypted information). on the other hand. a non perfect cooperation has to be accepted as a matter of fact.g.1 Parallel Problem Solving Parallel connected problem solving occurs if different problem solving instances work concurrently for a task (Fig. in a greater number of factors to be considered and. This type of cooperation is also a challenge for parallel acting human and machine operators.6). In this case the problem solving elements process the task independently. particularly with human elements). but requires synchronizing of all decision makings in order to avoid inconsistent procedures in the following. 27. The potential benefit of parallel problem solving consists. In another case the problem solving elements may work together for a joint solution of optimised quality. .6: Principle of parallel problem solving This approach makes sense for example to achieve a reduction of time to find any (practical) solution (e. The risks of parallel problem solving in contrast is the high effort necessary for coordination as divergent behaviour of the problem solving elements may result in actions of alternating compensation (one problem solving element tries to compensate the action of the other and vice versa).

This can be depicted for supervisory tasks of self-dependent individuals with more or less extensive degree of freedom for action. This effect can be observed in semi-autonomous workgroups in combination with parallel problem solving (HENDRICK 1997). but can only be described as strategy of problem solving behaviour (Fig.2 Hierarchically Cascaded Problem Solving Hierarchical structuring of subsystems presents itself as cascading. 27.Complexity in Ergonomics 357 4. If a subsystem contains one or more element(s) with problem solving characteristics the behaviour of the subsystem is not explicitly predictable. Synth. Lx-2=third level) . Task Analysis Synthesis Action Result (Lx) (Lx-1) (Lx-2) Anal. Action Task a Task b Task c Fig. From the point of view of the higher level of hierarchy it is not the actions that have to be coordinated but rather the tasks and framing conditions. This type of supervisory task can be anticipated much less than the supervision of algorithmic or schematic acting system elements. 27. A hierarchical structure is easy to represent as long as the lower level contains elements with schematic or algorithmic behaviour. internal ancillary conditions or internal structure. the task of a problem solving (sub-)element is much more flexible with respect to changes of the task. Lx-1=second level.7). However.7: Principle of hierarchically cascaded problem solving (Lx = top level.

The behavioural characteristic of the work system that has to be designed depends on the structure and the degree of freedom allowed for the individuals. The challenge of work system design therefore is not only the system analysis and the understanding of the system to be designed. Work system Task a Task b Task c Resources Management task Work system design Processes Fig. but also the anticipation of the system element’s behaviour (in this case the behaviour of the individuals working in the work system that has to be designed. Notwithstanding.8). 27. the task of system design can be described as cascaded problem solving on a higher hierarchical level and the work system of the lower hierarchical level (or lower levels. Therefore.8: System design as problem solving on a hierarchical higher level . the system variables for system designers and supervisors differ in detail.358 Göbel 5 Work Design as a Problem Solving Task The fact that the systematic procedure and the system model use the same structure allows joint application for the work process and the design process (“micro logic” and “macro logic” according to HABERFELLNER et al. The task of work system design can be represented as a problem solving cycle. algorithmically or as a problem solver. Fig. While the system designer primarily designs structures and resources (which determine the processes for the user or actors in the system). supervisory tasks concentrate primarily on strategies and processes in the context of structures and resources defined beforehand. 27. The work system can be designed to behave schematically. 1997). From this perspective the structure of the design process is identical to the structure of a supervisory task. LUCZAK 1995).

In detail. The restricted information processing capability of humans may require a reduction of complexity in order to avoid failure due to overload caused by system complexity (depending on individual expertise). as on the one hand. the complexity of a work system is challenging. However. the design of work systems appears as a cascaded problem solving task with the design process one hierarchical level above the work system. and high complexity may exceed the capacity of the actors to shape action strategies within a limited period of time. Using the work system model. time). work system design that reduces the behaviour of the individuals to an algorithmic characteristic is not appropriate for this reason.g. However. Due to the larger variances design tasks mostly appear more complex than management tasks. Another challenge for the design of work systems results from the fact that not only task related objectives have to be considered but also resource-related and individual objectives. it has to be considered that the design of degrees of freedom is an elementary ergonomics requirement (e. Thus. differences exist in a way that the design of the production system mainly controls resources considering possible variations of tasks and conditions whereas the operative management of the production system mainly concentrates on processes and assignment of (available) resources within a limited time budget. this may result neither in the fact that dealing with complexity is passed through to the actors nor by reduction of the degree of freedom of the actor to a limit that the designer can deal with. the complexity for the system designer has to be confined on a level that can be controlled and.Complexity in Ergonomics 359 One not only has to consider the complexity of the different tasks and situations but also all tasks and constellations of the work system in a design solution. on the other hand. but also for the responsible actors within the system. Dealing with complexity therefore needs balancing. This is of particular importance when considering . Coping with the complexity of a system requires additional resources (mental effort. ULICH 1994). Different detailed concepts and modelling approaches may be included qualitatively according to specific needs. not only for work analysis and design. 6 Conclusion As a hierarchically structured recursive approach the concept may be applied similarly for micro-ergonomic issues as well as for macro-ergonomics. not to destroy the internal mechanisms of selfregulation which may result in a limited ability of the system to react on external changes. Thus. the design task is structurally similar to executive functions. Thus. Strategies of the actors to reduce complexity thus have to be considered for system behaviour (HOLLNAGEL 2002).

