Work Design

A Systematic Approach
 Systems Innovation Series
Series Editor
Adedeji B. Badiru
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) – Dayton, Ohio

PUBLISHED TITLES
Additive Manufacturing Handbook: Product Development for the Defense Industry,
Adedeji B. Badiru, Vhance V. Valencia, & David Liu
Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation, and Case Studies,
Matthew John Franchetti & Defne Apul
Cellular Manufacturing: Mitigating Risk and Uncertainty, John X. Wang
Communication for Continuous Improvement Projects, Tina Agustiady
Computational Economic Analysis for Engineering and Industry, Adedeji B. Badiru &
Olufemi A. Omitaomu
Conveyors: Applications, Selection, and Integration, Patrick M. McGuire
Culture and Trust in Technology-Driven Organizations, Frances Alston
Design for Profitability: Guidelines to Cost Effectively Management the Development Process
of Complex Products, Salah Ahmed Mohamed Elmoselhy
Global Engineering: Design, Decision Making, and Communication, Carlos Acosta, V. Jorge Leon,
Charles Conrad, & Cesar O. Malave
Global Manufacturing Technology Transfer: Africa–USA Strategies, Adaptations, and Management,
Adedeji B. Badiru
Guide to Environment Safety and Health Management: Developing, Implementing, and
Maintaining a Continuous Improvement Program, Frances Alston & Emily J. Millikin
Handbook of Construction Management: Scope, Schedule, and Cost Control,
Abdul Razzak Rumane
Handbook of Emergency Response: A Human Factors and Systems Engineering Approach,
Adedeji B. Badiru & LeeAnn Racz
Handbook of Industrial Engineering Equations, Formulas, and Calculations, Adedeji B. Badiru &
Olufemi A. Omitaomu
Handbook of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Second Edition, Adedeji B. Badiru
Handbook of Military Industrial Engineering, Adedeji B. Badiru & Marlin U. Thomas
Industrial Control Systems: Mathematical and Statistical Models and Techniques,
Adedeji B. Badiru, Oye Ibidapo-Obe, & Babatunde J. Ayeni
Industrial Project Management: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques, Adedeji B. Badiru,
Abidemi Badiru, & Adetokunboh Badiru
Inventory Management: Non-Classical Views, Mohamad Y. Jaber
Kansei Engineering—2-volume set
• Innovations of Kansei Engineering, Mitsuo Nagamachi & Anitawati Mohd Lokman
• Kansei/Affective Engineering, Mitsuo Nagamachi
Kansei Innovation: Practical Design Applications for Product and Service Development,
Mitsuo Nagamachi & Anitawati Mohd Lokman
Knowledge Discovery from Sensor Data, Auroop R. Ganguly, João Gama, Olufemi A. Omitaomu,
Mohamed Medhat Gaber, & Ranga Raju Vatsavai
Learning Curves: Theory, Models, and Applications, Mohamad Y. Jaber
Managing Projects as Investments: Earned Value to Business Value, Stephen A. Devaux
PUBLISHED TITLES

Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices, Lincoln Harding Forbes &
Syed M. Ahmed
Moving from Project Management to Project Leadership: A Practical Guide to Leading Groups,
R. Camper Bull
Profit Improvement through Supplier Enhancement, Ralph R. Pawlak
Project Feasibility: Tools for Uncovering Points of Vulnerability, Olivier Mesly
Project Management: Systems, Principles, and Applications, Adedeji B. Badiru
Project Management for the Oil and Gas Industry: A World System Approach, Adedeji B. Badiru &
Samuel O. Osisanya
Project Management for Research: A Guide for Graduate Students, Adedeji B. Badiru,
Christina Rusnock, & Vhance V. Valencia
Project Management Simplified: A Step-by-Step Process, Barbara Karten
Quality Management in Construction Projects, Abdul Razzak Rumane
Quality Tools for Managing Construction Projects, Abdul Razzak Rumane
A Six Sigma Approach to Sustainability: Continual Improvement for Social Responsibility,
Holly A. Duckworth & Andrea Hoffmeier
Social Responsibility: Failure Mode Effects and Analysis, Holly Alison Duckworth &
Rosemond Ann Moore
Statistical Techniques for Project Control, Adedeji B. Badiru & Tina Agustiady
STEP Project Management: Guide for Science, Technology, and Engineering Projects,
Adedeji B. Badiru
Sustainability: Utilizing Lean Six Sigma Techniques, Tina Agustiady & Adedeji B. Badiru
Systems Thinking: Coping with 21st Century Problems, John Turner Boardman & Brian J. Sauser
Techonomics: The Theory of Industrial Evolution, H. Lee Martin
Total Productive Maintenance: Strategies and Implementation Guide, Tina Agustiady
& Elizabeth A. Cudney
Total Project Control: A Practitioner’s Guide to Managing Projects as Investments,
Second Edition, Stephen A. Devaux
Triple C Model of Project Management: Communication, Cooperation, Coordination,
Adedeji B. Badiru
Work Design: A Systematic Approach, Adedeji B. Badiru & Sharon C. Bommer
 Work Design
A Systematic Approach

By
Adedeji B. Badiru
Sharon C. Bommer
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2017 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-5573-3 (Paperback)

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-1387-3176-9 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use.
The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material repro-
duced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form
has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let
us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, repro-
duced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.
copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
(CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organiza-
tion that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have
been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,

and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging‑ in‑ Publication Data

Names: Badiru, Adedeji Bodunde, 1952- editor. | Bommer, Sharon C., editor.
Title: Work design : a systematic approach / [edited by] Adedeji B. Badiru,
Sharon C. Bommer.
Description: Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, 2017. | Series: Industrial
innovation series | Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016051396| ISBN 9781498755733 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN
9781498755740 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: System analysis. | Systems engineering. | Industrial
engineering. | Workflow.
Classification: LCC T57.6 .W667 2017 | DDC 658.3/01--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016051396

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
To our home workmates, Iswat and John.
Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................xv
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................... xvii
Authors ..............................................................................................................xix

Section I: Systems overview

Chapter 1 Systems view of work.................................................................. 3

Systems definition............................................................................................... 8
Technical systems control.................................................................................. 8
Improved organizational performance........................................................... 9
What is systems engineering?......................................................................... 12
Work systems logistics..................................................................................... 13
Systems constraints........................................................................................... 14
Systems framework for work effectiveness................................................... 16
Work systems value modeling........................................................................ 17
Example of value vector modeling................................................................. 19
Application of work project management..................................................... 20
Integrated systems implementation............................................................... 21
Worker-based factors for systems success..................................................... 22
Systems hierarchy............................................................................................. 23
Work and the hierarchy of needs of workers................................................ 27
Work for social and economic development................................................. 28
The concept of total worker health................................................................. 29
References.......................................................................................................... 30

Section II: Work design

Chapter 2 Analytics for work planning or selection............................. 33

Defense enterprise improvement case example........................................... 34
The pursuit of efficiencies in work programs............................................... 35
Elements of the PICK chart.............................................................................. 38
Quantitative measures of efficiency.......................................................... 38

ix
x Contents

Case study of work selection process improvement.................................... 42

PICK chart quantification methodology........................................................ 44
Implementing the PICK chart......................................................................... 46
References .......................................................................................................... 47

Chapter 3 Learning curve analysis for work design.............................. 49

Learning curves for better work design ........................................................ 50
Work measurement for better work design.................................................. 50
Foundation for learning curve analysis......................................................... 51
Univariate learning curve models.................................................................. 52
Log-linear learning curve model............................................................... 52
Multifactor learning curves........................................................................ 56
Interruption of learning.............................................................................. 58
Learning curves in worker health care.......................................................... 58
Wide applications of learning curves............................................................ 60
Designing training programs.................................................................... 61
Manufacturing economic analysis............................................................ 61
Break-even analysis...................................................................................... 62
Make-or-buy decisions................................................................................ 62
Manpower scheduling................................................................................. 62
Production planning.................................................................................... 62
Labor estimating.......................................................................................... 63
Budgeting and resource allocation............................................................ 63
Takt time for work planning........................................................................... 63
Using takt time for work design..................................................................... 65
Resource work rate............................................................................................ 66
Work rate examples...................................................................................... 68
Multiple work rate analysis............................................................................. 69
Resource loading graph................................................................................... 71
Resource leveling.............................................................................................. 72
Assessment of work gaps............................................................................ 73
Summary............................................................................................................ 74
References .......................................................................................................... 75

Section III: Work evaluation

Chapter 4 Work performance measures................................................... 79

Reemergence of work measurement.............................................................. 81
Determination of performance measures................................................. 82
Benefits of measurements........................................................................... 85
Justification for work performance measurement................................... 86
Foundation for good performance measurement................................... 86
Contents xi

Process overview............................................................................................... 88
Step 1: Identify the process......................................................................... 89
Step 2: Identify critical activity/activities to be measured..................... 90
Step 3: Establish performance goals or standards .................................. 92
Step 4: Establish performance measurements......................................... 93
Translate into performance measures....................................................... 94
Identify raw data.......................................................................................... 95
Locate raw data............................................................................................. 96
Identify the indicator................................................................................... 97
Determine how often to take measurements........................................... 99
Step 5: Identify responsible party/parties................................................ 99
Step 6: Collect data..................................................................................... 100
Data collection forms................................................................................. 101
Data collection system............................................................................... 101
Step 7: Analyze/report actual performance........................................... 102
Step 8: Compare actual performance with goals/standards............... 103
Step 9: Determine whether corrective action is necessary................... 104
Step 10: Make changes to bring process back in line with goals
and standards............................................................................................. 104
Step 11: Determine if new goals or measures are needed.................... 105
Important terms in performance measurement.................................... 105
References ........................................................................................................ 108

Chapter 5 Cognitive task evaluation....................................................... 109

Cognitive Ergonomics.................................................................................... 109
Cognitive work analysis............................................................................ 112
Applied cognitive task analysis................................................................114
Summary...........................................................................................................116
References .........................................................................................................117

Chapter 6 Mental workload measures for work evaluation............... 121

Information processing.................................................................................. 121
Mental workload............................................................................................. 122
Subjective measures................................................................................... 123
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load
Index........................................................................................................ 124
Workload profile.................................................................................... 126
Physiological measures............................................................................. 129
Performance................................................................................................ 130
Calculated measures............................................................................. 130
Unconscious cognition......................................................................... 131
Learning.................................................................................................. 132
Summary.......................................................................................................... 133
References ........................................................................................................ 133
xii Contents

Section IV: Work justification

Chapter 7 Cognitive modeling for human performance

predictions................................................................................. 139
Human performance modeling.................................................................... 139
Modeling systems........................................................................................... 142
Hierarchical task analysis.............................................................................. 145
Summary.......................................................................................................... 147
References........................................................................................................ 148

Chapter 8 Functional interactions of work   ........................................... 151

Introduction..................................................................................................... 151
Related works.................................................................................................. 153
Functional modeling in engineering design.......................................... 153
Knowledge extraction via semantic analysis......................................... 154
Modularity based on functional interaction.......................................... 156
Functional interaction analysis through a design structure matrix......157
Methodology.................................................................................................... 160
Create a database of modules................................................................... 160
Extracting functions based on topic modeling.......................................161
Quantifying functional interactions....................................................... 163
Application....................................................................................................... 165
Create a database of the automotive climate control system’s modules....170
Extracting functions from the functional descriptions........................ 170
Results and discussion................................................................................... 172
Statistical verification: Paired T-test........................................................ 172
Statistical verification: Confusion matrix............................................... 175
Conclusions and future work.........................................................................176
References  ........................................................................................................ 177

Section V: Work integration

Chapter 9 Theoretical framework for work integration..................... 185

Cognitive evaluation in manufacturing...................................................... 185
Theoretical framework................................................................................... 188
Framework validation.................................................................................... 190
Pilot study................................................................................................... 190
Laboratory experiment.............................................................................. 192
Summary.......................................................................................................... 194
References........................................................................................................ 194

Chapter 10 Project management for work management....................... 197

Project review and selection criteria............................................................ 198
Criteria for project review......................................................................... 199
Contents xiii

Hierarchy of work selection...................................................................... 199

Sizing of projects........................................................................................ 200
Planning levels........................................................................................... 200
Hammersmith’ s project alert scale: Red, yellow, green convention... 200
Product assurance concept for corporate projects................................. 200
Body-of-knowledge methodology................................................................ 201
Components of knowledge areas............................................................. 202
Step-by-step implementation........................................................................ 203
Project systems structure............................................................................... 205
Problem identification............................................................................... 206
Project definition........................................................................................ 206
Project planning......................................................................................... 206
Project organization................................................................................... 206
Resource allocation.................................................................................... 207
Project scheduling...................................................................................... 207
Project tracking and reporting................................................................. 207
Project control............................................................................................. 207
Project termination.................................................................................... 208
Project systems implementation outline...................................................... 208
Planning ...................................................................................................... 208
Organizing.................................................................................................. 209
Scheduling (resource allocation).............................................................. 210
Control (tracking, reporting, and correction)........................................ 210
Termination (close, phase-out)..................................................................211
Documentation............................................................................................211
Systems decision analysis...............................................................................211
Step 1. Problem statement..........................................................................211
Step 2. Data and information requirements........................................... 212
Step 3. Performance measure................................................................... 212
Step 4. Decision model.............................................................................. 212
Step 5. Making the decision.......................................................................214
Step 6. Implementing the decision............................................................214
Group decision making...................................................................................214
Brainstorming............................................................................................. 215
Delphi method.............................................................................................216
Nominal group technique........................................................................ 218
Interviews, surveys, and questionnaires................................................ 219
Multivoting................................................................................................. 220
Project systems hierarchy .............................................................................. 220
Work breakdown structure........................................................................... 225
Work feasibility ............................................................................................... 226
Motivating the worker ................................................................................... 228
Theory X principle of motivation............................................................. 229
Theory Y principle of motivation............................................................. 229
xiv Contents

Motivating and demotivating factors...................................................... 229

Management by objective......................................................................... 231
Management by exception........................................................................ 231
Matrix organization structure.................................................................. 231
Team building of workers......................................................................... 232
Project partnering...................................................................................... 234
Team leadership.......................................................................................... 234
Activity scheduling.................................................................................... 235
Work control................................................................................................ 236
The Triple C model..................................................................................... 236
Project communication.............................................................................. 238
Project cooperation..................................................................................... 239
Project commitment................................................................................... 241
Project coordination................................................................................... 241
Resolving project conflicts........................................................................ 242
References ........................................................................................................ 244

Chapter 11 Considerations for worker well-being ................................ 245

Overview.......................................................................................................... 245
Background...................................................................................................... 245
New patterns of hazards................................................................................ 246
The unifying concept of well-being............................................................. 247
Definitions, determinants, and responsibility for well-being.................. 248
Objective well-being .................................................................................. 249
Subjective well-being................................................................................. 250
Composite well-being................................................................................ 252
Definitional clarity and measurement.................................................... 253
Determinants of well-being...................................................................... 254
Responsibility for well-being................................................................... 255
Issues for including well-being in public policy........................................ 256
Actions to reduce threats to, and increase promotion of, well-being..... 257
Well-being as a driver of public policy................................................... 258
Examples of the use of well-being in public policy or guidance............. 259
Research and operationalization needs....................................................... 268
Going forward������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 271
About the authors....................................................................................... 272
Contributors................................................................................................ 273
Acknowledgments..................................................................................... 273
Human participant protection................................................................. 273
References ........................................................................................................ 273

Appendix A: Glossary of work performance terms.................................. 283

Appendix B: Basic work-related formulas and conversion factors.......... 291
Index................................................................................................................. 307
Preface
A systems view of work requires a systematic approach to managing
work. This is exactly what this book provides. Work is all around us. Work
permeates everything we do. Everyday activities such as writing, produc-
ing, gardening, building, cleaning, cooking, and so on are all around us.
Not all work is justified, not all work is properly designed, not all work
is evaluated accurately, and not all work is integrated. A systems model,
as presented in Work Design: A Systematic Approach , will make work more
achievable through better management. Work is defined as the process of
performing a defined task or activity, such as research, development, oper-
ations, maintenance, repair, assembly, production, administration, sales,
software development, inspection, data collection, data analysis, teach-
ing, and so on. In essence, work defines everything we do. In spite of its
being ubiquitous, very little explicit guidance is available in the literature
on how to design, evaluate, justify, and integrate work. A unique aspect
of this book is the inclusion of the cognitive aspects of work performance.
Through a comprehensive systems approach, this book facilitates a better
understanding of work for the purpose of making it more effective and
rewarding. Topics covered include the definition of work, the workers’
hierarchy of needs vis-à -vis the organization’ s hierarchy of needs, work
performance measurement, conceptual frameworks for work manage-
ment, analytic tools for work performance assessment, work design, work
evaluation, work justification, work integration, and work control.

xv
Acknowledgments
We thank our colleagues at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)
and Wright State University for their continual input and suggestions,
which have enhanced the quality of this manuscript. We are particularly
grateful to the library staff at AFIT, with whom we did crowdsourcing for
the selection of the book-cover design from the three options presented by
the publisher’s designers. We believe crowdsourcing the input of librar-
ians is a first in the publishing industry, and we are delighted that this
book on “work design” may set a work-involvement trend to be emulated
by other authors. Special thanks go to our spouses, Iswat Badiru and John
Bommer, who endured several months of intermittent disconnection
while we sequestered ourselves writing, rewriting, and revising segments
of the manuscript.

xvii
Authors
Adedeji B. Badiru is a professor of systems engineering at the Air Force
Institute of Technology. He is a registered professional engineer, a fellow
of the Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers, and a fellow of the
Nigerian Academy of Engineering. He is also a certified project man-
agement professional. He has a PhD in industrial engineering from the
University of Central Florida. Dr. Badiru is the author of several books
and technical journal articles. His areas of interest include project man-
agement, mathematical modeling, computer simulation, learning curve
analysis, quality engineering, and productivity improvement.

Sharon C. Bommer is the Deputy Director of the Center for Operational

Sciences (COA) at the Air Force Institute of Technology, and also an adjunct
professor of industrial engineering in the Department of Biomedical,
Industrial, and Human Factors Engineering at Wright State University.
She has a PhD in industrial and human systems with specialization in
human performance and cognition. Her areas of expertise include lean
manufacturing, program management, and human systems integration.
Dr. Bommer has extensive practical experience in industry, with more
than fifteen years of automotive manufacturing engineering and opera-
tion experience.

xix
section one

Systems overview
chapter one

Systems view of work

In teamwork we work and thrive so that our work
works well.
Adedeji Badiru,
2016

Poor work design can happen at any level of an organization, whether at

the blue collar, white collar, or gold collar level (as author Adedeji Badiru
refers to top executives). This point was driven home by a young technical
executive who sent a message home, saying, “Sorry I wasn’t able to com-
plete the family errand today. Work has been crazy. I am behind on emails
and everything else. I have eleven straight weeks of traveling coming up.
I hope to complete the errand as soon as I can.” This is a case of work
interfering with family need. The family should be a part of the overall
work system design for an effective and sustainable execution of work. A
systems view facilitates the much-desired work-life balance.
The premise of Work Design: A Systematic Approach is to combine the
respective systems engineering backgrounds and cognitive expertise of
the authors into a comprehensive treatment of how work is designed, eval-
uated, justified, and integrated, based on the systems engineering model
of design , evaluation , justification , and integration (DEJITM) (Badiru, 2014).
The book is presented in five sections: (1) systems view of work, (2) work
design, (3) work evaluation, (4) work justification, and (5) work integration.
Work design : The planning, organizing, and coordination of work ele-
ments all fall under the category of design in the DEJITM model. It is essen-
tial that a structured approach be applied to work design right from the
outset. Retrofitting a work element only after problems develop not only
impedes the overall progress of work in an organization, but it also leads
to an inefficient use of limited human and material resources. This stage
of the model is expected to guide work designers onto the path of strategic
thinking about work elements down the line rather than just the tactical
manipulation of work for the present needs. In this regard, Badiru (2016)
says, “ Right next to innovation, structured methods for producing effec-
tive work results are a survival imperative for every large organization.”
Work evaluation : Following the design of a work element, the DEJI
model calls for a formal evaluation of the intended purpose of the work
vis-à -vis other work elements going on in the organization. Such an

3
4 Work design: A systematic approach

evaluation may lead to a need to go back and redesign the work element.
Evaluation can be done as a combination of both qualitative and quanti-
tative assessment of the work element, depending on the specific nature
of the work, the main business of the organization, and the managerial
capabilities of the organization.
Work justification : According to the concept of the DEJI model, not only
should a work element be designed and evaluated, it should also be for-
mally and rigorously justified. If this is not done, errant work elements
will creep into the organizational pursuits. What is worth doing is worth
doing well; otherwise, it should not be done at all. The principles of lean
operations (Agustiady and Badiru, 2012) suggest weeding out functions
that do not add value to the organizational goal. In this regard, each and
every work element needs to be justified. But it should be realized that
not all work elements are expected to generate physical products in the
work environment. A work element may be justified on the basis of add-
ing value to the well-being of the worker with respect to his or her mental,
emotional, spiritual, and physical characteristics. The point of this stage
of the DEJI model is to determine whether the work element is needed at
all. If not, the do-nothing alternative is always an option.
Work integration: This last stage of the DEJI model is of the utmost impor-
tance, but it is often neglected. The model affirms that the most sustainable
work elements are those that fit within the normal flow of operations, exist-
ing practices, or other expectations within an organization. Does the work fit
in? Will a new work element under consideration be an extraneous pursuit or
a detraction from the overall work plan? If a work element is not integrated
with other normal pursuits, it cannot be sustained for the long haul. This is
why many organizations suffer from repeated program starts and stops. For
example, in as much as worker wellness programs are desirable pursuits
in an organization, they cannot be sustained if they are not integrated into
the culture and practices of the organization. Unintegrated flash-in-the-pan
programs, activities, and work elements often fall by the wayside over time.
For this stage of the DEJI model, work elements must be tied to the end goal
of the person and the organization. The DEJI model suggests that, before
work starts, we should always explore the easiest, fastest, most efficient, and
most effective way to execute the work. Badiru (2016) remarks that “aim-
less work is so insidious because it tends to covertly masquerade as fruitful
labor,” which is not connected to real organizational goals. This remark also
suggests distinguishing between doing real work and creating the illusion
of working—that is, doing productive work versus doing busy work without
a tangible output. This categorization of work is the basis for the premise of
applying the multidimensional hierarchy of needs (of the worker and the
organization), as discussed in a subsequent section of this chapter.
Work is the means to accomplish a goal. For the purpose of this book,
work is literally an activity to which strength, mental acuity, and resources
Chapter one: Systems view of work 5

are applied to get something done. This may involve a sustained physical
and/or mental effort to overcome impediments in the pursuit of an out-
come, an objective, a result, or a product. In an operational context, work
can be viewed as the process of performing a defined task or activity, such
as research, development, operations, maintenance, repair, assembly, pro-
duction, administration, sales, software development, inspection, data
collection, data analysis, teaching, and so on. The opening quote in this
chapter signifies the meaning of work as a means to an end goal, where
workers thrive and the work effort succeeds. If you understand your work
from a systems viewpoint, you will enjoy the work and you will want to
do more of it. In this book, we view work as a work system rather than work
in isolation or disconnected from other human endeavors.
A systems view of work is essential because of the several factors
and diverse people who may be involved in the performance of the work.
There are systems and subsystems involved in the execution of work
whether small or large, simple or complex, localized or multilocational.
For an activity to be consistently workable, all the attendant factors and
issues must be taken into account. If some crucial factors are neglected,
the workability of the activity may be in jeopardy. Geisler (2012) highlights
the important elements for working happy and doing happy work. These
elements include

• Work leadership
• Work rules and regulations
• Work flow
• Work space
• Work teams
• Work duties and responsibilities
• Work compensation
• Work fulfillment

Only a systems viewpoint can adequately capture the multitude of

diverse elements involved in working happy. People work better when they
are happy. According to author Adedeji Badiru, these are “happy-go-work-
ing” people. Systems-based analysis can facilitate the optimal design of work
within the prevailing scenario in the work environment. In many cases, it is
not necessary to work harder; it is just essential to design the work better.
For the purpose of a systems view of work, we define a system as a col-
lection of interrelated elements (subsystems) working together synergisti-
cally to generate a collective and composite outcome (value) that is higher
than the sum of the individual outcomes of the subsystems. Even simple
tasks run the risk of failure if some minute subsystem is not accounted for.
The following two specific systems engineering models are used for the
purpose of this book.
6 Work design: A systematic approach

Manufacturing systems assessment

(softwa

eline)
Concept of Operations and
operations maintenance

ents, tim
re, ope

quirem ation
Problem system, hard

(High-level

d
, educa ification, vali
rating

requirements) Systems verification

and validation
definitio

Requirements and
architecture

tion re
ver
n and d e, interface pla

(Subsystem verification)
(High-level design)

raion,
war

Integration and
ecompo

Detailed design

nships
(system olution integ
testing

s relatio
sition

Implementation

S
tforms)

Time
(Manufacturing life cycle)

Figure 1.1    An example V-model of systems engineering applied to a manufactur-

ing system.

1. The V-model of systems engineering

2. The DEJI model of systems quality integration (Badiru, 2014)

Figure 1.1 presents an illustration of the V-model applied to a manu-

facturing enterprise consisting of a series of work elements. Although the
model is most often used in software development processes, it is also
applicable to hardware development as well as general work in systems
engineering. In the model, instead of moving down in a linear fashion,
the process steps are bent upward after the coding phase to form the typi-
cal V shape. The V-model demonstrates the relationships between each
phase of the development life cycle and its associated phase of testing. The
horizontal and vertical axes represent time or project completeness (left to
right) and the level of abstraction, respectively.
There are several different ways that a work system can be developed
and delivered using the V-model. The best development strategy depends
on how much the work analyst knows about the system for which the
work is being designed. Three basic design strategies can be used.
Once-through approach: In this case, we plan, specify, and implement the
complete work system in one pass through the V shape. This approach, also
sometimes called the waterfall approach, works well if the vision is clear, the
requirements are well understood and stable, and there is sufficient funding.
Chapter one: Systems view of work 7

Figure 1.2   Framework for the application of the DEJITM model to systems integration.

The problem is that there isn’t a lot of flexibility or opportunity for recovery
if the vision, work environment, or requirements change substantially.
Incremental approach : Here, we plan and specify the work system and
then implement it in a series of well-defined increments or phases, where
each increment delivers a portion of the desired end goal. This is like
moving through value-adding increments of the work. In this case, we are
making one pass through the first part of the V shape and then iterating
through the latter part for each phased-in increment. This is a common
strategy for field equipment deployment, where system requirements and
design can be incrementally implemented and deployed across a given
area in several phases and several projects.
Evolutionary approach : In this approach, we plan, specify, and imple-
ment an initial system capability, learn from the experience with the ini-
tial system, and then define the next iteration to address issues and extend
capabilities (or add value). Thus, we refine the concept of operations , add
and change system requirements, and revise the design as necessary. We
will continue with successive iterative refinements until the work system
is complete. This strategy can be shown as a series of Vs that are placed
end to end, since system operation on the right side of the V influences the
next iteration. This strategy provides the most flexibility but also requires
project management expertise and vigilance to make sure that the devel-
opment stays on track. It also requires patience from the stakeholders as
the design moves along in incremental stages.
Figure 1.2 presents an illustration of the application of the DEJI model
for the systems integration of work factors. The key benefit of the DEJI
8 Work design: A systematic approach

model is that it moves the effort systematically through the stages of

design, evaluation, justification, and integration. The approach queries the
work analyst about what needs to be addressed at each stage so that he
or she does not drop the ball on critical requirements. The greatest aspect
of the DEJI model is the final stage, which calls for the integration of the
work with other efforts within the work environment. If there is a discon-
nect, then the work may end up being a misplaced effort. If a work effort
is properly integrated, then it will be sustainable.

Systems definition
A system is defined as a collection of interrelated elements working
together synergistically to achieve a set of objectives. Any work is essen-
tially a collection of interrelated activities, tasks, people, tools, resources,
processes, and other assets brought together in the pursuit of a common
goal. The goal may be set in terms of generating a physical product, pro-
viding a service, or achieving a specific result. This makes it possible to
view any work as a system that is amenable to all the classical and modern
concepts of systems management.
Work is the foundation of everything we do. Having some knowledge
is not enough; the knowledge must be applied to the pursuit of objec-
tives. Work management facilitates the application of knowledge and
the willingness to actually accomplish tasks. Where there is knowledge,
willingness often follows. But it is the execution of the work that actually
gets things done. From very basic tasks to very complex endeavors, work
management must be applied. It is thus essential that systems thinking be
a part of the core of every work pursuit in business, industry, education,
government, and even at home. In this regard, a systems approach is of
the utmost importance because work accomplishment is a “ team sport”
that has several underlying factors as elements of the overall work system.
We thrive together when we showcase our work together. Also, work-
ing together productively requires that the work be designed appropri-
ately to permit teamwork from a systems perspective.

Technical systems control

Classical technical systems control focuses on the control of the dynamics
of mechanical objects, such as pumps, electrical motors, turbines, rotating
wheels, and so on. The mathematical basis for such control systems can be
adapted (albeit in iconic formats) to management systems, including those
for work management. This is because both technical and managerial sys-
tems are characterized by inputs, variables, processing, control, feedback,
and output. This is represented graphically by input– process– output rela-
tionship block diagrams. Mathematically, it can be represented as
Chapter one: Systems view of work 9

z = f ( x) + ε

where:
z =  output
f (.) =  functional relationship
ε  =  error component (noise, disturbance, etc.)

For multivariable cases, the mathematical expression is represented

by vector– matrix functions, as follows:
Z = f (x) + E

where each term is a matrix:

Z   =  output vector
f (x )  =  input vector
E   =  error vector

Regardless of the level or form of mathematics used, all systems exhibit

the same input–process–output characteristics, either quantitatively or qual-
itatively. The premise of this book is that there should be a cohesive coupling
of quantitative and qualitative approaches in managing a work system. In
fact, it is this unique blend of approaches that makes the systems application
for work management more robust than what one finds in mechanical con-
trol systems, where the focus is primarily on quantitative representations.

Improved organizational performance

Systems engineering efficiency and effectiveness are of interest across the
spectrum of work management for the purpose of improving organiza-
tional performance. Managers, supervisors, and analysts should be inter-
ested in having systems engineering serve as the umbrella for improving
work efforts throughout the organization. This will properly connect
everyone with the prevailing organizational goals as well as create collab-
orative avenues among the personnel. Systems application applies across
the spectrum of any organization and encompasses the following elements:

• Technological systems (e.g., engineering control systems and mechan-

ical systems)
• Organizational systems (e.g., work process design and operating
structures)
• Human systems (e.g., interpersonal relationships and human–
machine interfaces)

A systems view of the world makes everything work better and work
efforts more likely to succeed. A systems view provides a disciplined pro-
cess for the design, development, and execution of work both in technical
10 Work design: A systematic approach

and nontechnical organizations. One of the major advantages of a systems

approach is the win– win benefit for everyone. A systems view also allows
the full involvement of all stakeholders and constituents of a work center.
This is articulated well by the following saying:

Tell me and I forget;

Show me and I remember;
Involve me and I understand.
(Confucius, Chinese philosopher)

For example, from a systems perspective, the pursuit of organizational

or enterprise transformation is best achieved through the involvement of
everyone. Every work environment is complex because of the diversity of
factors involved, including the following:

• Workers’ overall health and general well-being

• Workers’ physical attributes
• Workers’ mental abilities
• Workers’ emotional stability
• Workers’ spiritual interests
• Workers’ psychological profiles

There are differing human personalities. There are differing technical

requirements. There are differing expectations. There are differing environ-
mental factors. Each specific context and prevailing circumstances determine
the specific flavor of what can and cannot be done in the work environment.
The best approach for effective work management is to adapt to each work
requirement and specification. This means taking a systems view of the work.
The work systems approach presented in this book is needed for working across
organizations, countries, cultures, and the unique nuances of each project.
This is an essential requirement in today’s globalized and intertwined per-
sonal and professional environments. A systems view requires embracing
multiple disciplines in the execution of work in a way that each component
complements others in the system. Formal work management represents an
excellent platform for the implementation of a systems approach. A com-
prehensive work management program requires control techniques such as
operations research, operations management, forecasting, quality control,
and simulation to achieve goals. Traditional approaches to management use
these techniques in a disjointed fashion, thus ignoring the potential interplay
among the techniques. The need for integrated systems-based work manage-
ment worldwide has been recognized for decades. As long ago as 1993, the
World Bank reported that a lack of systems accountability led to several global
project failures. The bank, which has loaned more than $300 billion to devel-
oping countries over the last half-century, acknowledged that there has been
Chapter one: Systems view of work 11

a dramatic rise in the number of failed projects around the world. In other
words, the work efforts failed. The lack of an integrated systems approach to
managing the projects was cited as one of the major causes of failure. More
recent reports by other organizations point to the same flaws in managing
global projects and to the need to apply better project management to major
projects. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, publicly released
in 2010 (GAO, 2010), highlights that defense needs better management of proj-
ects. This was in the wake of a government audit that revealed gross inef-
ficiencies in managing large defense projects. In a national news release on
April 1, 2008, it was reported that auditors at the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a scathing review of dozens of the Pentagon’s biggest
weapons systems, citing that ships, aircraft, and satellites are billions of dollars
over budget and years behind schedule. According to the review, “95 major
systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion; and
are delivered almost two years late on average.” Further, “none of the systems
that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management
practices during their development stages.” Among the programs noted
for increased development costs were the Joint Strike Fighter and Future
Combat Systems. The costs of those programs had risen 36% and 40%, respec-
tively, while C-130 avionics modernization costs had risen 323%. And, while
“Defense Department officials have tried to improve the procurement pro-
cess,” the GAO added that “significant policy changes have not yet translated
into best practices on individual programs.” In our view, a failed program
is an indicator of failed work efforts. A summary of the report (GAO, 2010)
reads as follows:

Every dollar spent inefficiently in developing and

procuring weapon systems is less money available
for many other internal and external budget pri-
orities, such as the global war on terror and grow-
ing entitlement programs. These inefficiencies also
often result in the delivery of less capability than
initially planned, either in the form of fewer quanti-
ties or delayed delivery to the warfighter.

In as much as the military represents the geo-politico-economic land-

scape of a nation, the preceding assessment is representative of what
every organization faces, whether public or private. In systems-based
project management, it is essential that related techniques be employed
in an integrated fashion so as to maximize the total project output. One
definition of systems project management is stated as follows:

Systems project management is the process of using

systems approach to manage, allocate, and time
12 Work design: A systematic approach

resources to achieve systems-wide goals in an effi-

cient and expeditious manner. (Badiru, 2012)

This definition calls for the systematic integration of technology,

human resources, and work process design to achieve goals and objec-
tives. There should be a balance in the synergistic integration of humans
and technology. There should not be an overreliance on technology, nor
should there be an overdependence on human processes. Similarly, there
should not be too much emphasis on analytical models to the detriment of
commonsense human-based decisions.

What is systems engineering?

Systems engineering is growing in appeal as an avenue to achieve orga-
nizational goals and improve operational effectiveness and efficiency.
Researchers and practitioners in business, industry, and government
all embrace systems engineering implementations. So, what is systems
engineering? Several definitions exist, but the one offered below is quite
comprehensive.
Systems engineering is the application of engineering to solutions of
a multifaceted problem through a systematic collection and integration
of parts of the problem with respect to the lifecycle of the problem. It is
the branch of engineering concerned with the development, implementa-
tion, and use of large or complex systems. It focuses on specific goals of
a system considering the specifications, prevailing constraints, expected
services, possible behaviors, and structure of the system. It also involves a
consideration of the activities required to assure that the system’ s perfor-
mance matches the stated goals. Systems engineering addresses the inte-
gration of tools, people, and processes required to achieve a cost-effective
and timely operation of the system.
The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) defines
systems engineering as follows:

Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary

approach and means to enable the realization of
successful systems. It focuses on defining cus-
tomer needs and required functionality early in
the development cycle, documenting requirements,
then proceeding with design synthesis and system
validation while considering the complete problem.
(INCOSE, 2017)
Chapter one: Systems view of work 13

Systems engineering integrates all the disciplines and specialty

groups into a team effort, forming a structured development process that
proceeds from concept to production to operation. Systems engineering
considers both the business and the technical needs of all involved with
the organizational goals.

Work systems logistics

Logistics can be defined as the planning and implementation of a complex
task, the planning and control of the flow of goods and materials through
an organization or manufacturing process, or the planning and organiza-
tion of the movement of personnel, equipment, and supplies. Complex
projects represent a hierarchical system of operations. Thus, we can view a
project system as a collection of interrelated projects all serving a common
end goal. Consequently, we present the following universal definition:

Work systems logistics is the planning, implementa-

tion, movement, scheduling, and control of people,
equipment, goods, materials, and supplies across the
interfacing boundaries of several related projects.

Iron triangle
Quality

Cost
e
m
Ti

Figure 1.3    Systems constraints of cost, time, and quality within an iron triangle.
14 Work design: A systematic approach

Quality
requirements

Operating points

System boundary
System boundary (a)

(d) (e) (b)

(h) (f )
(c)

Time Cost
(g)

Figure 1.4    Systems constraints of cost, time, and quality within boxed system
boundaries.

Conventional organizational management must be modified and

expanded to address the unique logistics of work systems.

Systems constraints
Systems management is the pursuit of organizational goals within the
constraints of time, cost, and quality expectations. The iron triangle model
depicted in Figure 1.3 shows that project accomplishments are constrained
by the boundaries of quality, time, and cost. In this case, quality represents
the composite collection of project requirements. In a situation where pre-
cise optimization is not possible, there will have to be trade-offs between
these three factors of success. The concept of the iron triangle is that a rigid
triangle of constraints encases the project. Everything must be accomplished
within the boundaries of time, cost, and quality. If better quality is expected,
a compromise along the axes of time and cost must be executed, thereby
altering the shape of the triangle. Trade-off relationships are not linear and
must be visualized in a multidimensional context. This is better articulated
by the alternative view of the systems constraints shown in Figure 1.4. Scope
requirements determine the project boundary, and trade-offs must be made
within that boundary. If we label the eight corners of the box (a) through (h),
we can iteratively assess the best operating point for the project. For example,
we can address the following two operational questions:

1. From the point of view of the project sponsor, which corner is the
most desired operating point in terms of combination of require-
ments, time, and cost?
Chapter one: Systems view of work 15

Requirements

(a)

(b)
(e)
(d)
(f )
(c)
(h) Cost

Time
(g)

Figure 1.5    Compromise surface for cost, time, and requirements trade-off.

2. From the point of view of the project executor, which corner is the
most desired operating point in terms of combination of require-
ments, time, and cost?

Note that all the corners represent extreme operating points. We notice
that point (e) is the do-nothing state, where there are no requirements, no
time allocation, and no cost incurrences. This cannot be the desired oper-
ating state of any organization that seeks to remain productive. Point (a)
represents an extreme case of meeting all requirements with no invest-
ment of time or cost allocation. This is an unrealistic extreme in any prac-
tical environment. It represents a case of getting something for nothing.
Yet, it is the most desired operating point for the project sponsor. By com-
parison, point (c) provides the maximum possible requirements, cost, and
time. In other words, the highest levels of requirements can be met if the
maximum possible time is allowed and the highest possible budget is allo-
cated. This is an unrealistic expectation in any resource-conscious organi-
zation. You cannot get everything you ask for to execute a project. Yet, it
is the most desired operating point for the project executor. Considering
the two extreme points of (a) and (c), it is obvious that the project must

Outside environment

Black box model

Inputs Inside Outputs
environment

Figure 1.6    Outside vs. inside environments of a work system.

16 Work design: A systematic approach

be executed within some compromise region within the scope boundary.

Figure 1.5 shows a possible view of a compromise surface, with peaks and
valleys representing give-and-take trade-off points within the constrained
box. The challenge is to come up with an analytical modeling technique to
guide decision making over the compromise region. If we could collect sets
of data over several repetitions of identical projects, then we could model
a decision surface that can guide the executions of similar future projects.
Such typical repetitions of an identical project are most readily apparent in
construction— for example, residential home development projects.

Systems framework for work effectiveness

The philosophy of systems influence suggests that you control the inter-
nal environment while only influencing the external environment. In
Figure 1.6, the inside (controllable) environment is represented as a black
box in the typical input– process– output relationship. The outside (uncon-
trollable) environment is bounded by the cloud representation. In the com-
prehensive systems structure, inputs come from the global environment,
are moderated by the immediate outside environment, and are delivered
to the inside environment. In an unstructured inside environment, work
functions occur as blobs, as illustrated in Figure 1.7. A “ blobby” environ-
ment is characterized by intractable activities where everyone is busy but
without a cohesive structure of input– output relationships. In such a case,
the following disadvantages may be present.

• Lack of traceability
• Lack of process control

Inputs Blobs Result

Figure 1.7    Blobs of work in unstructured programs.

Systems value stream

Systems inputs Point-to-point Integrated output

value-added assessment

Figure 1.8    Systems value stream structure for work enhancement.

Chapter one: Systems view of work 17

• Higher operating costs

• Inefficient personnel interfaces
• Unrealized technology potentials

Organizations often inadvertently fall into the blobby structure

because it is simple, low cost, and less time consuming— until a problem
develops. A desired alternative is to model the project system using a sys-
tems value stream structure, as shown in Figure 1.8. This uses a proactive
and problem-preempting approach to executing projects. This alternative
has the following advantages:

• Problem diagnosis is easier.

• Accountability is higher.
• Operating waste is minimized.
• Conflict resolution is faster.
• Value points are traceable.

Work systems value modeling

A technique that can be used to assess the overall value-added components of
a process improvement program is the systems value model (SVM), which is an
adaptation of the manufacturing system value (MSV) model presented by Troxler
and Blank (1989). The model provides an analytical decision aid for comparing
process alternatives. Value is represented as a p-dimensional vector, as follows:

V = f ( A1, A 2,… , A p )

where A   =  (A 1 ,… ,A n ) is a vector of quantitative measures of tangible and

intangible attributes.
Work Value is a function of Work Attributes.
Examples of process attributes are quality, throughput, capability,
productivity, cost, and schedule. Attributes are considered to be a com-
bined function of factors, x 1 , expressed as

mk

Ak ( x1, x2 ,… , xmk ) = ∑ f (x )
i =1
i i

where {x i }  =  the set of m factors associated with attribute A k (k   =  1,2,… ,p )

and f i    =  the  contribution function of factor x i to attribute A k .
Work Attribute is a function of Work Factors.
Examples of factors include reliability, flexibility, user acceptance,
capacity utilization, safety, and design functionality. Factors are them-
selves considered to be composed of indicators, v i , expressed as follows:
18 Work design: A systematic approach

xi ( v1, v2 ,… , vn ) = ∑ z (v )
j =1
i i

where {v j }  =  the set of n indicators associated with factor x i (i   =  1,2,… ,m )

and z j    =  the scaling function for each indicator variable v j .
Work Factor is a function of Work Indicators.
Examples of indicators are project responsiveness, lead time, learning
curve, and work rejects. By combining the preceding definitions, a com-
posite measure of the value of a process can be modeled as follows:

V = f ( A1, A2 ,… , Ap )

  m1  n    m2  n    mk  n   

= f


 ∑ ∑ fi 

z j ( v j )

 ,
  ∑ ∑ fi 

z j ( v j )

 ,… ,


 ∑ ∑ fi 

z j ( v j )






  i =1 j =1 1  i =1 j =1 2  i =1 j =1 p 

where m and n may assume different values for each attribute.

Work Value is a function of Work Attributes, Work Factors, and Work
Indicators.
A subjective measure to indicate the utility of the decision maker may
be included in the model by using an attribute weighting factor, w i , to
obtain a weighted PV .

PVw = f ( w1 A1, w2 A2 ,… , w p Ap )

where:
p

∑w
k =1
k = 1, (0 ≤ wk ≤ 1)
With this modeling approach, a set of process options can be com-
pared on the basis of a set of attributes and factors.