Huber. although there are numerous limitations to consider (and ever will be as long as the system is of a complex nature). Methodik und Praxis. In: Heylighen F. SMC-14. 7 References Boenisch B. Grey SM. In: Luczak H. Marseille. Zink KJ (Eds. Furthermore. Further it enables to transfer this model into a compatible work system design frame. 47–60. Eklund J (2003) An extended framework for humans. Smith MJ (1993) The balance theory of job design and stress as a model for the management of technological change. Santa Monica. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. Held J. Englewood Cliffs. such a type of modelling might be helpful to integrate and to structure different relevant Human factors approaches. Kluwer. ICL Ltd. Wilson JR (1987) Ergonomics in the Electronic Retail Environment.360 Göbel multiple workers acting with different degrees of experience in parallel (representing parallel problem solving units). Aerts D (Eds. Krueger H (2004) Kooperative Entwicklung von Bildschirmanzeige und Bedienkonzept eines Anästhesierespirators. Man. The Australian National University. France. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft. Nagel P. 112. 1993. Prentice-Hall. Hendrick H (1997) Organization design and macroergonomics. IEA Press. In: Emery F (ed. In: Salvendy G (Ed. IEEE Transactions on Systems. Verlag Industrielle Organisation. Dordrecht. Büchel A. Becker M. . Slough. Centre for continuing. nor must not be reduced to restrict system reaction and adaptation capabilities.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Rouse WB (1984) A fuzzy rule-based model of human problem solving. 594–630. John Wiley & Sons. and Cybernetics. providing anticipatory explanation of many side effects (that occur in any system that involves humans). as well as operators having different ranges of decision and control (representing hierarchically cascaded problem solving units). furthermore. Hollnagel E (2002) Time and time again. 1978) The emergence of a new paradigm of work. However. Hacker W (1986) Arbeitspsychologie: psychologische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten.) The Evolution of Complexity. Considering the value of such theoretical considerations one might argue that this has little practical value because it is abstract to apply and. von Massow H (1997) Systems Engineering. NJ. UK.. Dealing with system complexity thus requires balancing complexity between system designers and actors. New York. 11–19. system complexity has to be balanced in way that it does not exceed the coping capacity of designers and actors on the one hand. Norris BJ. Zürich. Haberfellner R. Kahneman D (1973) Attention and Effort. does not provide quantitative output as pure engineering models would do.) Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management – VII. 58(3): 208–218. technology and organization in interaction. 3(2): 143–158. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Industrial Engineering. Emery F (1959) Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems. Bern.. Heylighen F (1997) The Growth of Structural and Functional Complexity during Evolution. Carayon P. Hunt RM.

) Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Cologne. CEN. Luczak H (1997b) Ethik und Verantwortung in der Arbeitswissenschaft. Bericht an den Vorstand der Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft und die Stiftung Volkswagenwerk. Sainfort PC (1989) A balance theory of job design for stress reduction. Stuttgart. Meister D (2000) Theoretical issues in general and developmental ergonomics. Sinclair MA (2007) Ergonomics issues in future systems. Ergonomics 38(8): 1571–1599. Zink KJ (1997) Soziotechnische Ansätze. Kerndefinition und Systematiken der Arbeitswissenschaft. New York. In: Luczak H. London.) Handbuch Arbeitswissenschaft. New York. In: Luczak H. Luczak H (1997a) Arbeitswissenschaft als Disziplin. Waldrop MM (1992) Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. Stuttgart. Ulich E (1994) Arbeitspsychologie (3rd edition). Moray N (1994) “De Maximis non Curat Lex” or How context reduces science to art in the practice of human factors.) Handbuch Arbeitswissenschaft. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics 1: 13–21. Sanders AF (1983) Towards a model of stress and human performance. Das Arbeitsanalyseinstrument VERA. Plenum Press. Ergonomics. Philadelphia. diagnosis and compensation for system failures. Applied Ergonomics. Rasmussen J (1976) Outlines of a hybrid model of the process operator. Design and Evaluation of Man-Machine Systems. Technische Universität Berlin.) Ergonomie der kombinierten Belastungen. .) Handbuch Arbeitswissenschaft. Schwier W (1986) Arbeitswissenschaft. Schaeffer Poeschel. Taylor & Francis. Schaeffer-Poeschel-Verlag. Wiley. 11–19. Acta Psychologica 53: 61–97. Noro K. Oesterreich R (1984) Zur Analyse von Planungs. Kerndefinition – Gegenstandskatalog – Forschungsgebiete. Wickens CD (1984) Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Smith MJ. North-Holland. Johannsen (Eds. 1997. Charles E. Volpert W. Wilson JR (2000) Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Volpert W (Eds. Pasmore W (1988) Designing effective organizations: the sociotechnical systems perspective. Brüssel. In: Rohmert W (Ed. 33–40. Benutzer-orientierte Gestaltung interaktiver Systeme. Diagnostica. Luczak H (1995) Macroergonomic anticipatory evaluation of work organisation in production systems. New York. Imada AS (1991) Participatory Ergonomics. Rouse WB (1981) Models of human problem solving. Volpert W (Eds. Detection. Otto Schmidt Verlag. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting: 526–530. Columbus OH.und Denkprozessen in der Produktion. 4: 67–79.Complexity in Ergonomics 361 Luczak H (1982) Grundlagen ergonomischer Belastungssuperposition. In Luczak H. 31: 557–567. Proceedings of IFAC conference on Analysis. Raeithel A. In: Sheridan. Simon & Schuster. Stuttgart. Schaeffer-Poeschel-Verlag. 30: 216–234. Volpert W (Eds. New York. Merrill. Schaeffer-Poeschel-Verlag. Rasmussen J (1986) Information Processing and Human Machine Interaction: an Approach to Cognitive Engineering. New York. Baden-Baden. Luczak H. 74–77. Stuttgart. 50–12: 1957–1986. Standards EN ISO 13407.