Table 1.1    Comparison of IT work value options

IT equipment Suitability Capability Performance Productivity

options ( k    =  1) ( k    =  2) ( k    =  3) ( k    =  4)
Option A 0.12 0.38 0.18 0.02
Option B 0.30 0.40 0.28 − 1.00
Option C 0.53 0.33 0.52 − 1.10
Chapter one: Systems view of work 19

Example of value vector modeling

To illustrate the model, suppose three information technology (IT) options
are to be evaluated based on four attribute elements: capability , suitability ,
performance , and productivity (see Table 1.1). For this example, based on the
relationships described above, the value vector is defined as follows:

V = f ( capability , suitability , performance , productivity )

Capability refers to the ability of IT equipment to satisfy multiple

requirements. For example, a certain piece of IT equipment may only
provide a computational service. A different piece of equipment may be
capable of generating reports in addition to computational analysis, thus
increasing the service variety that can be obtained. In Table 1.1, the lev-
els of increase in service variety from the three competing equipment
types are 38%, 40%, and 33%, respectively. Suitability refers to the appro-
priateness of the IT equipment for current operations. For example, the
respective percentages of operating scope for which the three options are
suitable are 12%, 30%, and 53%. Performance in this context refers to the
ability of the IT equipment to satisfy schedule and cost requirements. In
the example, the three options can, respectively, satisfy requirements on
18%, 28%, and 52% of the typical set of jobs. Productivity can be measured
by an assessment of the performance of the proposed IT equipment to
meet workload requirements in relation to the existing equipment. In the
example in Table 1.1, the three options, respectively, show normalized
increases of 0.02, − 1.0, and − 1.1 on a uniform scale of productivity mea-
surement. A plot of the histograms of the respective “ values” of the three
IT options were evaluated to find option C as the best value alternative in
terms of suitability and performance. Option B shows the best capability
measure, but its productivity is too low to justify the required investment.
Option A offers the best productivity, but its suitability measure is low.
The analytical process can incorporate a lower control limit into the quan-
titative assessment such that any option providing value below that point
will not be acceptable. Similarly, a minimum value target can be incorpo-
rated into the graphical plot such that each option is expected to exceed
the target point on the value scale.
The relative weights used in many justification methodologies are
based on the subjective propositions of decision makers. Some of those
subjective weights can be enhanced by the incorporation of utility mod-
els. For example, the weights shown in Table 1.1 could be obtained from
utility functions. There is a risk of spending too much time maximizing
inputs at point-of-sale levels and too little time defining and refining out-
puts at the wholesale systems level. Without a systems view, we cannot be
sure that we are pursuing the right outputs.
20 Work design: A systematic approach

Application of work project management

Work should be viewed as a project. The field of project management con-
tinues to grow as an effective means of managing functions in any organi-
zation. Project management should be an enterprise-wide systems-based
endeavor. This section presents a brief introduction to work project man-
agement. Chapter 10 presents full details of the tools and techniques of
project mangement. Enterprise-wide project management is the applica-
tion of project management techniques and practices across the full scope
of the enterprise. This concept is also referred to as management by project
(MBP). MBP is a contemporary concept that employs project management
techniques in various functions within an organization. MBP recom-
mends pursuing endeavors as project-oriented activities. It is an effective
way to conduct any business activity. It represents a disciplined approach
that defines any work assignment as a project. Under MBP, every under-
taking is viewed as a project that must be managed just like a traditional
project. The characteristics required of each project so defined are

1. An identified scope and a goal

2. A desired completion time
3. The availability of resources
4. A defined performance measure
5. A measurement scale for reviewing work

An MBP approach to operations helps to identify unique entities

within functional requirements. This identification helps determine
where functions overlap and how they are interrelated, thus paving the
way for better planning, scheduling, and control. Enterprise-wide proj-
ect management facilitates a unified view of organizational goals and
provides a way for project teams to use information generated by other
departments to carry out their functions.
The use of project management continues to grow rapidly. The
need to develop effective management tools increases with the increas-
ing complexity of new technologies and processes. The life cycle of
a new product to be introduced into a competitive market is a good
example of a complex process that must be managed with integrative
project management approaches. The product will encounter manage-
ment functions as it goes from one stage to the next. Project manage-
ment will be needed throughout the design and production stages of
the product. Project management will be needed in developing mar-
keting, transportation, and delivery strategies for the product. When
the product finally gets to the customer, project management will be
needed to integrate its use with those of other products within the
customer’ s organization.
Chapter one: Systems view of work 21

The need for a project management approach is established by the

fact that a project will always tend to increase in size even if its scope
narrows. The following literary laws are applicable to any project
environment.

Parkinson’ s law : Work expands to fill the available time or space.

Peter’ s principle : People rise to the level of their incompetence.
Murphy’ s law : Whatever can go wrong will.
Badiru’ s rule : The grass is always greener where you most need it to be
dead.

An integrated systems project management approach can help dimin-

ish the adverse impacts of these laws through good project planning,
organizing, scheduling, and control.

Integrated systems implementation

Project management tools can be classified into three major categories:

1. Qualitative tools : These are the managerial tools that aid in the
interpersonal and organizational processes required for project
management.
2. Quantitative tools: These are analytical techniques that aid in the com-
putational aspects of project management.

Systems modeling
Co

Technology
st

Pr
sy

oc
ste

e e
pl Purpos ess
m

Peo es
system

Co
mp
ete
le Work ncie
Schedu
ce

environment s
Performan

els
od

ments
rs

Require
nm
to
ca

e
Cultur rs
di

tio

Qualit cto
In

y Fa
iz a

Attributes
tim

Ma e
Attitud
Op

nag
em
ent
pra
ctic ols
es uter to
Comp

Figure 1.9    Project systems modeling in the work environment.

22 Work design: A systematic approach

3. Computer tools : These are software and hardware tools that simplify
the process of planning, organizing, scheduling, and controlling a
project. Software tools can help in both the qualitative and quantita-
tive analyses needed for project management.

Although individual books dealing with work design, cognitive

modeling, management principles, optimization models, and com-
puter tools are available (Konz and Johnson, 2004; IEBOK, 2017), there
are few guidelines for the integration of the topics explicitly for work
project management purposes. In this book, we integrate most of
these topics for a comprehensive guide to work project management,
from a systems perspective. Figure 1.9 illustrates this emphasis. The
approach considers not only the management of the work itself but
also the management of all the worker-related functions that support
the work.
It is one thing to have a quantitative model, but it is a different thing
to be able to apply the model to real-world problems in a practical form.
The systems approach presented in this book illustrates how to make the
transition from model to practice.
A systems approach helps to increase the intersection of the three cat-
egories of project management tools and, hence, improve overall manage-
ment effectiveness. Crisis should not be the instigator for the use of project
management techniques. Project management approaches should be used
upfront to prevent avoidable problems rather than to fight them when they
develop. What is worth doing is worth doing well, right from the beginning.

Worker-based factors for systems success

The premise of this book is that the critical factors for systems success revolve
around people and the personal commitment and dedication of each person.
No matter how good a technology is and no matter how enhanced a process
might be, it is ultimately the people involved who determine its success. This
makes it imperative to take care of people issues first in the overall systems
approach to work project management. Many organizations recognize this,
but few are able to actualize the ideals of managing work and people pro-
ductively. The execution of operational strategies requires forthrightness,
openness, and commitment to get things done. Lip service and arm waving
are not sufficient. Tangible programs that cater to the needs of people must
be implemented. It is essential to provide incentives, encouragement, and
empowerment for people to be self-actuating in determining how best to
accomplish their job functions. A summary of critical factors for systems
success encompasses total management of hardware, software, people, and
processes with a particular focus on the following system attributes:
Chapter one: Systems view of work 23

• Operational effectiveness
• Operational efficiency
• System suitability
• System resilience
• System affordability
• System supportability
• System life cycle cost
• System performance
• System schedule
• System cost

Systems engineering tools, techniques, and processes are essential for

project life cycle management to make goals possible within the context of
SMART principles, which are represented as follows:

1. Specific : Pursue specific and explicit outputs.

2. Measurable: Design outputs that can be tracked, measured, and
assessed.
3. Achievable : Make outputs that are achievable and aligned with orga-
nizational goals.
4. Realistic : Pursue only the goals that are realistic and results oriented.
5. Timed : Make outputs timed to facilitate accountability.

Systems engineering provides the technical foundation for executing

a project successfully. A systems approach is particularly essential in the
early stages of the project in order to avoid having to reengineer the project
at the end of its life cycle. Early systems engineering makes it possible to
proactively assess the feasibility of meeting user needs, the adaptability of
new technology, and the integration of solutions into regular operations.

Systems hierarchy
The traditional concepts of systems analysis are applicable to the project
process. The definitions of a project system and its components follow.
System : A project system consists of interrelated elements organized
for the purpose of achieving a common goal. The elements are organized
to work synergistically to generate a unified output that is greater than the
sum of the individual outputs of the components.
Program : A program is a very large and prolonged undertaking. Such
endeavors often span several years. Programs are usually associated with
particular systems. For example, we may have a space exploration pro-
gram within a national defense system.
Project : A project is a time-phased effort of much smaller scope and
duration than a program. Programs are sometimes viewed as consisting of
24 Work design: A systematic approach

a set of projects. Government projects are often called programs because of

their broad and comprehensive nature. Industry tends to use the term proj-
ect because of the short-term and focused nature of most industrial efforts.
Task : A task is a functional element of a project. A project is composed
of a sequence of tasks that all contribute to the overall project goal.
Activity : An activity can be defined as a single element of a project.
Activities are generally smaller in scope than tasks. In a detailed analy-
sis of a project, an activity may be viewed as the smallest, most practi-
cally indivisible work element of the project. For example, we can regard
a manufacturing plant as a system. A plant-wide endeavor to improve
productivity can be viewed as a program. The installation of a flexible
manufacturing system is a project within the productivity improvement
program. The process of identifying and selecting equipment vendors is
a task, and the actual process of placing an order with a preferred vendor
is an activity.
The emergence of systems development has had an extensive effect on
project management in recent years. A system can be defined as a collec-
tion of interrelated elements brought together to achieve a specified objec-
tive. In a management context, the purposes of a system are to develop
and manage operational procedures and to facilitate an effective decision-
making process. Some of the common characteristics of a system include

1. Interaction with the environment

2. Objectives
3. Self-regulation
4. Self-adjustment

Representative components of a project system are the organiza-

tional, planning, scheduling, information management, control, and proj-
ect delivery subsystems. The primary responsibilities of project analysts
involve ensuring the proper flow of information throughout the project
system. The classical approach to the decision process follows rigid lines
of organizational charts. By contrast, the systems approach considers all
the interactions necessary among the various elements of an organization
in the decision process.
The various elements (or subsystems) of the organization act simulta-
neously in a separate but interrelated fashion to achieve a common goal.
This synergism helps to expedite the decision process and to enhance the
effectiveness of decisions. The supporting commitments from other sub-
systems of the organization serve to counterbalance the weaknesses of a
given subsystem. Thus, the overall effectiveness of the system is greater
than the sum of the individual results from the subsystems.
The increasing complexity of organizations and projects makes the
systems approach essential in today’ s management environment. As the
Chapter one: Systems view of work 25

number of complex projects increase, there will be an increasing need for

project management professionals who can function as systems integra-
tors. Project management techniques can be applied to the various stages
of implementing a system, as shown in the following guidelines:

1. Systems definition : Define the system and associated problems using

keywords that signify the importance of the problem to the overall
organization. Locate experts in this area who are willing to contrib-
ute to the effort. Prepare and announce the development plan.
2. Personnel assignment : The project group and the respective tasks
should be announced, a qualified project manager should be
appointed, and a solid line of command should be established and
enforced.
3. Project initiation : Arrange an organizational meeting, during which
a general approach to the problem should be discussed. Prepare a
specific development plan and arrange for the installation of the
required hardware and tools.
4. System prototype : Develop a prototype system, test it, and learn more
about the problem from the test results.
5. Full system development : Expand the prototype to a full system, eval-
uate the user interface structure, and incorporate user training facili-
ties and documentation.
6. System verification : Involve experts and potential users, ensure that
the system performs as designed, and debug the system as needed.
7. System validation : Ensure that the system yields the expected out-
puts. Validate the system by evaluating performance levels, such as
the percentage of success in so many trials, measuring the level of
deviation from expected outputs, and measuring the effectiveness of
the system output in solving the problem.
8. System integration : Implement the full system as planned, ensure the
system can coexist with systems already in operation, and arrange
for technology transfer to other projects.
9. System maintenance : Arrange for the continuing maintenance of the
system. Update solution procedures as new pieces of information
become available. Retain responsibility for system performance or
delegate to well-trained and authorized personnel.
10. Documentation : Prepare full documentation of the system, prepare a
user’ s guide, and appoint a user consultant.

Systems integration permits the sharing of resources, such as physi-

cal equipment, concepts, information, and skills. Systems integration is
now a major concern of many organizations. Even some of the organi-
zations that traditionally compete and typically shun cooperative efforts
are beginning to appreciate the value of integrating their operations. For
26 Work design: A systematic approach

these reasons, systems integration has emerged as a major interest in busi-

ness. Systems integration may involve the physical integration of techni-
cal components, the objective integration of operations, the conceptual
integration of management processes, or a combination of any of these.
Systems integration involves the linking of components to form subsys-
tems and the linking of subsystems to form composite systems within a single
department and/or across departments. It facilitates the coordination of tech-
nical and managerial efforts to enhance organizational functions, reduce cost,
save energy, improve productivity, and increase the utilization of resources.
Systems integration emphasizes the identification and coordination of the
interface requirements among the components in an integrated system. The
components and subsystems operate synergistically to optimize the perfor-
mance of the total system. Systems integration ensures that all performance
goals are satisfied with a minimum expenditure of time and resources.
Integration can be achieved in several forms, including the following:

1. Dual-use integration : This involves the use of a single component by

separate subsystems to reduce both the initial cost and the operating
cost during the project life cycle.
2. Dynamic resource integration : This involves integrating the resource
flows of two normally separate subsystems so that the resource
flow from one to or through the other minimizes the total resource
requirements in a project.
3. Restructuring of functions : This involves the restructuring of func-
tions and the reintegration of subsystems to optimize costs when a
new subsystem is introduced into the project environment.

Systems integration is particularly important when introducing a new

work into an existing system. It involves coordinating new operations to
coexist with existing operations. It may require the adjustment of func-
tions to permit the sharing of resources, the development of new policies
to accommodate product integration, or the realignment of managerial
responsibilities. It can affect both the hardware and software components
of an organization. The following are guidelines and important questions
relevant for work systems integration.

• What are the unique characteristics of each component in the inte-

grated system?
• How do the characteristics complement one another?
• What physical interfaces exist among the components?
• What data/information interfaces exist among the components?
• What ideological differences exist among the components?
• What are the data flow requirements for the components?
• Are there similar integrated systems operating elsewhere?
Chapter one: Systems view of work 27

• What are the reporting requirements in the integrated system?

• Are there any hierarchical restrictions on the operations of the com-
ponents of the integrated system?
• What internal and external factors are expected to influence the inte-
grated system?
• How can the performance of the integrated system be measured?
• What benefit/cost documentations are required for the integrated
system?
• What is the cost of designing and implementing the integrated system?
• What are the relative priorities assigned to each component of the
integrated system?
• What are the strengths of the integrated system?
• What are the weaknesses of the integrated system?
• What resources are needed to keep the integrated system operating
satisfactorily?
• Which section of the organization will have primary responsibility
for the operation of the integrated system?
• What are the quality specifications and requirements for the inte-
grated systems?

Work and the hierarchy of needs of workers

Maslow’ s hierarchy of needs is very much applicable in any work environ-
ment. According to Maslow’ s theory, the five different orders of human
needs are as follows:

1. Basic physiological needs : Includes food, water, shelter, and the like. In
modern society, the basic drives of human existence cause individu-
als to become involved in organizational life. People become partici-
pants in the organization that employs them. Thus, at the simplest
level of human needs, people are motivated to join organizations,
remain in them, and contribute to their objectives.
2. Security and safety : Security means many things to different people
in different circumstances. For some, it means earning a higher
income to ensure freedom from what might happen in case of sick-
ness or during old age. Thus many people are motivated to work
harder to seek success that is measured in terms of income. It can
also be interpreted as job security. To some people such as civil ser-
vants and teachers, the assurance of life tenure and a guaranteed
pension may be strong motivators in their participation in employ-
ing organizations.
3. Social affiliation : An employee with a reasonably well-paying and
secure job will begin to feel that belonging and approval are impor-
tant motivators in his or her organizational behavior.
28 Work design: A systematic approach

O
ve
ra
ll o
5 rg
an
iz a
5. Self-actualiza- tio

ds
tion needs 4 na

ne e
ln
ee
ds
r
rke 4. Esteem needs
3
wo
ual

3. Love and belonging needs 2

ivid

1
Ind

2. Security needs

1. Physiological needs

Figure 1.10    Multidimensional pyramid of the needs of workers and the organi-
zation. (Adapted from Badiru, A.B., Triple C Model of Project Management , CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2008.)

4. Esteem : The need to be recognized, to be respected, and to have pres-

tige (one’ s self-image and the view that one holds of oneself). There
is a dynamic interplay between one’ s own sense of satisfaction and
self-confidence on the one hand and feedback from others in such
diverse forms as being asked for advice on the other hand.
5. Self-actualization : The desire to become more and more what one is,
to become everything that one is capable of becoming. The self-actu-
alized person is inwardly directed, seeks self-growth, and is highly
motivated by loyalty to cherished values, ethics, and beliefs. Not
everyone reaches the self-actualized state. It is estimated that these
higher-level needs are met about 10% of the time.

In any organization, the prevailing hierarchy of the needs of the

worker must be evaluated in the context of the organization’ s own hier-
archy of needs. In this regard, Badiru (2008) developed an adaptation of
the conventional triangle of hierarchy into a multidimensional pyramid of
needs, as illustrated in Figure 1.10.

Work for social and economic development

Not only is work essential for personal and organizational advancement, it is
also essential, from a synergistic systems perspective, for national social and
economic development. The gross domestic product (GDP) is the eventual
coalescing of work done at various levels of the nation. GDP is the monetary
value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country in
Chapter one: Systems view of work 29

a defined period of time. Though GDP is usually calculated on an annual

basis, it can be calculated on a quarterly basis as well in order to increase the
granularity of management policies and practices to increase the national
output. GDP includes all private and public consumption, government
spending, investments, and exports (minus imports) that occur within a
national boundary. In other words, GDP is a broad and composite measure-
ment of a nation’s overall economic activity. It can be calculated as follows:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where:
C  =  all private consumption or consumer spending
G  =  the sum of government spending
I  =  the sum of all the country’ s investment, including corporate
capital expenditures
NX  =  the nation’ s total net exports, calculated as total exports minus
total imports
GDP is commonly used as an indicator of the economic health of a
country, as well as a gauge of a country’ s standard of living. If a coun-
try’ s standard of living is high, the workers in the country do well for
themselves. Since the mode of measuring GDP is uniform from country
to country, GDP can be used to compare the productivity of various coun-
tries with a high degree of accuracy. Adjusting for inflation from year
to year allows for an objective comparison of current GDP measurement
trends. Thus, a country’ s GDP from any period can be measured as a per-
centage relative to previous years or quarters. Consequently, GDP trends
can be used in measuring a nation’ s economic growth or decline, as well
as in determining if an economy is in recession, which has a direct impact
on workers and the work environment.

The concept of Total Worker Health ®

Work, wellness, and wealth can go hand in hand. Workers’ health directly
affects GDP, based on a systems view of work, cascading from one per-
son’ s level all the way (collectively) to the national level. Good health is
related to good work performance. Health is an individual attribute that
compliments each worker’ s hierarchy of needs. Without good health, even
the best worker cannot perform. Without good health, even the best athlete
cannot succeed. Without good health, even the most proficient expert can-
not manifest his or her expertise. Without total health, even the most dedi-
cated and experienced employee cannot contribute to the accomplishment
of the organization’ s mission. Good health is a key part of the systems
view of work advocated by this book. It is against this backdrop that the
authors appreciate the concept of Total Worker Health (TWH) (Schill and
30 Work design: A systematic approach

Chosewood, 2013; Schill, 2016). More details about TWH and/or pertinent
worker well-being issues appear in various parts of this book. Chapter 11
presents a reprint of Schulte et al. (2015) on the considerations for incorpo-
rating well-being in the policies affecting workers and workplaces.

References
Agustiady, T. and A. B. Badiru (2012), Sustainability: Utilizing Lean Six Sigma
Techniques , CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Badiru, A. B. (2014), Quality insights: The DEJI model for quality design, evalua-
tion, justification, and integration, International Journal of Quality Engineering
and Technology , Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 369– 378.
Badiru, A. B. (2012), Project Management: Systems, Principles, and Applications , CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Badiru, A. B. (2008), Triple C Model of Project Management, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Badiru, A. B. (2010), Half-life of learning curves for information technology proj-
ect management, International Journal of IT Project Management , Vol. 1, No. 3,
pp. 28– 45.
Badiru, I. A. (2016), Comments about work management, interview with an auto
industry senior engineer about corporate views of work design, Beavercreek,
OH, 29 October.
GAO (Government Accountability Office) (2010), Defense Management: DOD
needs better information and guidance to more effectively manage and
reduce operating and support costs of major weapon systems, GAO Report
No. GAO-10-717, Washington, DC, July 2010.
Geisler, J. (2012), Work Happy: What Great Bosses Know , Hachette, New York.
INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering) (n. d.), What is systems
engineering? http://www.incose.org/AboutSE/WhatIsSE (accessed February
2017).
IEBOK (Industrial Engineering Body of Knowledge) (2017), published by the
Institute of Industrial & Systems Engineers, Norcross, GA.
Konz, S. and S. Johnson (2004), Work Design: Occupational Ergonomics, 6th Edition,
Holcomb Hathaway Publishers, Scottsdale, AZ.
Schill, A. L. and L. C. Chosewood (2013), The NIOSH Total Worker Health pro-
gram: An overview, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine ,
Vol. 55, No. 12 suppl., pp. S8– S11.
Schill, A. L. (2016), Advancing well-being through total worker health, keynote
address, 17th Annual Pilot Research Project (PRP) Symposium, University
of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, October 13.
Schulte, P. A., R. J. Guerin, A. L. Schill, A. Bhattacharya, T. R. Cunningham, S. P.
Pandalai, D. Eggerth, and C. M. Stephenson (2015), Considerations for incor-
porating “ well-being” in public policy for workers and workplaces, American
Journal of Public Health , Vol. 105, No. 8, pp. e31– e44, August.
Troxler, J. W. and L. Blank (1989), A comprehensive methodology for manufac-
turing system evaluation and comparison, Journal of Manufacturing Systems ,
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 176– 183.
section two

Work design
chapter two

Analytics for work

planning or selection
Work design can be as simple as proper work planning or selection
(pick-option). This chapter presents the quantification of the possible ,
implement , challenge , and kill (PICK) chart for improving decisions in work
design, which is the first stage of the recommended design , evaluation ,
justification , and integration (DEJI) model. With effective process improve-
ment decisions and work element selection, we can improve overall
organizational effectiveness, thereby leading to positive organizational
transformation. Operational improvement is a goal of every organization.
However, only limited quantitative approaches have been implemented
specifically for that purpose. This chapter illustrates how the quantifica-
tion of the PICK chart can facilitate improved operational decisions for
work design or work selection. Any decision involving a work process
is ultimately a decision about designing work. This connection is often
made late in organizational endeavors for process improvement.
Any attempt to achieve organizational transformation must be based
on leveraging effective decision-making processes within the organiza-
tion. The DEJI model, by virtue of its systematic approach to efficiency,
provides a strategic option for achieving the desired organizational trans-
formation. One benefit of systems engineering is its ability to bridge the
gap between quantitative and qualitative factors in the decision envi-
ronment. Any decision environment will involve interaction between
quantitative and qualitative information, which must be integrated for a
defensible decision. For emergency and urgent decision-making needs,
managers often resort to seat-of-the-pants qualitative approaches that can
hardly be defended analytically, even though they possess intrinsic expe-
riential merits. This is particularly critical in complex present-day operat-
ing environments. The popular analytic hierarchy process (AHP) provides a
strong coupling of qualitative reasoning and quantitative analysis (Saaty,
2008; Vaidya and Kumar, 2006; Fong and Choi, 2000; Kuo, 2010). It is desir-
able to achieve similar quantitative and qualitative coupling for other
tools, such as the PICK chart, which aids in the selection of work elements.
The chart is traditionally used as a simple eyeballing device to work out
package selection problems. Incorporating some element of quantification
into the PICK chart will make it more defensible as an analytical tool.

33
34 Work design: A systematic approach

The focus of this chapter is to use the quantification of the PICK

chart to illustrate work package selection in a resource-constrained envi-
ronment. The quantification methodology is motivated by a case study
at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) (Racz et al., 2010; Badiru
and Thomas, 2013). The study involved the procurement of laboratory
chemicals and hazardous materials for an Environmental Safety and
Occupational Health (ESOH) program. The challenge was to improve the
procurement process that manages chemicals and hazardous materials
for laboratories by carefully selecting task options. With effective process
improvement decisions, we can improve overall organizational effec-
tiveness, which can hopefully lead to better work designs. The need for
organizational work improvement has been lamented in the literature for
several years. However, only limited quantitative approaches have been
implemented. The quantification technique presented here, coupled with
other systems engineering tools and techniques, can facilitate enterprise
process improvement and better organizational effectiveness, particularly
where technology-driven learning curves are in effect (Badiru, 2012). A
quantitative PICK chart approach can generate additional robust work
design tools. If work design is improved at each level, it is expected that
total enterprise improvement will occur.

Defense enterprise improvement case example

The military enterprise substantively and directly affects the national
economy, either through direct employment, subcontracts, military con-
struction, or technology transfer. It is thus fitting to expect that military
process improvement can have a direct impact on general civilian enter-
prise improvement programs. Kotnour (2010, 2011) presents the funda-
mental elements and challenges of enterprise transformation with a view
toward developing a universal framework for assessing the effectiveness
of work improvement efforts. Some of the key elements suggested are as
follows:

• Successful change is leadership driven.

• Successful change is strategy driven.
• Successful change is project managed.
• Successful change involves continuous learning.
• Successful change involves a systematic change process.

These elements, within the context of Air Force enterprise transfor-

mation, are all within the scope of the application of systems engineering
tools and techniques. Rifkin (2011) raised questions about the time and
cost elements of acquisitions in the context of enterprise transformation.
Giachetti (2010) presents guidelines for designing enterprise systems for
Chapter two: Analytics for work planning or selection 35

the purpose of improving decision making. These and similar references

show that there is a good collection of systems engineering and business
tools and techniques that the defense enterprise can adopt for work pro-
cess improvement.

The pursuit of efficiencies in work programs

Functional integration and efficiencies are a primary pursuit in defense
enterprises. In a report to congressional committees, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) calls for new approaches to synchronize,
harmonize, and integrate the planning and operation of programs in
the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) enterprise
of the Department of Defense (DoD) (GAO, 2008). The need for func-
tional integration and efficiencies is depicted in Figure 2.1. The various
diverse elements portrayed in the figure must be aligned and function-
ally integrated. Figure 2.2 is a pictorial representation of the life cycle
framework for acquisitions for DoD organizations. The framework is
an event-based process, where acquisition proceeds through a series
of milestones associated with significant program phases. Many of
these phases are amenable to the quantitative PICK charting of deci-
sions involving work selection, cost baseline, the analysis of alterna-
tives, resources allocation options, logistics options, and technology
selection.

Resource
limitation

National Human
security capital

Global
benchmarks

Cost Quality

Schedule

Figure 2.1    Factors of efficiencies and work integration.

36 Work design: A systematic approach

Organizational
needs
Feedback to
management

Technology opportunities and resources

Engineering Production Operations

Solution Technology
and and and
analysis development
manufacturing deployment support

Presystem acquisition Systems acquisition Sustainment

= Decision point

Figure 2.2    Typical organizational technology lifecycle.

In as much as DoD programs are evaluated on three primary and

distinct dimensions of cost, schedule, and performance, efforts are being
made within and outside the DoD to develop quantitative accountabil-
ity tools for these elements. The quantification of the PICK chart fits that
goal. Ward (2012) has been at the forefront of sensitizing the DoD to an
integrated approach to acquisitions process improvement. With his fast ,
inexpensive , simple , and tiny (FIST) model, he has proposed a variety of
approaches to improve cost, schedule, and performance for DoD pro-
grams. Implementing FIST in acquisitions enterprise transformation for
better operational efficiency will revolve around organizational structure,
process design, tools, technologies, and system architecture, all of which
have embedded options and requirements. A quantitative application of
the PICK chart for decisions and work selections across these elements
could further enhance the concept of FIST in DoD acquisition challenges.
Gibbons (2011) presents a an example case in which Starbucks instituted
enterprise transformation to achieve international competitiveness. The
same operational improvement that is achieved in the corporate world
can be pursued in the defense enterprise. Table 2.1 compares the classi-
cal scientific management of Frederick Taylor (Taylor, 1911) with the con-
temporary scientific management as presently practiced by industrial and
systems engineers. The taxonomy in the table can form the backdrop for
the implementation of Air Force work improvement programs, such Air
Force Smart Operations for the Twenty-First Century (AFSO21), as pointed
out by Badiru (2007). A robust approach to using the PICK chart is desir-
able in cases where there is only a one-chance opportunity to make the
right work selection in the decision process.
Chapter two: Analytics for work planning or selection 37

Table 2.1    Classical and contemporary principles, tools, and techniques for
work management
Taylor’s classical Equivalent contemporary Applicability for
principles of scientific principles, tools, and improving acquisitions
management techniques efficiency
Time studies Work measurement; Effective resource
process design; PDCA; allocation; schedule
DMAIC optimization
Functional Matrix organization Team structure for
supervision structure; SMART task efficiency
assignments
Standardization of Tool bins; interchangeable Optimization of resource
tools and implements parts; modularity of utilization
components; ergonomics
Standardization of Six Sigma processes; Reduction of variability
work methods OODA loop
Separate planning Task assignment Reduction of waste and
function techniques; Pareto redundancy
analysis
Management by Failure mode and effect Focus on vital few; task
exception analysis (FMEA); project prioritization
management; Pareto analysis
Use of slide rules and Blueprint templates; Use of boilerplate models
similar time-saving computer hardware and
devices software
Instruction cards for Standards maps; process Reinforcement of
workmen mapping; work learning
breakdown structure
Task allocation and Benefit– cost analysis; Cost reduction; productivity
large bonus for value-added systems; improvement; consistency
successful performance performance appraisal of morale
Use of differential rate Value engineering; work Input– output task
rate analysis; AHP coordination
Mnemonic systems for Relationship charts; group Goal alignment; work
classifying products technology; charts and simplification
and implements color coding
Routing system Lean principles; facility Minimization of
layout; PICK chart; DEJI transportation and handling
Modern costing Value engineering; earned Cost optimization
system value analysis
DMAIC: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control; PDCA: Plan, Do, Check, and Act;
SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timed; OODA: Observe, Orient,
Decide, and Act; FMEA: Failure Mode and Effect Analysis; PICK: Pick, Implement, Challenge,
or Kill; DEJI: Design, Evaluate, Justify, and Integrate; AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process.
38 Work design: A systematic approach

Elements of the PICK chart

The PICK chart was originally developed by Lockheed Martin to iden-
tify and prioritize improvement opportunities in the company’ s process
improvement applications (George, 2006). The technique is just one of the
several decision tools available in process improvement endeavors. It is a
very effective lean Six Sigma tool used to categorize process improvement
ideas. The purpose is to qualitatively help identify the most useful ideas.
A 2  ×   2 grid is normally drawn on a whiteboard or large flip chart. Ideas
that were written on sticky notes by team members are then placed on the
grid based on a group assessment of the payoff relative to the level of dif-
ficulty. The PICK acronym comes from the labels for each of the quadrants
of the grid, summarized as follows:

Possible (easy, low payoff) Third quadrant

Implement (easy, high payoff) Second quadrant
Challenge (hard, high payoff) First quadrant
Kill (hard, low payoff) Fourth quadrant

The primary purpose is to help identify the most useful ideas, especially
those that can be accomplished immediately with little difficulty. These
are called just-do-its. The general layout of the PICK chart grid is shown
in Figure 2.3. The PICK process is normally done subjectively by a team of
decision makers under a group decision process. This can lead to a biased
and protracted debate of where each item belongs. It is desirable to improve
the efficacy of the process by introducing some quantitative analysis. Just as
AHP faced critics in its early years (Calantone et al., 1999; Wong and Li, 2008;
Chou et al., 2004), the PICK chart is often criticized for its subjective rank-
ings and lack of quantitative analysis. The approach presented by Badiru
and Thomas (2013) alleviates such concerns by normalizing and quantify-
ing the process of integrating the subjective rakings of those involved in the
work selection of the PICK process. Human decision is inherently subjec-
tive. All we can do is to develop techniques to mitigate the subjective inputs
rather than compound them with subjective summarization.

Quantitative measures of efficiency

The PICK chart may be used as a hybrid component of the existing quan-
titative measures of operational efficiency. Performance can be defined in
terms of several organization-specific metrics. Examples are efficiency,
effectiveness, and productivity, which usually go hand in hand. The
existing techniques for improving efficiency, effectiveness, and produc-
tivity are quite amenable for military adaptation. Efficiency refers to the
extent to which a resource (time, money, effort, etc.) is properly utilized
Chapter two: Analytics for work planning or selection 39

High

Implement
Challenge
(just do it)

Payoff measure Possible Kill

Low
Difficulty measure
Easy Hard

Figure 2.3    Basic layout of the PICK chart for work selection.

to achieve an expected outcome. The goal, thus, is to minimize resource

expenditure, reduce waste, eliminate unnecessary effort, and maximize
output. The ideal (i.e., the perfect case) is to have 100% efficiency. This is
rarely possible in practice. Usually expressed as a percentage, efficiency (e )
is computed as output over input.

output result
e= =
input effort

This ratio is also adapted for measuring productivity. For the purpose
of the premise of this chapter, we offer the following definition of opera-
tional efficiency:

Operational efficiency involves a scenario wherein

all participants and stakeholders coordinate their
respective activities, considering all the attendant
factors, such that the overall organizational goals
can be achieved with systematic input– process– out-
put relationships with the minimum expenditure of
resources yielding maximum possible outputs.

Effectiveness is an ambiguous evaluative term that is difficult to quan-

tify. It is primarily concerned with achieving objectives. To model effective-
ness quantitatively, we can consider the fact that an objective is essentially
an output related to the numerator of the preceding efficiency equation.
Thus, we can assess the extent to which the various objectives of an organi-
zation are met with respect to the available resources. Although efficiency
and effectiveness often go hand in hand, they are, indeed, different and
40 Work design: A systematic approach

distinct. For example, one can forego efficiency for the sake of accomplish-
ing a particular objective. Consider the statement “ If we can get it done,
money is no object.” The military, by virtue of being mission driven, often
operates this way. If, for instance, our goal is to go from point A to point
B to hit a target, and we do hit the target, no matter what it takes, then we
are effective. We may not be efficient based on the amount of resources
expended to hit the target. For the purpose of this chapter and the use of
the DEJI model, a cost-based measure of effectiveness is defined as

so
ef = , co > 0
co

where:
ef    =  the measure of effectiveness on interval (0, 1)
s o     =  the level of satisfaction of the objective (rated on a scale of 0– 1)
c o     =  the cost of achieving the objective (expressed in pertinent cost
basis: money, time, measurable resources, etc.)

If an objective is fully achieved by a work element, then its satisfaction

rating will be 1. If it is not achieved at all, it will be 0. Thus, having the cost
in the denominator gives a measure of achieving the objective per unit
cost. If the effectiveness measures of achieving several objectives are to be
compared, then the denominator (i.e., cost) will need to be normalized to
a uniform scale. Overall system effectiveness can be computed as a sum-
mation as follows:

∑c
so
ef c =
o
i =1

where ef c    =  the composite effectiveness measure and n   =  the number of

objectives in the effectiveness window.
Because of the potential for the effectiveness measure to be very small
based on the magnitude of the cost denominator, it is essential to place it
on a scale of 0– 100. Thus, the highest comparative effectiveness per unit
cost will be 100, while the lowest will be 0. The preceding quantitative mea-
sure of effectiveness makes most sense when comparing alternatives for
achieving a specific objective. If the effectiveness of achieving an objec-
tive in absolute (noncomparative) terms is desired, it is necessary to deter-
mine the range of costs, minimum to maximum, applicable for achieving
the objective. Then, we can assess how well we satisfy the objective with
the expenditure of the maximum cost versus the expenditure of the min-
imum cost. By analogy, killing two birds with one stone is efficient. By
Chapter two: Analytics for work planning or selection 41

comparison, the question of effectiveness is whether we kill a bird with

one stone or kill the same bird with two stones, if the primary goal is to kill
the bird nonetheless. In technical terms, systems that are designed with
parallel redundancy can be effective, but not necessarily efficient. In such
cases, the goal is to be effective (i.e., to get the job done) rather than to be
efficient. The productivity of a work element is a measure of throughput per
unit time. The traditional application of productivity computation is in the
production environment, with countable or measurable units of output in
repetitive operations. Manufacturing is a perfect scenario for productivity
computations. Typical productivity formulas include the following:

Q Q
P= or P = ( u)
q q

where:
P    =  productivity
Q    =  output quantity
q    =  input quantity
u    =  utilization percentage

Notice that Q /q also represents efficiency (i.e., output/input), as defined

earlier. Applying the utilization percentage to this ratio modifies the ratio
to provide actual productivity yield. For the military environment, which
is a nonmanufacturing setting, productivity analysis is still of interest.
The military organization is composed, primarily, of knowledge workers,
whose productivity must be measured in alternate terms, perhaps through
work rate analysis. Rifkin (2011) presents the following productivity equa-
tion, suitable for implementation in any work environment:

Product (i.e., output) = productivity (objects per person-ttime)

× effort (person-time)

where
effort  =  duration  ×   the number of people.

He suggests using this measure of productivity to draw inferences

about organizational transformation and work efficiency. It should be
noted that higher efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity are not simply
a resource availability issue. An organization with ample resources can
still be inefficient, ineffective, and unproductive because of flawed work
design. Thus, organizational impediments, apart from resource availabil-
ity, should be identified and mitigated.
42 Work design: A systematic approach

Case study of work selection process improvement

This section presents a case study of an improvement project at AFIT
(Racz et al., 2010). As a part of the enterprise transformation effort of the
Air Force, high-value projects are selected and targeted for the applica-
tion of improvement methodologies. One such project is an acquisitions
challenge in the Environmental Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH)
program, in which it is desired to improve the ways AFIT procures and
manages chemicals and hazardous materials for laboratories. Figure 2.4
illustrates the overall project execution environment for the improvement
project. We focus on two examples of the improvement tools used dur-
ing the ESOH project. The first one is a SIPOC chart, which details the
integrated flow of suppliers , inputs , process , outputs , and customers . This is
shown in Table 2.2.
The second tool of interest in this case study is a PICK chart. Figure 2.5
illustrates the PICK chart used for the ESOH project. When faced with
multiple improvement ideas, a PICK chart may be used to determine the
most useful one to pick. The horizontal axis, representing the ease of
implementation, would typically include some assessment of the cost to
implement the category. More expensive actions can be said to be more
difficult to implement. Although this acquisitions example represents a
simple scenario, the same tools, techniques, and decision processes used
can be expanded and extended to the more complicated higher-level work
selection challenges.

Acquisitions improvement goal

AFSO21 project selections

ESOH improvement
project
Project Project Project Scope Project
conceptualization initiation control management closure

Sustainability of
improvement

Acquisition project implementation framework

Figure 2.4    Case study: execution framework for ESOH work selection.
Chapter two: Analytics for work planning or selection 43

Table 2.2    SIPOC chart for ESOH work selection

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers

Consultants Training See flow Safe working Local, state,
Faculty Purchase charts environment and federal
process (value agencies;
Chemical Inventory stream Compliance (invoices,
vendors maps) with Air payments)
Equipment Personal Force, local, Users
vendors protective state, federal (students,
equipment requirements faculty,
Properly research
Base system Site/lab trained collaborators
(physical plant, survey students visitors)
chemical Price quotes Research
management, Students sponsors
system supply/ perform Maintenance
disposal) excellent staff
Organization Government R&D Compliance
management purchase Student managers
Students/ Card education Facility
research assistant Useable Manager
Computer product for Air Force
Support sponsor Institution
Funding Institutional (equipment, leadership
agencies regulations publication,
information)
Local business Federal and Safety culture
local Academic
Contractors Law degrees
EPA/OSHA/ Time to Contracts
Army, etc. complete Reports to Air
forms Force
Collaboration Research groups,
with other proposal contractors,
colleges approvals etc.
Local inventor Equipment
Excess item
Funding source Expertise disposal
Base laser safety Sponsor
requirements
Inspectors
SIPOC: Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers; ESOH: Environmental, Safety,
and Occupational Health; EPA: Environmental Protection Agency; OSHA: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration; R&D: Research and Development.
44 Work design: A systematic approach

High
Implement Challenge

1
Leadership 3 2
emphasis on Workflow and Hire qualified
safety 4 digital manager
Revamp signature
ESOH
Degree of impact

website 5
Flow chart of
6 ESOH
Implement
best
practices
7
IT support

Possible Kill

Low
Easy Hard
Degree of difficulty

Figure 2.5    PICK chart example for ESOH improvement project.

PICK chart quantification methodology

The placement of items into one of the four categories in a PICK chart is
done through expert ratings, which are often subjective and nonquantita-
tive. In order to give some quantitative basis to the PICK chart analysis, this
chapter presents the methodology of dual numeric scaling on the impact
and difficulty axes. Suppose each project is ranked on a scale of 1– 10 and
plotted accordingly on the PICK chart. Then, each project can be evalu-
ated on a binomial pairing of the respective rating on each scale. For our
ESOH example, let x represent the level of impact and let y represent the
rating along the axes of difficulty. Note that a high rating along x is desir-
able, while a high rating along y is undesirable. Thus, a composite rating
involving x and y must account for the adverse effect of high values of y . A
simple approach is to define y′    =  (11  −   y), which is then used in the compos-
ite evaluation. If there are more factors involved in the overall project selec-
tion scenario, the other factors can take on their own lettered labeling (e.g.,
a , b , c , etc.). Then, each project will have an n -tuple assessment vector. In its
simplest form, this approach will generate a rating such as the following:

PICK R , i ( x , y ′ ) = x + y ′
Chapter two: Analytics for work planning or selection 45

where:
PICK R , i (x ,y )  =  the PICK rating of project i (i   =  1, 2, 3, … , n )
n    =  the number of the project under consideration
x    =  the rating along the impact axis (1  ≤   x   ≤   10)
y    =  the rating along the difficulty axis (1  ≤   y   ≤   10)
y′     =  (11  −   y )

If x   +  y′ is the evaluative basis, then each project’ s composite rating

will range from 2 to 20, 2 being the minimum and 20 being the maximum
possible. If (x )(y ) is the evaluative basis, then each project’ s composite
rating will range from 1 to 100. In general, any desired functional form
may be adopted for the composite evaluation. Another possible functional
form is as follows:

PICK R ,i (x , y ′′) = f (x , y ′′)

= (x + y ′′)2

where y″ accounts for the converse impact of the axes of difficulty. This
methodology provides a quantitative measure for translating the entries
in a conventional PICK chart into an analytical ranking of the improve-
ment alternatives, thereby reducing the level of subjectivity in the final
decision. The methodology can be extended to cover cases where a proj-
ect has the potential to create negative impacts that will impede organi-
zational advancement. Referring back to the PICK chart for our ESOH
example, we develop the numeric illustration shown in Table 2.3.
As expected, the highest x   +  y′ composite rating (i.e., 18) is in the sec-
ond quadrant, which represents the implement region. The lowest com-
posite rating is 10 in the first quadrant, which is the challenge region. With
this type of quantitative analysis, it becomes easier to design, evaluate,
justify, and integrate (i.e., apply the DEJI model). This facilitates a more

Table 2.3    Numeric evaluation of PICK chart rating for ESOH work elements
Improvement project x Rating y Rating y′    =  11  −   y x   +  y′ xy′
1. Leadership emphasis 9 2 9 18 81
2. Full-time issue manager 9 10 1 10 9
3. Work flow digital 9 6 5 14 45
signature
4. Work group process 8 3 8 16 64
5. Work flow chart VSM 7 6 5 12 35
6. Implement best practices 7 4 7 14 49
7. Support center other 6 4 7 13 42
46 Work design: A systematic approach

rigorous analytical technique compared with the traditional subjective

arm-waving approaches. One concern is that although quantifying the
placement of alternatives on the PICK chart may improve the granularity
of the relative locations on the chart, it still does not eliminate the subjec-
tivity of how the alternatives are assigned to quadrants in the first place.
This is a recognized feature of many decision tools and can be mitigated
by the use of additional techniques that aid decision makers to refine their
choices. AHP could be useful for this purpose. Quantifying subjectivity is
a continuing challenge in decision analysis. The PICK chart quantification
approach offers an improvement over the conventional approach.

Implementing the PICK chart

Although the PICK chart has been used extensively in industry, there
are few published examples in the open literature. The tool is effective
for managing process enhancement ideas and classifying them during
the identify and prioritize opportunity phase of a Six Sigma project. When a
process improvement team is faced with multiple improvement ideas, the
PICK chart helps address issues related to deciding which ideas should be
implemented and which work elements should be embraced. The steps for
implementing a PICK chart are as follows:

Step 1: Place the subject question on a chart. The question needs to be

asked and answered by the team at different stages to be sure that
the data that are collected are relevant.
Step 2: Put each component of the data on a different note, such as a
Post-its or a small card. These notes should be arranged on the left-
hand side of the chart.
Step 3: Each team member must read all notes individually and con-
sider their importance. The team member should decide whether
the element should or should not remain a fraction of the significant
sample. The notes are then removed and moved to the other side of
the chart. Now, the data are condensed enough to be processed for a
particular purpose by means of tools such as KJ analysis , which is a
group-focusing approach developed by the Japanese Jiro Kawakita
to quickly allow groups to reach a consensus on priorities of subjec-
tive and qualitative data.
Step 4: Apply the quantification methodology previously presented to
normalize the qualitative inputs of the team.

Summary
Human uncertainty and personal preferences often creep into corporate
decision processes. Incorporating some quantifiable measure is a good
Chapter two: Analytics for work planning or selection 47

way to mitigate the adverse effects of qualitative reason. The quantifica-

tion of the PICK chart fits the systematic approach of the DEJI model.

References
Badiru, A. B. (2007), Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century, OR/MS
Today , Vol. 34, No. 1, p. 28.
Badiru, A. B. (2012), Half-life learning curves in the defense acquisition lifecycle,
Defense Acquisition Research Journal , Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 283– 308.
Badiru, A. B. and M. Thomas (2013), Quantification of the PICK chart for process
improvement decisions, Journal of Enterprise Transformation , Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.
1– 15.
Calantone, R. J., C. A. Di Benedetto, and J. B. Schmidt (1999), Using the analytic
hierarchy process in new product screening, Journal of Product Innovation
Management , Vol. 16, pp. 65– 76.
Chou, Y., C. Lee, and J. Chung (2004), Understanding m-commerce payment sys-
tems through the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Business Research , Vol.
57, No. 12, pp. 1423– 1430.
Fong, P. S. and S. K. Choi (2000), Final contractor selection using the analytic hier-
archy process, Construction Management and Economics , Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.
547– 557.
GAO (Government Accountability Office) (2008), Intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance: DOD can better assess and integrate ISR capabilities and
oversee development of future ISR requirements, GAO Report No. GAO-
08-374, Washington, DC, March 2008.
George, M. L. (2006), Lean Six Sigma for Services , McGraw-Hill, Seoul, Korea.
Giachetti, R. E. (2010), Design of Enterprise Systems: Theory, Architecture, and Methods ,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Gibbons, P. (2011), Notes from the field: Transforming the Starbucks experience,
Journal of Enterprise Transformation , Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 7– 13.
Kotnour, T. (2011), An emerging theory of enterprise transformations, Journal of
Enterprise Transformation , Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 48– 70.
Kotnour, T. G. (2010), Transforming Organizations: Strategies and Methods , CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Kuo, T. C. (2010), Combination of case-based reasoning and analytical hierarchy
process for providing intelligent decision support for product recycling
strategies, Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal , Vol. 37,
No. 8, pp. 5558– 5563.
Racz, L. et al. (2010), AFIT Environmental Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH)
AFSO21 event, report of the AFSO21 improvement project, AFIT, December
2010.
Rifkin, S. (2011), Raising questions: How long does it take, how much does it cost,
and what will we have when we are done? What we do not know about
enterprise transformation, Journal of Enterprise Transformation , Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp. 34– 47.
Saaty, T. L. (2008), Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,
International Journal of Services Sciences , Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 83– 98.
Taylor, F. W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management , Harper Bros, New
York.
48 Work design: A systematic approach

Vaidya, O. S. and S. Kumar (2006), Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of

applications, European Journal of Operational Research , Vol. 169, No. 1, pp.
1– 29.
Ward, D. (2012), Faster, better, cheaper: Why not pick all three?, National Defense
Magazine , pp. 1– 2.
Wong, J. K. W. and H. Li (2008), Application of the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building sys-
tems, Building and Environment , Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 108– 125.
chapter three

Learning curve analysis

for work design
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those
who cannot read and write, but those who cannot
learn, unlearn, and relearn.
Alvin Toffler

Whenever one person is found adequate to the dis-

charge of a duty by close application thereto, it is
worse executed by two persons, and scarcely done
at all if three or more are employed therein.
George Washington

One vital basis for work performance is the impact

of learning. The opening quotes highlight the
importance of learning in the design and execution
of work. When a work element has a certain labor
component and repetition of the same work element
makes the labor requirement more proficient and
efficient, the work is completed more quickly, thus
reducing the labor cost while preserving or increas-
ing the level of quality of the output. Consequently,
the impact of learning has the following benefits:

• Lower cost of work at the individual worker level

• Higher quality of work output
• Better customer satisfaction
• Higher productivity
• Higher efficiency
• Better organizational throughput
• Smoother coordination of work
• Less stress on the worker
• Lower production cost at the organizational level

These benefits have been modeled mathematically in various forms

for decades, ever since Wright (1936) first presented the impact of learning
49
50 Work design: A systematic approach

curves on the production cost of airplanes. Grahame (2010) presents the tra-
dition of applying learning curves to the production of not only aircraft but
also spacecraft. The impact of learning can be subtle in many cases. So, anal-
ysis must rigorously track and document the durations of work elements
over time as repeated production progresses. For this reason, a learning
curve is sometimes referred to as a manufacturing progress function. This is a
major topic of interest in operations analysis and improvement in industry,
where work measurement provides the basis for productivity improvement.
Industrial innovation and economic advancement owe their sustain-
able foundations to work measurement processes (Badiru, 2008). We must
measure work accurately in order to improve it. Such pursuit of work mea-
surement accuracy requires an assessment of the impact of learning dur-
ing the production cycle. This chapter presents the basic foundations for
modeling and utilizing learning curves. Because of the multitude of fac-
tors influencing work performance, the analytic framework for learning
curves often extend from univariate to multivariate models. Multivariate
learning curve functions are essential to accounting for the variety of fac-
tors that can influence production operations. In many industrial opera-
tions, subtle, observable, quantitative, and qualitative factors intermingle
to compound the productivity analysis problem. Such factors are best
modeled within a multivariate learning curve framework. This chapter
presents learning curve examples to illustrate the modeling process. The
chapter also includes computational procedures for work rate analysis.

Learning curves for better work design

The opportunity to work translates into the opportunity to learn and
improve with specific work elements. But we must measure work before
we can improve it as part of the evaluation of human performance
(Wilson and Corlett, 2005). This conveys the importance of work measure-
ment in industry, business, and government. What is not measured can-
not be improved. Thus, work measurement should be a key strategy for
productivity measurement. The following quote provides an inspirational
foundation for the pursuit of work measurement activities from the stand-
points of both research and application.
No man can efficiently direct work about which he
knows nothing.
Thurman H. Bane

Work measurement for better work design

It is when the ramifications of learning are understood through work mea-
surement that we can have a better basis for designing and redesigning
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 51

work. Aft (2010) suggests that the academic research of work measurement
has real-world value and practical applications for industry. He argues
that standards obtained through work measurement provide essential
information for the success of an organization. Such pieces of information
include the following:

• Data for scheduling

• Data for staffing
• Data for line balancing
• Data for materials requirement planning
• Data for wage payments
• Data for costing
• Data for employee evaluation

In each of these data types, the effect of learning in the presence of

multiple factors should be taken into consideration for operational deci-
sion-making purposes.

Foundation for learning curve analysis

A learning curve, in the context of work design, refers to the improved
productivity obtained from the repetition of work elements. Several
research studies have confirmed that human performance improves with
reinforcement or frequent repetition (Carr, 1946; Conley, 1970; Hirchmann,
1964; Belkaoui, 1986; Yelle, 1979). Reduced operation processing times
achieved through learning curve effects can directly translate to cost
savings for manufacturers and improved morale for employees (Badiru,
1988). Learning curves are essential for setting production goals, moni-
toring progress, reducing waste, and improving efficiency (Knecht, 1974;
Richardson, 1978; Conway and Schultz, 1959; Steven, 1999). The applica-
tions of learning curves extend well beyond conventional productivity
analysis. For example, Dada and Srikanth (1990) examine the impact of
accumulated production on monopoly pricing decisions.
Typical learning curves show the relationship between cumulative
average production cost per unit and cumulative production volume based
on the effect of learning. For example, an early study by Wright (1936) dis-
closed an 80% learning effect, which indicates that a given operation is
subject to a 20% productivity improvement each time the production quan-
tity doubles. This productivity improvement phenomenon is illustrated
later in the chapter. With information about expected future productivity
levels, a learning curve can serve as a predictive tool for obtaining time
estimates for tasks that are repeated within a production cycle (Chase and
Aquilano, 1981) or for project management (Teplitz and Amor, 1998). In
any work environment, tangible, intangible, quantitative, and qualitative
52 Work design: A systematic approach

factors intermingle to compound the output of work. Consequently, a

more comprehensive analytical methodology and human-centric consid-
erations are essential for better work design.
Some of the specific analyses that can benefit from the results of multifac-
tor learning curves include cost estimation, work simplification, break-even
analysis, manpower scheduling, make-or-buy decisions, production plan-
ning, budgeting and resource allocation, and productivity management.

Univariate learning curve models

The conventional univariate learning curve model presents several limita-
tions in practice. Since the first formal publication of learning curve the-
ory by Wright (1936), there have been numerous alternative propositions
concerning the geometry and functional forms of learning curves (Baloff,
1971; Jewell, 1984; Kopcso, 1983; Smunt, 1986; Towill and Kaloo, 1978;
Yelle, 1983). Some of the classical models include the log-linear model, the
S-curve, the Stanford-B model, DeJong’s learning formula, Levy’s adap-
tation function, Glover’s learning formula, Pegels’s exponential function,
Knecht’s upturn model, Yelle’s product model, and the multiplicative
power model (Asher, 1956; DeJong, 1957; Levy, 1965; Glover, 1966; Pegels,
1969; Knecht, 1974; Yelle, 1976; Waller and Dwyer, 1981).

Log-linear learning curve model

The log-linear model is by far the most common model of learning curves.
The model states that the improvement in productivity is constant (i.e.,
it has a constant slope) as output increases. The basic log-linear model is
shown in Figure 3.1.
There are two forms of the log-linear model: the average cost model
and the unit cost model, the former of which is used most often. It speci-
fies the relationship between the cumulative average cost per unit and
Cumulative average cost per unit

Cumulative units of production

Figure 3.1    Basic log-linear learning curve model.

Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 53

cumulative production. The relationship indicates that the cumulative

cost per unit will decrease by a constant percentage as the cumulative
production volume doubles. The model is expressed as

Ax = C1x b

where:
A x    =  the cumulative average cost of producing x units
C 1   =  the cost of the first unit
x   =  the cumulative production count
b   =  the learning curve exponent (i.e., constant slope of the curve on a
log-log paper)

On a log-log paper, the log-linear model is represented as a straight

line, as follows:

log Ax = log C1 + b log x

It is from this straight-line equation that the name log-linear model is

derived.

Example
Assume that 50 units of an item are produced at a cumulative aver-
age cost of $20 per unit. Suppose we want to compute the learning
percentage when 100 units are produced at a cumulative average cost
of $15 per unit. The learning curve analysis would proceed as follows:

Initial production level  =  50 units; average cost  =  $20

Double production level  =  100 units; cumulative average cost  =  $15

Using the log relationship, we obtain the following equations:

log 20 = logC1 + b log 50

log15 = logC1 + b log100

Solving the equations simultaneously yields

log 20 – log15
b= = −0.415
log 50 – log100

Thus

p = ( 2)
−0.415
= 0.75
54 Work design: A systematic approach

That is, there is a 75% learning rate. In general, the learning curve
exponent, b , may be calculated directly from actual data or computed
analytically, as follows:

logAx1 – logAx 2
b=
logx1 – logx2

ln( p)
b=
ln(2)
where:
x 1   =  the first production level
x 2   =  the second production level
A x 1   =  the cumulative average cost per unit at the first production
level
A x 2   =  the cumulative average cost per unit at the second produc-
tion level
p   =  the learning rate percentage

Using the basic cumulative average cost function, the total cost of
producing x units is computed as

TCx = ( x ) Ax = ( x ) C1x b = C1x(b + 1)

The unit cost of producing the x th unit is given by

(b + 1)
U x = C1x(b + 1) − C1 ( x − 1)
(b + 1) 
= C1x  x(b + 1) − ( x − 1) 


The marginal cost of producing the x th unit is given by

d [TCx ]
MCx = = (b + 1) C1x b
dx

Example
Suppose in a production run of a certain product it is observed that
the cumulative hours required to produce 100 units is 100,000 hours
with a learning curve effect of 85%. For project planning purposes,
an analyst needs to calculate the number of hours spent in producing
the 50th unit. Following the notation used previously, we gather the
following information:
p = 0.85

X = 100 units

Ax = 100, 000 hours 100 units = 1, 000 hours unit

Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 55

Now

0.85 = 2b

Therefore,

b = −0.2345

Also,

100, 000 = C1 (100 )

b

Therefore, C 1   =  2944.42 hours. Thus,

C50 = C1 ( 50 ) = 1176.50 hours

b

That is, the cumulative average hours for 50 units is 1176.50 hours.
Therefore, cumulative total hours for 50 units   =  
58,824.91 hours.
Similarly,

C49 = C1 ( 49) = 1182.09 hours

b

That is, the cumulative average hours for 49 units is 1182.09 hours.
Therefore, cumulative total hours for 49 units   =  
57,922.17 hours.
Consequently, the number of hours for the 50th unit is given by

58, 824.91 hours − 57 , 922.17 hours = 902.74 hours

The unit cost model is expressed in terms of the specific cost of

producing the x th unit. The unit cost formula specifies that the indi-
vidual cost per unit will decrease by a constant percentage as cumu-
lative production doubles. The formulation of the unit cost model is
as follows: Define the average cost as A x    =  C 1 x b , so that the total cost
is TC x    =  (x )A x    =  (x )C 1 x b    =  C 1 x ( b    +   1) and the marginal cost is given by
MCx = d [TCx ] /dx = (b + 1) C1x b . This is the cost of one specific unit.
Therefore, we define the marginal unit cost model as U x    =  (1  +  b )C 1 x b ,
which is the cost of producing the x th unit.
The following formulas are derived from the preceding equations
and shows the relationship between A x and U x .

U x = (1 + b ) Ax

Ux
C1x b =
(1 + b)

Ux x −b
C1 =
(1 + b)
56 Work design: A systematic approach

Multifactor learning curves

Extensions of the single-factor learning curve are important for the real-
istic analysis of productivity gain. In project operations, several factors
can intermingle to affect performance. Heuristic decision making, in
particular, requires careful consideration of qualitative factors. There are
numerous factors that can influence how fast, how far, and how well a
worker learns within a given time span. Multivariate models are useful
for performance analysis in project planning and control. One form of the
multivariate learning curve is defined as

Ax = K ∏c x
i =1
bi
i i

where:
A x    =  the cumulative average cost per unit
K   =  the cost of the first unit of the product
x   =  the vector of specific values of independent variables
x i    =  the specific value of the i th factor
n   =  the number of factors in the model
c i    =  the coefficient for the i th factor
b i    =  the learning exponent for the i th factor

A bivariate form of the model is presented as follows:

C = β0 x1β1 x2β2

where C is a measure of cost, and x 1 and x 2 are independent variables.

The bivariate model is used here to illustrate the natural and model-
ing approach for general multivariate models. An experiment conducted
by the author models a learning curve containing two independent vari-
ables: cumulative production (x 1 ) and cumulative training time (x 2 ). The fol-
lowing model was chosen for illustration purposes.

Ax1x2 = Kc1x1b1 c2 x2b2

where:
A x    =  the cumulative average cost per unit for a given set X of factor
values
K   =  the intrinsic constant
x 1   =  the specific value of the first factor
x 2   =  the specific value of the second factor
c i    =  the coefficient for the i th factor
b i    =  the learning exponent for the i th factor
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 57

Sample production data were used to develop a computational model.

In the data set, two data replicates are used for each of the 10 combinations
of cost and time values. Observations are recorded for the number of units
representing double production volumes. The model was transformed
into the following natural logarithmic form:

ln Ax = ln K + ln (c1c2 ) + b1 ln x1 + b2 ln x2 = ln a + b1 ln x1 + b2 ln x2

where a represents the combined constant in the model, such that a   =  (K )
(c 1 )(c 2 ). A regression approach yielded the following fitted model:

ln Ax = 5.70 − 0.21 (ln x1 ) − 0.13 (ln x2 )

Ax = 298.88 x1−0.21x2−0.13

with an R 2 value of 96.7%. In this model, ln(a )  =  5.70 (i.e., a   =  298.88), x 1   =  the
cumulative production units, and x 2   =  the cumulative training time in
hours. As in the univariate case, the bivariate model indicates that the
cumulative average cost decreases as cumulative production and training
time increase. For a production level of 1750 units and a cumulative train-
ing time of 600 hours, the fitted model indicates an estimated cumulative
average cost per unit as follows:

( )( )
A(1750 , 600) = ( 298.88 ) 1750 −0.21 600 −0.13 = 27.12

Similarly, a production level of 3500 units and training time of

950 hours yield the following cumulative average cost per unit:

( )( )
A(3500 , 950) = ( 298.88 ) 3500 −0.21 950 −0.13 = 22.08

To use the fitted model, consider the following problem: The stan-
dards department of a manufacturing plant has set a target average cost
per unit of $12.75 to be achieved after 1000 hours of training. We want to
find the cumulative units that must be produced in order to achieve the
target cost. From the fitted model, the following expression is obtained.

( )(
$12.75 = ( 298.88 ) X −0.21 1, 000 −0.13 )
X = 46, 409.25

On the basis of the large number of cumulative production units

required to achieve the expected standard cost, the standards depart-
ment may want to review the cost standard. The standard of $12.75 may
not be achievable if there is limited market demand (i.e., demand is much
less than 46,409 units) for the particular product being considered. The
58 Work design: A systematic approach

relatively flat surface of the learning curve model as units and training
time increase implies that more units will need to be produced in order to
achieve any additional significant cost improvements. Thus, even though
an average cost of $22.08 can be obtained at a cumulative production level
of 3500 units, it takes several thousand additional units to bring the aver-
age cost down to $12.75 per unit.

Interruption of learning
Interrupting the learning process can adversely affect expected per-
formance and work may need to be redesigned. An example of how to
address this is the manufacturing interruption ratio, which considers the
learning decay that occurs when a learning process is interrupted. One
possible expression for the ratio is as follows:

Z = (C1 − Ax )
(t − 1)
11
where:
Z   =  the per-product loss of learning costs due to manufacturing
interruption
t   =  1, 2, …, 11 (months of interruption from 1– 11 months)
C 1   =  the cost of the first unit of the product
A x    =  the cost of the last unit produced before a production interruption

The unit cost of the first unit produced after production begins again
is given by
A( x + 1) = Ax + Z

= Ax + (C1 − Ax )
(t − 1)
11

Interruption to the learning process can be modeled by incorporating

forgetting functions into regular learning curves. In any practical situa-
tion, an allowance must be made for the potential impacts that forgetting
may have on performance. Potential applications of the combined learning
and forgetting models include designing training programs, manufactur-
ing economic analysis, manpower scheduling, production planning, labor
estimation, budgeting, and resource allocation.

Learning curves in worker health care

As in the production environment, earning curves are applicable to the
routine and repetitive aspects of surgical procedures (Ernst and Szczesny,
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 59

2005). Each surgery is unique and may involve things that have not been
seen before. Thus, learning curve analysis must be adapted to this unique
application. Even a doctor who has performed a particular surgery many,
many times over several years may still have to deal with a new and
unique procedure. The best way to apply learning curves for performance
improvement in surgical operations is to first determine those functions
that are routine or standardized, those in which we can expect to make
learning curve improvements. There still needs to be an allowance for
procedures that are new or unique and may require more care and time
on the part of the surgeon. In other words, there will be some incompress-
ible functions in the surgical process. As in the case of unplanned pro-
duction interruption, which is one of the things that may be experienced
during surgery in a hospital, learning and forgetting do occur in health
care delivery projects (i.e., operations).
The theory of learning curves states that direct labor improves as it
works longer and performs more repetitions. The more often a worker
repeats a given task, the more efficient he or she will become. This phe-
nomenon of learning also occurs for a doctor who performs a surgery
through repetition in the health care industry. During the process of oper-
ation scheduling, a hospital may need to assign the duration for every
surgery in an operating room. It is known that different kinds of surgeries
require different durations. Even for the same kind of surgery, if it is car-
ried out by different doctors, the durations will also be different. Besides,
even for the same doctor performing the same kind of surgery, the dura-
tions can still be significantly different, depending on the prevailing cir-
cumstances and needs. Hospital administrators often find out that there
is a lot of wasted time during surgical operations. If they hope to improve
the efficiency of the surgical staff (surgeons, nurses, etc.), learning curves
could be one useful approach. The goal is to find an analytical approach
to determine a “ standard duration” for a doctor to perform a certain kind
of surgery. But questions to address include the following:

1. The theory and models of learning curves have been widely used
in low-skill and high-volume repetitive manufacture. Is the conven-
tional production-based theory applicable to high-skill and one-of-
a-kind operations in the operating room?
2. There are incompressible task durations in the operating room,
regardless of the number of repetitions. Which learning curve mod-
els are relevant for predicting the duration of surgery?

As reiterated by Jaber and Guiffrida (2008), learning curves are appli-

cable to surgery whether it is directly performed by a surgeon (hand–body
contact) or through a medium (telesurgery). The learning curves for both
types of surgery are different. The time to complete surgery reduces with
60 Work design: A systematic approach

time, but not always. Surgery involves a set of sequential steps where a sur-
geon allows some time for feedback (reaction time) from the patient. If there
are complications—that is, the patient’s body reacts negatively to the proce-
dure—then a corrective action must be performed by the surgeon to alleviate
any risk to the patient. Such complications can extend the time of a surgery;
however, it does not necessarily mean that there is no learning on the part of
the surgeon. These complications may bring learning opportunities.
Each type of surgery may follow a different learning curve. Also, if
there is a knowledge-sharing mechanism among the surgeons (i.e., sup-
porting complementary mutual experiences or an experience repository
bank in a hospital), then they will always progress on their respective
learning curves.

Wide applications of learning curves

A multivariate learning curve model extends the conventional analysis of
the effect of learning to become a more robust decision-making tool for oper-
ations management. As pointed out by Smith (1989), learning curves can be
used to plan manpower needs; set labor standards; establish prices; analyze,
make, or buy decisions; review wage incentive payments; evaluate orga-
nizational efficiency; develop quantity sales discounts; evaluate employee
training needs; evaluate capital equipment alternatives; predict future pro-
duction unit costs; create production delivery schedules; and develop work
design strategies. The parameters that affect the learning rate are broad in
scope. Unfortunately, practitioners do not fully comprehend the causes of
and influences on learning rates. Learning is typically influenced by many
factors in a manufacturing operation. Such factors may include

Governmental factors

• Industry standards
• Educational facilities
• Regulations
• Economic viability
• Social programs
• Employment support services
• Financial and trade supports

Organizational factors

• Management awareness
• Training programs
• Incentive programs
• Employee turnover rate
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 61

• Cost accounting system

• Labor standards
• Quality objectives
• Pool of employees
• Departmental interfaces
• Market and competition pressures
• Obsolescence of machinery and equipment
• Long-range versus short-range goals

Product-based factors

• Product specs
• Raw material characteristics
• Environmental impacts of production
• Delivery schedules
• Number and types of constituent operations
• Product diversity
• Assembly requirements
• Design maturity
• Work design and simplification
• Level of automation

Multivariate learning curve models offer a robust tool through which

several of the aforementioned factors may be quantitatively evaluated
simultaneously. Decisions made on the basis of multivariate analyses are
generally more reliable than decisions based on single-factor analyses.
The following sections present brief outlines of specific examples of the
potential applications of multivariate learning curve models.

Designing training programs

As shown in the bivariate model, the need for employee training can be
assessed with the aid of a multivariate learning curve model. Projected
productivity gains are more likely to be met if more of the factors influ-
encing productivity can be included in the conventional analysis.

Manufacturing economic analysis

The results of multivariate learning curve analysis are important for vari-
ous types of economic analysis in the manufacturing environment. The
declining state of manufacturing in many countries has been a subject
of much discussion in recent years. A reliable methodology for the cost
analysis of manufacturing technology for specific operations is essential
to the full exploitation of the recent advances in the available technology.
62 Work design: A systematic approach

Manufacturing economic analysis is the process of evaluating manufactur-

ing operations on a cost basis. In manufacturing systems, many tangible,
intangible, quantitative, and qualitative factors intermingle to compound
the cost analysis problem. Consequently, a more comprehensive evaluation
methodology, such as a multivariate learning curve, can be very useful.

Break-even analysis
The conventional break-even analysis assumes that the variable cost per
unit is a fixed value. On the contrary, learning curve analysis recognizes
the potential reduction in variable cost per unit due to the effect of learn-
ing. Due to the multiple factors involved in manufacturing, multivariate
learning curve models should be investigated and adopted for break-even
cost analysis.

Make-or-buy decisions
Make-or-buy decisions can be enhanced by considering the effect of
learning on items that are manufactured in-house. Make-or-buy analysis
involves a choice between the cost of producing an item and the cost of
purchasing it. Multivariate learning curves can provide the data for deter-
mining the accurate cost of producing an item. A make-or-buy analysis
can be coupled with a break-even analysis to determine when to make or
buy a product.

Manpower scheduling
A consideration of the effect of learning in the manufacturing environ-
ment can lead to a more accurate analysis of manpower requirements and
the accompanying schedules. In integrated production, where parts move
sequentially from one production station to another, the effect of multi-
variate learning curves can become even more applicable. The allocation
of resources during production scheduling should not be made without
considering the effect of learning (Liao 1979).

Production planning
The overall production planning process can benefit from multivariate
learning curve models. Preproduction planning analysis of the effect of
multivariate learning curves can identify areas where better and more
detailed planning may be needed. The more preproduction planning that
is done, the better the potential for achieving the productivity gains that
are produced by the effects of learning.
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 63

Labor estimating
Carlson (1973) showed that the validity of log-linear learning curves may
be suspect in many labor analysis problems. For manufacturing activities
involving operations in different stations, several factors interact to deter-
mine the learning rate of workers. Multivariate curves can be of use in
developing accurate labor standards in such cases. Multivariate learning
curve analysis can complement conventional work measurement studies.

Budgeting and resource allocation

Budgeting or capital rationing is a significant effort in any manufacturing
operation. Multivariate learning curve analysis can provide a manage-
ment guide for allocating resources to production operations on a more
equitable basis. The effects of learning can be particularly useful in zero-
base budgeting policies (Badiru, 1988). Other manufacturing cost analy-
ses where a multivariate learning curve analysis could be of use include
bidding (Yelle, 1979), inventory analysis, productivity improvement pro-
grams (Towill and Kaloo, 1978), goal setting (Richardson, 1978), and lot
sizing (Kopcso, 1983).

Takt time for work planning

Activity planning and work scheduling are not totally unlike produc-
tion planning functions. Thus, general work planning can benefit from
techniques typically used in the production environment. One such
technique is takt time computation. Takt is the German word referring to
how an orchestra conductor regulates the speed, beat, or timing so that
the orchestra plays in unison. So, the idea of Takt time is to regulate the
rate time or pace of producing a completed product. This refers to the
production pace at which workstations must operate in order to meet a
target production output rate. In other words, it is the pace of produc-
tion needed to meet customer demand. The production output rate is set
based on product demand. In a simple sense, if 2000 units of a widget are
to be produced within an 8-hour shift to meet a market demand, then
250 units must be produced per hour. That means, a unit must be pro-
duced every 60/250  =  0.24 minutes (14.8 seconds). Thus, the Takt time is
14.4 seconds. Lean production planning then requires that workstations
be balanced such the production line generates a product every 14.4 sec-
onds. This is distinguished from the cycle time, which refers to the actual
time required to accomplish each workstation task. Cycle time may be less
than, more than, or equal to takt time. Takt is not a number that can be
64 Work design: A systematic approach

measured with a stop watch. It must be calculated based on the prevailing

production needs and scenario. Takt time equation is:

Ta
T=
Td
available work time − breaks
=
customer demand
net availaable time per day
=
customer demand per day

where:
T   =  takt time (in minutes of work per unit produced)
T a    =  net time available to work (in minutes of work per day)
T d    =  time demand (i.e., customer demand in units required per day)

Takt time is often expressed as seconds per piece , indicating that cus-
tomers are buying a product once every so many seconds. Takt time is not
expressed as pieces per second .
The objective of lean production is to bring the cycle time as close to
the takt time as possible; that is choreographed. In a balanced line design,
the takt time is the reciprocal of the production rate.
Improper recognition of the role of takt time can make an analyst to
overestimate the production rate capability of a line. Many manufacturers
have been known to overcommit to customer deliveries without account-
ing for the limitations imposed by takt time. Since takt time is set based
on customer demand, its setting may lead to an unrealistic expectations
of workstations. For example, if the constraints of the prevailing learning
curve will not allow sufficient learning time for new operators, then takt
times cannot be sustained. This may lead to the need for buffers to tempo-
rarily accumulate units at some workstations. But this defeats the pursuits
of lean production or just-in-time. The need for buffers is a symptom of
imbalances in takt time. Some manufacturers build takt gap into their pro-
duction planning for the purpose of absorbing nonstandard occurrences
in the production line. However, if there are more nonstandard or random
events than have been planned for, then production rate disruption will
occur.
It is important to recognize that the maximum production rate deter-
mines the minimum takt time for a production line. When demand
increases, takt time should be decreased. When demand decreases, takt
time should be increased. Production crew size plays an important role in
setting and meeting takt time. The equation for calculating the crew size
for an assembly line doing one piece flow that is paced to takt time is as
follows:
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 65

sum of manual cycle times

Crew size =
takt time
Even though takt time is normally used in production operations, the
concept and computations are applicable to resource allocation and usage
in project management. It can be adapted for coordination project task
completion rates. In that case, customer demand can be defined in terms
of work flow requirements to keep the project schedule on track in accor-
dance with the desired project completion target dates or volume of out-
put. For example, if a construction project calls for laying 500 blocks within
a work day of 7.5 hours, then takt time would be calculated as follows:

7.5 hours
T=
500 blocks
= 0.015 hours/blocks

= 0.9 minutes/block (ii.e., 54 seconds per block)

Depending on the experience of the masons and the desired quality

of the output (excessive pace degrades quality), this pace may be judged
unachievable. Thus, necessitating an adjustment of the goal, modifying
the work schedule, or allocating more resources.

Using takt time for work design

The following guidelines are useful for using the concept of takt time for
work design.

• Carefully evaluate the demand for the work (i.e., what does the
downstream work flow really need?). Downstream refers to an activ-
ity sequence that occurs later on in a project schedule.
• Accurately assess the available work time. In addition to approved
breaks, consider other “ time robbers” that workers experience dur-
ing the work day, either as an imposed reality or as self-initiated
distractions. Not all such “ illegal” times can be controlled in the
human-involved workplace.
• Identify opportunities to rebalance the workload.
• Eliminate unlean practices wherever they are identified.
• Reduce worker idle times. Workers should not be waiting for work
to do.
• Coordinate work input versus expected work output.
• Review and recalculate takt time regularly, particularly when work
situations change (e.g., new operators, new equipment, new process,
new design, new materials, etc.).
66 Work design: A systematic approach

• Recognize that, sometimes, slowing down may lead to more effec-

tive utilization of human resources and a balanced efficiency of capi-
tal assets.
• If used properly, takt time helps to achieve rhythm in the workplace.

Resource work rate

Work rate and work time are essential components of estimating the cost
of specific tasks. Thus, knowing worker work rates can be helpful for
designing or redesigning work. Given a certain amount of work that must
be done at a given work rate, the required time can be computed. Once
the required time is known, the cost of the task can be computed on the
basis of a specified cost-per-unit time. Work rate analysis is important for
resource substitution decisions. The analysis can help identify where and
when the same amount of work can be done with the same level of qual-
ity and within a reasonable time span by a less expensive resource. The
results of learning curve analysis can yield valuable information about
the expected work rate. The general relationship between work, work rate,
and time is given by

Work done = ( work rate)( time)

This is expressed mathematically as

w = rt

where:
w   =  the amount of actual work done expressed in appropriate units
(e.g., miles of road completed, lines of computer code typed, gal-
lons of oil spill cleaned, units of widgets produced, surface area
painted)
r   =   the rate at which the work is accomplished (i.e., work accom-
plished per unit time)
t   =  the total time required to perform the work, excluding any embed-
ded idle times

It should be noted that work is defined as a physical measure of accom-

plishment with uniform density. That means, for example, that one line of
computer code is as complex and desirable as any other line of computer
code. Similarly, cleaning one gallon of oil spill is as good as cleaning any
other gallon of oil spill within the same work environment. The produc-
tion of one unit of a product is identical to the production of any other
unit of the product. If uniform work density cannot be assumed for the
particular work being analyzed, then the relationship as presented may
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 67

lead to erroneous conclusions. Uniformity can be enhanced if the scope

of the analysis is limited to a manageable size. The larger the scope of
the analysis, the more the variability from one work unit to another, and
the less uniform the overall work measurement will be. For example, in
a project involving the construction of 50 miles of surface road, the work
analysis may be done in increments of 10 miles at a time rather than the
total 50 miles. If the total amount of work to be analyzed is defined as one
whole unit, then the relationship can be developed for the case of a single
resource performing the work with the following parameters:

Resource: Machine A
Work rate: r
Time: t
Work done: 100% (1.0)

The work rate, r , is the amount of work accomplished per unit time.
For a single resource to perform the whole unit (100%) of the work, we
must have the following:

rt = 1.0

For example, if machine A is to complete one work unit in 30 min-

utes, it must work at the rate of 1/30 of the work content per unit time. If
the work rate is too low, then only a fraction of the required work will be
performed. The information about the proportion of work completed may
be useful for productivity measurement purposes. In the case of multiple
resources performing the work simultaneously, the work relationship is
as presented in Table 3.1.
Even though the multiple resources may work at different rates, the
sum of the work they all perform must equal the required whole unit. In
general, for multiple resources, we have the following relationship:

∑rt = 1.0
i =1
i i

Table 3.1    Work rate tabulation for multiple resources

Resource (i ) Work rate (r i ) Time (t i  ) Work done (w )
RESource 1 r1 t1 (r 1 )(t 1 )
RESource 2 r2 t2 (r 2 )(t 2 )
⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯
RESource n rn tn (r n )(t n )
Total 1.0
68 Work design: A systematic approach

where:
n   =  the number of different resource types
r i    =  the work rate of resource type i
t i    =  the work time of resource type i

For partial completion of work, the relationship is

n

∑rt = p
i =1
i i

where p is the proportion of the required work actually completed.

Work rate examples

Machine A, working alone, can complete a given job in 50 minutes. After
machine A has been working on the job for 10 minutes, machine B was
brought in to work with machine A in completing the job. Both machines
working together finished the remaining work in 15 minutes. What is the
work rate for machine B?
Solution

• The amount of work to be done is 1.0 whole units.

• The work rate of machine A is 1/50.
• The amount of work completed by machine A in the 10 minutes it
worked alone is (1/50)(10)  =  1/5 of the required total work.
• Therefore, the remaining amount of work to be done is 4/5 of the
required total work.

Table 3.2 shows the two machines working together for 15 minutes.
The computation yields:

15 4
+15 ( r2 ) =
50 5

which yields r 2   =  1/30. Thus, the work rate for machine B is 1/30. That
means machine B, working alone, could perform the same job in
30 minutes.

Table 3.2    Work rate tabulation for machines A and B

Resource (i ) Work rate (r i  ) Time (t i  ) Work done (w )
Machine A 1/50 15 15/50
Machine B r2 15 15(r 2 )
Total 4/5
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 69

Table 3.3    Incorporation of resource cost into work rate analysis

Work Work Pay rate
Resource (i ) rate (r i  ) Time (t i ) done (w ) (p i ) Pay (P i )
Machine A r1 t1 (r 1 )(t 1 ) p1 P1
Machine B r2 t2 (r 2 )(t 2 ) p2 P2
⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯
Machine n rn tn (r n )(t n ) pn Pn
Total 1.0 Budget

In this example, it is assumed that both machines produce an identical

quality of work. If quality levels are not identical, then the project analyst
must consider the potentials for quality/time trade-offs in performing the
required work. The relative costs of the different resource types needed
to perform the required work may be incorporated into the analysis, as
shown in Table 3.3.
Using the preceding relationship for work rate and cost, the work
crew can be analyzed to determine the best strategy for accomplishing the
required work, within the required time, and within a specified budget.
For another simple example of possible application scenarios, con-
sider a case where an IT technician can install new IT software on three
computers every 4 hours. At this rate, it is desired to compute how long it
would take the technician to install the same software on five computers.
We know, from the information given, that the proportion of three com-
puters to 4 hours is the proportion of five computers to x hours, where x
represents the number of hours the technician would take to install soft-
ware on five computers. This gives the following ratio relationship:

3 computers 5 computers
=
4 hours x hours

which simplifies to yield x   =  6 hours and 40 minutes. Now consider a

situation where the technician’ s competence with the software installa-
tion degrades over time for whatever reason. We will see that the time
requirements for the IT software installation will vary depending on the
current competency level of the technician. Learning curve analysis can
help to capture such situations so that an accurate work time estimate can
be developed.

Multiple work rate analysis

When multiple resources work concurrently at different work rates, the
amount of work accomplished by each may be computed by the proce-
dure for work rate analysis.
70 Work design: A systematic approach

Example
Suppose the work rate of RES 1 is such that it can perform a cer-
tain task in 30 days. It is desired to add RES 2 to the task so that the
completion time of the task can be reduced. The work rate of RES 2
is such that it can perform the same task alone in 22 days. If RES 1
has already worked 12 days on the task before RES 2 comes in, find
the completion time of the task. Assume that RES 1 starts the task at
time 0.
Solution

• The amount of work to be done is 1.0 whole units (i.e., the full
task).
• The work rate of RES 1 is 1/30 of the task per unit time.
• The work rate of RES 2 is 1/22 of the task per unit time.
• The amount of work completed by RES 1 in the 12 days it
worked alone is (1/30)(12)  =  2/5 (or 40%) of the required work.
• Therefore, the remaining work to be done is 3/5 (or 60%) of the
full task.
• Let T be the time for which both resources work together.

The two resources working together to complete the task yield

Table 3.4.Thus, we have:

T 30 + T 22 = 3 5

which yields T   =  7.62 days. Thus, the completion time of the task is
(12  +  T)  =  19.62 days from time 0. The results of this example are sum-
marized graphically in Figure 3.2. It is assumed that both resources
produce an identical quality of work and that the respective work rates
remain consistent. The respective costs of the different resource types
may be incorporated into the work rate analysis. The critical resource
diagramming (CRD) and resource schedule (RS) charts are simple
extensions of very familiar tools. They are simple to use and they con-
vey resource information quickly. They can be used to complement
existing resource management tools. Users can find innovative ways to
modify or implement them for specific resource planning, scheduling,
and control purposes. For example, resource-dependent task durations

Table 3.4    Tabulation of resource work rates for RES 1 and RES 2
Resource type (i ) Work rate (r i ) Time (t i ) Work done (w i  )
RES 1 1/30 T T /30
RES 2 1/22 T T /22
Total 3/5
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 71

RES 1

Time
0 30
(a)

RES 2

Time
0 22
(b)

RES 1 and RES 2 working together

RES 1

RES 2

Time
0 12.0 19.62 30.0
(c)

Figure 3.2    Resource schedule charts for RES 1 and RES 2. (a) RES 1 working
alone. (b) RES 2 working alone. (c) RES 1 and RES 2 working together.

and resource cost can be incorporated into the CRD and RS procedures
to enhance their utility for resource management decisions.

Resource loading graph

A worker is a crucial resource for an organization. Proper work design to
better utilize workers is a key aspect of organization resource manage-
ment. In this section, a worker is modeled as a resource. Resource loading
refers to the allocation of workers to work elements. A resource loading
graph is a graphical representation of resource allocation over time. A
resource loading graph may be drawn for the different resource types
involved in a project. Such a graph would provide information useful
for work planning and budgeting purposes. A resource loading graph
gives an indication of the demand a project will place on an organiza-
tion’ s resources. In addition to resource units committed to activities, the
graph may also be drawn for the other tangible and intangible resources
72 Work design: A systematic approach

Resource units

Resource loading profile

Time

Figure 3.3    Generic profile of a resource loading graph.

of an organization. For example, a variation of the graph may be used to

present information about the depletion rate of the budget available for
a project. If drawn for multiple resources, it can help identify potential
areas of work conflict. For situations where a single worker is assigned
to multiple tasks, a variation of the resource loading graph can be devel-
oped to show the level of load (responsibilities) assigned to the worker
over time. Figure 3.3 illustrates what a resource loading graph might look
like.

Resource leveling
Resource leveling refers to the process of reducing the period-to-period
fluctuation in a resource loading graph. If resource fluctuations are
beyond acceptable limits, actions are taken to move activities or resources
around in order to level out the resource loading graph. For example, it
is bad for employee morale and public relations when a company has
to hire and lay people off indiscriminately. Proper resource planning
will facilitate a reasonably stable level of workforce. Other advantages
of resource leveling include simplified resource tracking and control,
lower resource management costs, and improved opportunities for learn-
ing. Acceptable resource leveling is typically achieved at the expense of
longer project duration or higher project cost. Figure 3.4 shows a leveled
resource loading.
When attempting to level resources, note that

1. Not all of the resource fluctuations can be eliminated.

2. Resource leveling often leads to an increase in project duration.

Resource leveling attempts to minimize fluctuations in resource load-

ing by shifting activities within their available slacks. For small networks,
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 73

Resource units
Resource loading

Time

Figure 3.4    Balanced or leveled resource loading graph.

resource leveling can be attempted manually through trial-and-error pro-

cedures. For large networks, resource leveling is best handled by computer
software techniques. Most of the available commercial project manage-
ment software packages have internal resource leveling routines. One
heuristic procedure for leveling resources, known as Burgess’ s method , is
based on the technique of minimizing the sum of squares for the resource
requirements in each period.

Assessment of work gaps

An assessment of work gaps can be done using a resource idleness graph,
which is similar to a resource loading graph except that it is drawn for
the number of unallocated resource units (or the number of idle workers)
over time. The area covered by the resource idleness graph may be used
as a measure of the effectiveness of the work-scheduling strategy of an
organization. Suppose two scheduling strategies yield the same project
duration, and suppose a measure of the resource utilization under each
strategy is desired as a means to compare the strategies. Using a graph
similar to that shown in Figure 3.5, we can assess the alternate strate-
gies. The resource-idleness periods are computed as geometric areas as
follows:

Area A = 6 ( 5) + 10 ( 5) + 7 (8 ) + 15 (6 ) + 5 (16 ) = 306 resource − units − time

Area B = 5 (6 ) + 10 (9) + 3 ( 5) + 6 ( 5) + 3 ( 3 ) + 12 (12) = 318 resource − units − time

Since area A is smaller than area B, it is concluded that strategy A is

more effective for resource utilization than strategy B. Similar measures
can be developed for multiple resources. However, for multiple resources,
the different resource units must all be scaled to dimensionless quantities
before computing the areas bounded by the resource idleness graphs.
74 Work design: A systematic approach

15(6)
15
Idle resource units

10(5)
10

7(8)
7 6(5)
6 5(16)
5
Strategy A Time

0 5 10 18 24 40

12(12)
12
10(9)
Idle resource units

10
Strategy B

6 5(6) 6(5)
5

3 3(5) 3(3)
Time

0 6 15 20 25 28 40

Figure 3.5    Resource idleness graphs for resource allocation.

Summary
In this chapter, we have presented a variety of topics related to using learn-
ing curves and techniques associated with design work. The conventional
view of learning curves considers only one factor at a time as the major
influence on productivity improvement. But in today’ s complex work
environment, it is obvious that several factors interact to activate and per-
petrate productivity improvement. Thus, multifactor learning curve mod-
els are useful for various types of analyses in the work environment. Such
analyses include manufacturing economic analysis, break-even analysis,
make-or-buy decisions, manpower scheduling, production planning,
budgeting, resource allocation, labor estimating, and cost optimization.
Multifactor learning curves can generate estimates about expected cost,
productivity, process capability, work load composition, system response
time, and so on. Such estimates can be valuable to decision makers for
Chapter three: Learning curve analysis for work design 75

work design, process improvement, and work simplification. The avail-

ability of reliable learning curve estimates can enhance the communica-
tion interface between different groups in an organization. Multifactor
learning curves can provide guidance for the effective cost-based imple-
mentation of design systems, facilitate the systems integration of produc-
tion plans, improve supervisory interfaces, enhance design processes,
and provide cost information to strengthen the engineering and finance
interface. Work rate analysis, centered on work measurement, helps iden-
tify areas where operational efficiency and improvement can be pursued.
In many production settings, workers encounter production breaks that
require an analysis of the impact on production output. Whether produc-
tion breaks are standard and scheduled or nonstandard and unsched-
uled, the workstation is subject to work rate slowdown (ramp-down) and
work rate pickup (ramp-up), respectively, before and after a break. These
impacts are subtle and are hardly noticed unless a formal, engineered
work measurement is put in place.

References
Aft, L., Don’ t abandon your work measurement cap, Industrial Engineering , March
2010, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 37– 40.
Asher, H., Cost-quantity relationships in the airframe industry, report no. R-291,
Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, July 1, 1956.
Badiru, A. B., Long live work measurement, Industrial Engineer, March 2008, Vol. 40,
No. 3, p. 24.
Badiru, A. B., Project Management in Manufacturing and High Technology Operations ,
Wiley, New York, 1988.
Baloff, N., Extension of the learning curve: Some empirical results, Operations
Research Quarterly , Vol. 22, No. 4, 1971, pp. 329– 40.
Belkaoui, A., The Learning Curve , Quorun Books, Westport, CT, 1986.
Carlson, J. G. H., Cubic learning curves: Precision tool for labor estimating,
Manufacturing Engineering and Management , Vol. 71, No. 5, 1973, pp. 22– 25.
Carr, G. W., Peacetime cost estimating requires new learning curves, Aviation ,
Vol. 45, April 1946, pp. 9–13.
Chase, R. B. and N. J. Aquilano, Production and Operations Management , Richard E.
Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1981.
Conley, P., Experience curves as a planning tool, IEEE Spectrum , Vol. 7, No. 6, 1970,
pp. 63– 68.
Conway, R. W. and A. Schultz, Jr, The manufacturing progress function, Journal of
Industrial Engineering , Vol. 1, 1959, pp. 39– 53.
Dada, M. and K. N. Srikanth, Monopolistic pricing and the learning curve: An
algorithmic approach, Operations Research , Vol. 38, No. 4, 1990, pp. 656– 66.
DeJong, J. R., The effects of increasing skill on cycle time and its consequences for
time standards, Ergonomics , Vol. 1, November 1957, pp. 51– 60.
Ernst, C. and A. Szczesny, Cost accounting implications of surgical learning in
the DRG era: Data evidence from a German hospital, Schmalenbach Business
Review , Vol. 57, No. 3, April 2005, pp. 127– 66.
76 Work design: A systematic approach

Glover, J. H., Manufacturing progress functions: An alternative model and its

comparison with existing functions, International Journal of Production
Research , Vol. 4, No. 4, 1966, pp. 279– 300.
Grahame, S., The learning curve. The key to future management?, Research
Executive Summary Series, Vol. 6, No. 12, 2010, pp. 1–10.
Hirchmann, W. B., Learning curve, Chemical Engineering , Vol. 71, No. 7, 1964,
pp. 95– 100.
Jaber, M. Y. and A. L. Guiffrida, Learning curves for imperfect production pro-
cesses with reworks and process restoration interruptions, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 189, No. 1, 2008, pp. 93–104.
Jewell, W. S., A generalized framework for learning curve reliability growth mod-
els, Operations Research , Vol. 32, No. 3, May– June 1984, pp. 547– 58.
Knecht, G. R., Costing, technological growth and generalized learning curves,
Operations Research Quarterly , Vol. 25, No. 3, September 1974, pp. 487– 91.
Kopcso, D. P., Learning curves and lot sizing for independent and dependent
demand, Journal of Operations Management , Vol. 4, No. 1, November 1983,
pp. 73– 83.
Levy, F. K., Adaptation in the production process, Management Science , Vol. 11,
No. 6, April 1965, pp. B136– 54.
Liao, W. M., Effects of learning on resource allocation decisions, Decision Sciences ,
Vol. 10, 1979, pp. 116– 25.
Pegels, C. C., On startup or learning curves: An expanded view, AIIE Transactions ,
Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1969, pp. 216– 22.
Richardson, W. J., Use of learning curves to set goals and monitor progress in
cost reduction programs, Proceedings of 1978 IIE Spring Conference , Institute
of Industrial Engineers, Norcross, GA, 1978, pp. 235– 39.
Smith, J., Learning Curve for Cost Control , Industrial Engineering & Management
Press, Norcross, GA, 1989.
Smunt, T. L., A comparison of learning curve analysis and moving average ratio
analysis for detailed operational planning, Decision Sciences , Vol. 17, No. 4,
1986, pp. 475– 95.
Steven, G. J., The learning curve: From aircraft to spacecraft, Management
Accounting , London, Vol. 77, No. 5, 1999, pp. 64– 73.
Teplitz, C. J. and J.-P. Amor, An efficient approximation for project composite
learning curves, Project Management Journal , Vol. 29, No. 3, 1998, pp. 34– 42.
Towill, D. R. and U. Kaloo, Productivity drift in extended learning curves, Omega ,
Vol. 6, No. 4, 1978, pp. 295– 304.
Waller, E. W. and T. J. Dwyer, Alternative techniques for use in parametric cost
analysis, Concepts: Journal of Defense Systems Acquisition Management , Vol. 4,
No. 2, Spring 1981, pp. 48– 59.
Wilson, J. R. and N. Corlett, eds, Evaluation of Human Work , 3rd Edition, Taylor and
Francis, New York, 2005.
Wright, T. P., Factors affecting the cost of airplanes, Journal of Aeronautical Science ,
Vol. 3, No. 2, February 1936, pp. 122– 28.
Yelle, L. E. Adding life cycles to learning curves, Long Range Planning , Vol. 16,
No. 6, December 1983, pp. 82– 87.
Yelle, L. E., Estimating learning curves for potential products, Industrial Marketing
Management , Vol. 5, No. 23, June 1976, pp. 147– 54.
Yelle, L. E., The learning curve: Historical review and comprehensive survey,
Decision Sciences , Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1979, pp. 302– 28.
section three

Work evaluation
chapter four

Work performance measures

Structured methods for planning, measuring, and
executing work greatly increase the likelihood of
positive outcomes.
Ibrahim Badiru,
General Motors, October 29, 2016 (Badiru, 2016)

Work is defined simply as actions to accomplish an end goal. Such actions

may be temporary, intermittent, or recurring. In each case, a performance
assessment is essential for ensuring that the actions follow a path to the
desired end goal. Qualitative and quantitative performance measures
are necessary to guide decision makers, managers, supervisors, and the
workers themselves. While tools and techniques for work performance
measures have been available in the literature for a long time (Badiru,
1994; DOE, 1995; Sieger and Badiru, 1995), there is limited guidance on
how and when to apply them consistently. In this book, modernized tools,
techniques, and guides are provided to facilitate expedient and consis-
tent applications of generalized performance measures in any work envi-
ronment. There are internal customers (the organization) and external
customers (outside clients) of work performance outputs. The needs and
expectations of all parties must be taken into consideration when embark-
ing on specific performance measure techniques. Employee performance
measures have direct impacts on quality of work and organizational pro-
cess improvement efforts, as has been documented in the literature over
the years (Harrington, 1991; Juran, 1964, 1988, 1989; Juran and Gryna, 1980,
Juran Institute, 1989, 1990; Pall, 1987; Badiru and Ayeni, 1993).
Performance measures are recognized as an important element of all
work improvement programs. Managers and supervisors directing the
efforts of an organization or a group have a responsibility to know how,
when, and where to institute a wide range of changes. These changes
cannot be sensibly implemented without knowledge of the appropri-
ate information on which they are based. Many organizations have no
standardized approach to developing and implementing performance
measurement systems. As a result, performance measures are not often
fully adopted to gauge the success of the various organizational improve-
ment programs in both small and large organizations. Measuring perfor-
mance can be complex, time consuming, controversial, contentious, and

79
80 Work design: A systematic approach

inconsistent. Thus, some managers, leaders, and supervisors default to the

do-nothing mode of performance assessment. Based on the available litera-
ture (e.g., DOE, 1995; Geisler, 2012), this chapter provides an updated, com-
prehensive, and step-by-step process of how to develop work performance
measurements at any level within an organization and how to evaluate
the effectiveness of the performance measures. One key purpose of per-
formance measurement is to give feedback in order to improve work. The
best feedback should meet the following requirements:

• Be concise.
• Be intentional.
• Be ongoing.
• Be specific.
• Be focused on the performance outcome.
• Be tailored to the individual and work element involved.
• Be interactive (listening and talking).
• Be timely.

The implementation of performance measurements for a specific pro-

cess should involve as many employees and stakeholders as possible to
stimulate ideas and reinforce the notion that this is a team effort requir-
ing buy-ins from all involved in order to succeed. Substantial benefits
are realized by organizations implementing performance measurement
programs at a grassroots level. The benefits are realized by organizations
implementing performance measurement programs almost immediately
through an improved understanding of processes by all employees, from
top to bottom. Furthermore, individuals get an opportunity to receive a
broadened perspective of the organization’ s functions, rather than the
more limited perspective of their own immediate work environment and
span of control.
As a process, performance measurement is not simply concerned with
collecting data associated with a predefined performance goal or standard.
Performance measurement is better thought of as an overall management
system involving prevention and detection aimed at achieving confor-
mance of the work product or service to the organization’s requirements.
Additionally, it is concerned with process optimization through the increased
efficiency and effectiveness of the process or product. These actions occur in
a continuous cycle, allowing options for the expansion and improvement of
the work process or product as better techniques are discovered and imple-
mented, particularly where learning and relearning are involved (Badiru
and Ijaduola, 2009). Performance measurement is primarily managing out-
come, and one of its main purposes is to reduce or eliminate overall varia-
tion in the work product or process. The goal is to arrive at sound decisions
about actions affecting the product or process and its output.
Chapter four: Work performance measures 81

Reemergence of work measurement

Innovation and advancement owe their sustainable foundations to some
measurement scale. We must measure work before we can improve it. This
means we still need work measurement. Work measurement is precisely
what is needed as an input to enhance work design.
One common thread in organizational pursuits is the goal of achiev-
ing improvements in something, be it a product, a process, a service, or
results. How can we improve anything if we don’ t know how long it takes
us to accomplish the task in the first place? Industrial work measurement
has reemerged in new improved forms, names, and analytics. Six Sigma,
lean, total quality management (TQM), 5S, the theory of constraints, sup-
ply networking, and so on all have the same underlying principles of
improving work elements. Even in personal pursuits, time and motion
analyses, though subconsciously, do play a role in charting the path to
effective actions. The most successful leaders are those whose visions con-
tain elements of time, motion toward action, and deliberate work stan-
dards for their employees.
A common adage says, “ You cannot control what you cannot mea-
sure.” If you cannot control it, it means that you cannot improve it. This
means that work measurement is essential. The fast-changing operat-
ing environments that we face nowadays necessitate interdisciplinary
improvement projects that may involve physicists, material scientists,
chemists, engineers, bioscientists, and a host of other disciplines. They
may all use different measurement scales and communicate in different
jargons. But the common thread of work measurement permeates their col-
lective improvement efforts. If we review the widely accepted definitions
of engineering, we will see references to the need to measure work— as in
energy measurement, cost measures, productivity measurement, scientific
measurements, sensory data, and systems capability assessment. These
present convincing confirmation that work measurement has reemerged
in more contemporary concatenations of words.
Measurement of productivity, human performance, and resource con-
sumption are essential components of achieving organizational goals and
increasing profitability. For example, trade-offs must be exercised among
the triple constraints of production represented in terms of time, cost, and
performance. Proper work measurement is required to ensure that the
trade-offs are balanced and done within feasible regions of the operating
environment. Work rate analysis, centered on work measurement, helps to
identify areas where operational efficiency and improvement can be pur-
sued. In many production settings, workers encounter production breaks
that require an analysis of the impact on production output. Some breaks
are standard and scheduled breaks, while others are nonstandard and
unscheduled occurrences. In each case, the workstation is subject to work
82 Work design: A systematic approach

rate slowdown (ramp-down) and work rate pickup (ramp-up), respec-

tively before and after a break. These impacts are subtle and are hardly
noticed unless a formal, engineered work measurement is put in place
with appropriate performance measures.

Determination of performance measures

The appropriate performance measures must be determined for the
appropriate work. Performance measures quantitatively reveal something
important about products, services, and the processes that produce them.
Performance measures facilitate understanding, managing, and improving
organizational work efforts. Performance measures reveal the following:

• How well a function is doing

• If goals are being met
• If constituents and stakeholders are satisfied
• If work processes are in statistical control
• If and where improvements are necessary and possible

Performance measures provide the information necessary to make

intelligent decisions about work functions and responsibilities. A per-
formance measure is composed of a number and a unit of measure.
The number gives us a magnitude (how much) and the unit gives the
number a relevant meaning (what) in the context of the work scenario.
Performance measures are always tied to a goal or an objective (the tar-
get). Performance measures can be represented by single-dimensional
units such as hours, meters, nanoseconds, dollars, number of reports,
number of errors, number of professionally certified employees, length
of time to design hardware, and so on. They can show the variation in a
process or deviation from design specifications. Single-dimensional units
of measure usually represent very basic and fundamental measures of
some process or product.
Every performance decision requires data collection, measurement,
and analysis. In practice, there are different types of measurement scales
depending on the particular items of interest. Data may need to be col-
lected on decision factors, costs, performance levels, outputs, and so on.
The different types of data measurement scales that are applicable for
performance assessment include nominal scales, ordinal scales, interval
scales, and ratio scales.
A nominal scale is the lowest level of measurement scales. It classifies
items into categories. The categories are mutually exclusive and collec-
tively exhaustive. That is, the categories do not overlap and they cover all
possible categories of the characteristics being observed. For example, in
the analysis of the critical path in a project network, each job is classified
Chapter four: Work performance measures 83

as either critical or noncritical. Gender, type of industry, job classification,

and color are examples of measurements on a nominal scale.
An ordinal scale is distinguished from a nominal scale by the property
of order among the categories. An example is the process of prioritizing
tasks for resource allocation. We know that first is above second, but we
do not know how far above. Similarly, we know that better is preferred
to good, but we do not know by how much. In quality control, the ABC
classification of items based on the Pareto distribution is an example of a
measurement on an ordinal scale.
An interval scale is distinguished from an ordinal scale by having
equal intervals between the units of measurement. The assignment of
priority ratings to project objectives on a scale of 0– 10 is an example of a
measurement on an interval scale. Even though an objective may have a
priority rating of zero, it does not mean that the objective has absolutely no
significance to the project team. Similarly, the scoring of zero on an exami-
nation does not imply that a student knows absolutely nothing about the
materials covered by the examination. Temperature is a good example of
an item that is measured on an interval scale. Even though there is a zero
point on the temperature scale, it is an arbitrary relative measure. Other
examples of interval scales are IQ measurements and aptitude ratings.
A ratio scale has the same properties as an interval scale but with a
true zero point. For example, an estimate of zero time units for the dura-
tion of a task is a ratio scale measurement. Other examples of items mea-
sured on a ratio scale are cost, time, volume, length, height, weight, and
inventory level. Many of the items measured in engineering systems will
be on a ratio scale.
An important aspect of performance measurement involves the clas-
sification scheme used. Most systems will have both quantitative and
qualitative data. Quantitative data require that we describe the character-
istics of the items being studied numerically. Qualitative data, on the other
hand, are associated with attributes that are not measured numerically.
Most items measured on the nominal and ordinal scales will normally be
classified into the qualitative data category, while those measured on the
interval and ratio scales will normally be classified into the quantitative
data category. The implication for performance control is that qualitative
data can lead to bias in the control mechanism because qualitative data
are subject to the personal views and interpretations of the person using
the data. As much as possible, data for performance measurement and
management should be based on a quantitative measurement.
More often, multidimensional units of measure are used. These are
performance measures expressed as ratios of two or more fundamen-
tal units. These may be units such as miles per gallon (a performance
measure of fuel economy), the number of accidents per million hours
worked (a performance measure of the companies safety program), or the
84 Work design: A systematic approach

number of on-time vendor deliveries per total number of vendor deliv-

eries. Performance measures expressed this way almost always convey
more information than the single-dimensional or single-unit performance
measures. Ideally, performance measures should be expressed in units
of measure that are the most meaningful to those who must use or make
decisions based on those measures.
Most performance measures can be grouped into one of the following
six general categories (DOE, 1995). However, certain organizations may
develop their own categories as appropriate depending on the organiza-
tion’ s mission.

1. Effectiveness : A process characteristic indicating the degree to which

the process output (work product) conforms to requirements. That
is, are we doing the right things?
2. Efficiency : A process characteristic indicating the degree to which
the process produces the required output at minimum resource cost.
That is, are we doing the right things right?
3. Quality : The degree to which a product or service meets customer
requirements and expectations.
4. Timeliness : Measures whether a unit of work was done correctly and
on time. Criteria must be established to define what constitutes time-
liness for a given unit or work. The criterion is usually based on
customer requirements.
5. Productivity : The value added by the process divided by the value of
the labor and capital consumed.
6. Safety : Measures the overall health of the organization and the work-
ing environment of its employees.

The following reflect the attributes of an ideal unit of measure.

• Reflects the user’ s needs as well as the organization’ s needs

• Provides an agreed basis for decision making
• Is understandable
• Applies broadly
• May be interpreted uniformly
• Is compatible with existing methods (a way to measure it exists)
• Is precise in interpreting the results
• Is economical to apply

Performance data must support the mission assignment(s) from the high-
est organizational level down to the performance level. Therefore, the mea-
surements that are used must reflect the assigned work at the level. Within
a system, units of measure should interconnect to form a pyramid, whereby
the technological units start at the base. These are measures of individual
Chapter four: Work performance measures 85

units of products and of individual elements of service. The next level of

units serves to summarize the basic data (e.g., percent defective for specific
processes, documents, product components, service cycles, and persons).
Next are units of measure that serve to express quality for entire
departments, product lines, and classes of service. In large organizations,
there may be multiple layers of this category.
At the top are the financial and upper management units (measures,
indexes, ratios, etc.), which serve the needs of the highest levels in the orga-
nization: corporate, divisional, and functional. Elements of the pyramid
include the following items, which may be applied to the pyramid based
on each organization’ s internal practices and managerial preferences.

• Corporate reports: money, ratios, index

• Measures of broad matters such as quality compared with that of
competitors; time required to launch new products
• Measures that help to establish departmental quality goals and to
evaluate departmental performance against goals
• Technological units of measure for individual elements of the prod-
uct, process, or service
• Managerial indicators consisting mostly of composites of data
expressed in such forms as summaries, ratios, and indices
• Upper management indicators to evaluate broad matters include
data systems, reports, audits, and personal observations
• Department summaries of product and process performance,
derived from inspections and tests, reports of nonconformance, and
so on, and personal observations
• Numerous technological instruments to measure technological
product and process features

Benefits of measurements
The following are seven important benefits of measurements.

1. To identify whether customer requirements are being met— that is,

whether an organization is providing the services and products that
customers require.
2. To help an organization understand its processes; to confirm what
the organization knows or to reveal what is not known. Does the
organization know where the problems originated or are located?
3. To ensure decisions are based on fact, not on emotion. Are decisions
based on well-documented facts and figures or on intuition and gut
feelings?
4. To show where improvements need to be made. Where can the orga-
nization do better? How can improvements be pursued?
86 Work design: A systematic approach

5. To show if improvements actually happened. Does the organization

have a clear picture of the improvement and resulting impacts?
6. To reveal problems related to bias, emotion, and longevity in the
organization. If an organization has been doing its job for a long
time without measurements, it might be assumed incorrectly that
things are going well.
7. To identify whether suppliers are meeting requirements. Do suppli-
ers know if the organization’ s requirements are being met?

Justification for work performance measurement

If an activity cannot be measured, it cannot be controlled. If an activity
cannot be controlled, it cannot be managed. Without dependable mea-
surements, intelligent decisions cannot be made. Measurements, there-
fore, can be used for the following purposes:

1. Control : Measurements help to reduce variation. For example, a typi-

cal control for contractor accountability measurement might be a
work authorization document evaluated against a performance eval-
uation plan, which has the purpose of reducing expense overruns so
that agreed objectives can be achieved.
2. Self-assessment : Measurements can be used to assess how well a pro-
cess is doing, including improvements that have been made.
3. Continuous improvement : Measurements can be used to identify
defect sources, process trends, and prevent defects, and to deter-
mine process efficiency and effectiveness, as well as opportunities
for improvement.
4. Management assessment : Without measurements, there is no way to
be certain if value-added objectives are being met or that a process
is effective and efficient. The basic concept of performance mea-
surement involves (a) planning and meeting established operating
goals/standards, (b) detecting deviations from planned levels of
performance, and (c) restoring performance to the planned levels or
achieving new levels of performance.

Foundation for good performance measurement

Successful performance measurement systems adhere to the following
principles:

1. Measure only what is important. Do not measure too much; measure

things that impact the work outcome.
2. Focus on organizational needs. Ask your work constituents if they
think this is what should be measured.
Chapter four: Work performance measures 87

3. Involve workers in the design and implementation of the measure-

ment system. Give workers a sense of ownership and empowerment,
which lead to improvements in the quality of the measurement
system.

The basic feedback loop shown in Figure 4.1 presents a systematic

series of steps for maintaining conformance to goal/standards by com-
municating performance data back to the responsible worker and/or deci-
sion maker to take appropriate actions(s).
Without the basic feedback loop, no performance measurement sys-
tem will ever ensure an effective and efficient operation, and, as a result,
conformance to customers’ requirements.
The message of the feedback loop is that to achieve the goal or stan-
dard, those responsible for managing the critical activities must always
be in a position to know (1) what is to be done, (2) what is being done, (3)
when to take corrective actions, and (4) when to change the goal or stan-
dard. The basic elements of the feedback loop and their interrelations are
as follows:

1. The indicator evaluates actual performance.

2. The indicator reports this performance to a responsible worker .
3. The responsible worker also receives information on what the goal
or standard is.
4. The responsible worker compares actual performance with the goal.
If the difference warrants action, the worker reports to a responsible
decision maker . (This could signal a need for correction action.)

Indicator
Goal/standard
(measures actual
(desired performance
1 performance in
in terms of the unit
terms of the unit of
of measure)
measure)
Control activity
(what we intend to
regulate)
2 3

Responsible decision maker Responsible workers

(makes changes needed to 4 (compare actual performance
bring performance in with goal; if difference warrants
line with goals/standards) action, report to responsible
decision maker)

Figure 4.1    Basic work feedback loop.

88 Work design: A systematic approach

5. The responsible decision maker verifies variance, determines if

corrective action is necessary, and, if so, makes the changes needed
to bring performance back in line with the goals.

Process overview
Figure 4.2 shows a high-level block diagram of the performance mea-
surement process. It has been separated into 11 discrete steps. This is a
guideline, intended to show the process generically. Different organiza-
tions, who best know their own internal processes, should feel free to
adapt the guidelines where necessary to best fit within their operations.
Subcomponents within the steps may need to be exchanged, or it may be
necessary to revisit previously completed steps of the process based on
new information arising from latter steps.
A brief description of each of the process steps follows:

1. Identify the process flow . This is the first and perhaps most impor-
tant step. If your employees cannot agree on their process(es), how
can they effectively measure them or utilize the output of what they
have measured?

List of work elements Start

1 Identify process

2 Identify activity to measure

3 Establish performance goals

4 Establish performance measurements

5 Identify responsible parties 6

Collect data Database

7 Analyze/report actual performance

8 Compare performance to goals

Yes
9 Performance Yes Any new
ok? goals?
No No
10
Take corrective actions End and return

Figure 4.2 Performance measurement flow diagram.

Chapter four: Work performance measures 89

2. Identify the critical activity to be measured . This is the culminating

activity at which it makes the most sense to locate an indicator and
define an individual performance measure within the process.
3. Establish performance goals or standards . All performance measures
should be tied to a predefined goal or standard, even if the goal is
at first somewhat subjective. Having goals and standards is the only
way to meaningfully interpret the results of your measurements and
gauge the success of your management systems.
4. Establish performance measurements . In this step, you continue to build
the performance measurement system by identifying individual
measures.
5. Identify responsible parties . A specific entity (as in a team or an indi-
vidual) needs to be assigned the responsibilities for each of the steps
in the performance measurement process.
6. Collect data . In addition to writing down the numbers, the data need
to be preanalyzed in a timely fashion to observe any early trends
and confirm the adequacy of your data collection system.
7. Analyze/report actual performance . In this step, the raw data are for-
mally converted into performance measures, displayed in an under-
standable form, and disseminated in the form of a report.
8. Compare actual performance to goals . In this step, compare perfor-
mance, as presented in the report, with predetermined goals or stan-
dards and determine the variation (if any).
9. Are corrective actions necessary? Depending on the magnitude of the
variation between measurements and goals, some form of corrective
action may be required.
10. Make changes to bring performance back in line with goals . This step only
occurs if corrective action is necessary. The actual determination of
the corrective action is part of the quality improvement process, not
the performance measurement process. This step is primarily con-
cerned with the improvement of your management system.
11. Are new goals needed? Even in successful systems, changes may need
to be revised in order to establish ones that challenge an organi-
zation’ s resources, but do not overtax them. Goals and standards
need periodic evaluation to keep up with the latest organizational
processes.

Step 1: Identify the process

In identifying the process, an understanding of what you want to measure
is of critical importance. Usually there are many processes and functions,
each potentially needing performance measures. If there are multiple
processes, consider the business impacts and select those processes that
are most important to the customer (both internal and external) to satisfy
90 Work design: A systematic approach

their requirements and/or those processes with problem areas identified

by management. These then become the key (or important) processes.
A process needs to be manageable in size. A lot of effort can be wasted
if you do not start with a well-defined process. You should ask the follow-
ing questions:

1. What product or service do we produce?

2. Who are our customers?
3. What comprises our process?
a. What do we do?
b. How do we do it?
c. What starts our process?
d. What ends our process?

Before you try to control a process, you must understand it. A flow
diagram is an invaluable tool and the best way to understand a process.
Flowcharting the entire process, down to the task level, sets the stage for
developing performance measures.
All parties who are involved in the process should participate in cre-
ating the flowcharts. In a team environment, individuals will receive a
new understanding of their processes. As participants, you can count on
their later support to make the performance measurement system work.

Step 2: Identify critical activity/activities to be measured

It is important to choose only the critical activity/activities to be mea-
sured. We measure these activities to control them. Controlling, or keep-
ing things on course, is not something we do in the abstract. Control is
applied to a specific critical activity. When making your selection, focus
on key areas and processes rather than people.
Examine each activity in the process and identify those that are criti-
cal. Critical activities are those that significantly impact total process effi-
ciency, effectiveness, quality, timeliness, productivity, or safety. At the
management level, critical activities impact management priorities, orga-
nizational goals, and external customer goals.
Ask the question, Does it relate, directly or indirectly, to the ultimate
goal of customer satisfaction? Every critical activity should. For example,
on-time delivery is directly related to customer satisfaction. Use quality
tools such as the Pareto principle, brainstorming, or examining date to
help prioritize the critical activities.
Confirm that the activity is critical. Do all concerned agree that this
activity needs to be watched closely and acted on if its performance is less
than desirable? Is it something that should be continuously improved?
Does the benefit exceed the cost of taking the measurement? If the answer
Chapter four: Work performance measures 91

is “ no” to any of these questions, you should reevaluate why you consider
it critical. Each critical activity becomes the hub around which a feedback
loop is constructed (Figure 4.1).
It is at this step that we begin to think about what we want to know
or understand about the critical activity and/or process. Perhaps the most
fundamental step in establishing any measurement system is answering
the question, what do I want? The key issue then becomes, how do we
generate useful information? Learning to ask the right questions is a key
skill in effective data collection. Accurate, precise data collected through
an elaborately designed statistical sampling plan are useless if they do not
clearly address a question that someone cares about. It is crucial to be able
to state precisely what it is you want to know about the activity you are
going to measure. Without this knowledge, there is no basis for making
measurements. To generate useful information, planning for good data
collection proceeds along the following lines:

• What question do we need to answer?

• How will we recognize and communicate the answers to the
question?
• What data analysis tools (Pareto diagrams, histograms, bar graphs,
control charts, etc.) do we envision using? How will we communi-
cate the results?
• What type of data do the data analysis tools require?
• Where in the process can we get these data?
• Who in the process can give us these data?
• How can we collect these data from people with minimum effort
and chance of error?
• What additional information do we need to capture for future analy-
sis, reference, and tractability?

Notice how this planning process (Figure 4.3) essentially works back-
ward through the model for generating useful information. We start by
defining the question. Then, rather than diving into the details of data col-
lection, we consider how we might communicate the answer to the ques-
tion and what types of analysis we will need to perform. This helps us
define our data needs and clarifies what characteristics are most impor-
tant in the data. With this understanding as a foundation, we can deal
more coherently with the where, who, how, and what else issues of data
collection.
Information generating begins and ends with questions. To generate
information, we need to

• Formulate precisely the question we are trying to answer

• Collect the data and facts relating to that question
92 Work design: A systematic approach

Information generation

Identify information
needs

Develop pertinent
questions

Communicate Collect relevant

the result data
Analyze the
data

Figure 4.3    Model for generating useful information.

• Analyze the data to determine the factual answer to the question

• Present the data in a way that clearly communicates the answer to
the question

Step 3: Establish performance goals or standards

Goals and standards are necessary; otherwise, there is no logical basis for
choosing what to measure, what decisions to make, or what action to take.
Goals can be a management directive or can be set in response to customer
needs or complaints. Know your customers and their expectations. For each
critical activity selected for measurement, it is necessary to establish a per-
formance goal or standard. This is a target to be aimed at, an achievement
toward which effort is expended. Standards often are mandated by external
sources (e.g., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA],
government regulations, etc.). Knowledge of performance is not enough,
you must have a basis for comparison before you can decide or act.
The concept of establishing performance goals/standards is not lim-
ited to numbered quantities (e.g., budget or deliveries). Neither is it lim-
ited to “ things.” The concept of standards extends to business practices,
routines, methods, and procedures as well.
Performance goals can be established for (1) the overall process out-
put and/or (2) the critical activities that produce the output. In any case,
if this is the first set of goals or standards to be established and no basis
for setting goals or standards exists, a baseline period of observation is
appropriate prior to establishing the goal or standard.
Good performance goals or standards are

• Attainable : Should be met with reasonable effort under the condi-

tions that are expected to prevail.
Chapter four: Work performance measures 93

• Economic : The cost of setting and administering should be low in

relation to the activity covered.
• Applicable : Should fit the conditions under which they are to be used.
If conditions vary, they should contain built-in flexibility to meet
these variables.
• Consistent : Should help to unify communication and operations
throughout all functions of the company.
• All-inclusive : Should cover all interrelated activities. Failing this,
standards will be met at the expense of those activities for which
standards have not been set.
• Understandable : Should be expressed in simple, clear terms, so as to
avoid misinterpretation or vagueness. Instructions for use should be
specific and complete.
• Measurable : Should be able to communicate with precision.
• Stable : Should have a long enough life to provide predictability and
to amortize the effort of preparing them.
• Adaptable : Should be designed so that elements can be added,
changed, and brought up to date without redoing the entire structure.
• Legitimate : Should be officially approved.
• Equitable : Should be accepted as a fair basis for comparison by the
people who have the job of meeting the goal or standard.
• Customer focused : Should address areas important to the customer
(internal/external), such as cycle time, quality, cost schedule perfor-
mance, and customer satisfaction.

Step 4: Establish performance measurements

This step involves performing several activities that will continue to build
the performance measurement system. Each performance measurement
consists of a defined unit of measure (the performance measure itself), an
indicator to measure or record the raw data, and a frequency with which
the measurements are made. To develop a measure, the team

• Translates the question “ What do I want to know?” into a perfor-

mance measure
• Identifies the raw data that will generate the performance measure
• Determines where to locate the raw data
• Identifies the indicator or measurement instrument that will collect
the data for the performance measures
• Determines how often to take the measurements

At this point, your team has agreed on which process to measure

(step 1); identified the critical activities of your process with emphasis on
those that impact quality, efficiency, timeliness, customer satisfaction, and
94 Work design: A systematic approach

so on (step 2); looked at goals for these activities, products, and services
(where they exist); and has quantified these goals where possible (step 3).
Your team should use the knowledge gained from these previous steps
to help state precisely what you want to know about the critical activi-
ties or the process as a whole. Think of this step as one that will allow
you to generate useful information rather than just data. The purpose of
this information is to provide everyone involved with an agreed basis for
making sensible decisions about your processes, products, and services.
Don’ t move on until the team agrees on what information you are trying
to extract from the measurements.

Translate into performance measures

Having identified precisely what you want to know or understand about
your process, you must now assemble this knowledge into a performance
measure. Performance measures, and the data necessary to generate them,
should be chosen to answer the questions you have just posed. At this
point, your team must decide how you will “ say it in numbers.”
Performance measures are generally easiest to determine for activities
or processes that have established and quantified goals. In such cases, the
performance measures are usually stated in the same units as or similar
units to the goals.
When no goals exist for an activity (or the process as a whole), the
team should revisit the fundamental question of what it is they wish to
know. The performance measures should provide quantitative answers to
their questions in units that relate to those questions. The team may wish
to reread the beginning of this chapter to reinforce the concept of a unit of
measure and what it should convey.
The following example of a vendor selection process should prove
useful in illustrating how to turn a posed question into a possible perfor-
mance measure:

You are part of a work team within the procurement

department of your company. Over the years, the
number of vendors from which you make purchases
has grown astronomically and you need some basis
on which to help decide which vendors perform
the best. You have concluded that one of the more
fundamental questions you would like to answer is,
how well do our vendors meet the contract delivery
dates? Your team needs to choose a performance
measure that will help answer this question. After
putting several possible performance measures on
a flip chart and examining what information each
Chapter four: Work performance measures 95

could convey, the team decide to use the percentage

of on-time deliveries per month.
To ensure the team understand what the mea-
sure will provide them, they rewrite this measure in
terms of the units that are actually used to calculate
it. The performance measure then looks like this:

Number of on-time deliveries per month

×100%
Total number of deliv
veries per month

Both versions of the performance measure are

essentially the same, but the second actually con-
veys more information to the reader and provides
an indication of what data goes into the measure-
ment. This performance measure should help the
team answer the question of how well vendors are
meeting contract delivery dates. By writing their
performance measure in more fundamental units,
the team will be better prepared to move to the next
activity, which is identifying the raw data needed.

A good way to “ test” a team’ s understanding of the performance

measures they have chosen is to have them describe how they would dis-
play their results graphically. Have the team explain what type of graph
they would use for each performance measure and how they would inter-
pret the results. Quite often, seeing a performance measure displayed
graphically will help determine if it will actually provide the information
needed. Doing this simple step at this stage will ensure the team has cho-
sen the right performance measure.
In reality, many work teams may find that some of their performance
measures do not really tell them what they want to know. Don’ t panic,
even performance measures that don’ t quite work may help refocus the
team on the real issues they hope to address. Introduce a new set of mea-
sures and try again.

Identify raw data

The purpose of this activity is to identify the raw data you will need
to generate the performance measures. It is difficult to perform a mea-
surement if the required data and data source have not been identified.
For simple processes with straightforward performance measures, this
step may seem simple. However, very complex or high-level perfor-
mance measures may require many raw data from numerous sources.
96 Work design: A systematic approach

In general, performance measures are seldom generated directly in

a single measurement or from a single source. They usually (but not
always) consist of some combination of other raw data elements, as in
the preceding example. To illustrate the difference, consider the follow-
ing examples:

1. Your workgroup enters data from customer order forms into an elec-
tronic database. Your group decide that the number of errors per day
is a useful performance measure for that process. The raw data for
your measurement consist of the number of errors in the database
each day. In this case, the collection of raw data is the performance
measure and it has been measured directly.
2. You are in the procurement department and your team has decided
to use the percentage of on-time deliveries per month of key ven-
dors as a performance measure. The raw data you need consist of
four sets. First, you need the delivery date on the contract that was
awarded to your vendors. Second, you need the date the delivery was
made. Third, you must compute whether the delivery was on time
and count how many deliveries there were for each vendor. Fourth,
the team will need the total number of deliveries made within the
month for that vendor. Unlike example 1, several elements of raw
data are required to reconstruct the performance measure.
3. Your management team considers the company’ s overhead burden
rate to be an excellent high-level performance measure. This mea-
sure is very complex and is frequently performed by the company’ s
accountants and budget analysts. Such measures require many raw
data elements that consist of facilities costs, human resource ben-
efits, training costs, rework costs, sales income, and so on. This per-
formance measure requires that many lower-level measures are
taken and rolled up into the higher-level measure. Many data ele-
ments must be collected along the way.

When the team completes this activity, it should have a list of the raw
data elements needed to generate the performance measures. In addition,
the team should consider what, if any, computations or calculations must
be performed with the data.

Locate raw data

The purpose of this activity is to determine if and where the data exist.
Stated differently, it is a matter of determining at which step in a process
to take a measurement, at which point in time, or at which physical or
geographical location. Quite often, this activity is performed concurrently
with the previous one.
Chapter four: Work performance measures 97

In the simplest case, you may find that your work group already has
the raw data collected and you need only retrieve it in order to generate the
associated performance measure. In other cases, the data you need may
have been collected by another department. For instance, in example 2,
the delivery date was probably collected by the shipping and receiving
department. Examine the data you need and determine if your own work
group, department, or an external group is already collecting them.
If the data do not presently exist, the team will have to determine
where to find it. The process of locating it is generally quite straightfor-
ward. This is particularly true if the team is measuring its own process.
The measurement point is usually located at or near each critical activity
identified in step 2. This is generally the case if your performance mea-
sure is measuring an activity within the process rather than the overall
process itself. For performance measures that assess some overall aspect
of a process, the collection point usually occurs at the culmination of a
process.
More global performance measures generally require data from many
sources, as in example 3. Before proceeding, the team must determine
where the data are located, or where in the process, at which point in time,
and at which physical location the data will be collected.
Continuing with the procurement example, we would probably find
something like the following take place.

The team has determined the raw data they will

need to construct their performance measure and
now they must locate the data. In this example, the
process is rather simple. The contract delivery date is
recorded within the procurement department itself
on several documents and within a database so that
retrieval will be trivial. The second data element is
recorded by the shipping and receiving department
and is likewise simple to extract. All that remains to
reconstruct the performance measure are the com-
putations with the data.

Identify the indicator

By this point, the team has determined what raw data they require, where
it is located, and where it will be collected. To proceed, they must deter-
mine how they will actually measure or collect what they need. An indi-
cator is required to accomplish the measurement.
An indicator is a device or person that is able to detect (sense) the
presence or absence of some phenomena and (generally) provide a read-
ing of the intensity (amount) of that phenomena in a quantifiable form
98 Work design: A systematic approach

with the appropriate units of measure. The indicator is what or who will
do the measuring or data collection for your measurement system.
Indicators take many forms depending on what they are designed to
measure. For technical and manufacturing processes, there are indicators that
can accurately measure length (micrometers), temperature (thermocouples),
voltage (digital voltmeters or digitizers), and so on. For less technical pro-
cesses there are databases, log books, time cards, and check sheets. In some
cases, the indicator takes a measurement and a person records the results.
In other cases, only a human is capable of “sensing” some phenomena, and
some other device is used to record the result. Many inspection activities can
only be performed by humans. There are also automated data collection sys-
tems or indicators that require no human intervention other than calibration
or maintenance. Many manufacturing processes employ such indicators to
detect, measure, and record the presence of nonstandard products.
Choosing an indicator usually involves asking simple questions about
the measurement you hope to take.

1. What am I trying to measure; what kinds of data are they?

2. Where will I take the measurement; where are the data?
3. Am I simply trying to measure the presence or absence of some fea-
ture? (Was the order placed? Was the report delivered? Did the com-
puter help desk solve the problem?)
4. Do I need to sense the degree or magnitude of some feature or count
how many?
5. How accurate and precise must my measurements be?
6. Do the measurements occur at a particular point in time or space?

In most cases, the answer will be rather obvious, but the team should
be prepared to give some thought to how they will measure and collect
their data. For instance, the need for accuracy and/or precision may rule
out certain indicators. If you rely on a human as an indicator, you must
consider all the possible biases that are inherent in human indicators.
Step 6 discusses biases and their potential solution. Replacing human
indicators with technological instruments may be the best solution if a
particularly critical measurement requires unusual accuracy or precision.
When the team completes this step, they should have an indicator
identified for each raw data element and should have determined where
the indicator will be deployed.

The procurement team determine that the indicator

for their first data element (contract delivery date) will
be the buyer’s diary, an electronic database maintained
by each buyer in company-supported software. The
second indicator is determined to be the receiving log,
Chapter four: Work performance measures 99

which is maintained at the receiving dock by a receiv-

ing clerk. This indicator provides the actual delivery
date for each order. Having identified the indicators,
the team can now acquire the necessary data.

Determine how often to take measurements

In this last activity, the team will determine how often measurements
should be made. In a sense, there are two distinct types of measures taken
when a performance measurement system is adopted. One type is the per-
formance measure itself. This is generally taken (calculated) and reported
over some regular or repeating time interval. In the procurement example,
the performance measure is calculated and presumably reported at a fre-
quency of once a month. Some performance measures are used to observe
real-time trends in a process and may be measured and plotted daily. In
general, the frequency of measurement for the performance measure is
usually determined when the performance measure itself is determined.
Often the unit of measure chosen as the performance measure contains or
alludes to the frequency of measurement.
The other measure that should be addressed is that of the raw data
themselves. The frequency with which raw data are collected or measured
may have a significant impact on the interpretation of the performance mea-
sure. For some performance measures, this amounts to asking how many
data are needed to make the measure valid or statistically significant. Each
team or manager will have to determine how often measurements must be
made (data taken) to ensure statistical significance and believable results.
Again, using the procurement example, the raw data for this mea-
sure are each time a buyer enters contract data into the database and each
time the receiving clerk logs a delivery. It could be said, then, that the fre-
quency of measurement or data collection is continuous; that is, data are
rewarded each time a transaction or delivery occurs.
Processes that are repeated numerous times per hour may only
require a sample measure of every tenth event or so. Other events, like the
procurement example, are measured or recorded each time they happen.
Teams should use their best judgment in choosing the frequency of data
collection and should consult the company’ s statistician or quality consul-
tant if there are questions.

Step 5: Identify responsible party/parties

Steps 1 through 4 are primarily team activities. To continue the performance
measurement process, the responsible worker(s) and the responsible deci-
sion maker must be defined. (In some instances, one person may be respon-
sible for the entire system.) It is now appropriate to determine who should
100 Work design: A systematic approach

• Collect the data

• Analyze/report actual performance
• Compare actual performance with goal/standard
• Determine if corrective action is necessary
• Make changes

Ideally, responsibility should be assigned to individuals commensu-

rate with authority. This means that each responsible party should

1. Know what the goals are

2. Know what the actual performance is
3. Have the authority to implement changes if performance does not
conform to goals and standards

To hold someone responsible in the absence of authority prevents

them from performing their job and creates the risk of unwarranted
blame.

Step 6: Collect data

The determination of conformance depends on meaningful and valid
data. Before you start out to collect a lot of new data, it is always wise to
look at the data you already have to make certain you have extracted all
the information you can from them. In addition, you may wish to refer
back to step 2 and review the plan for good data collection.
Information, for a team, comprises the answers to your questions. Data
are a set of facts presented in quantitative or descriptive form. Obviously,
data must be specific enough to provide you with relevant information.
There are two basic kinds of data.

• Measured or variables data : Data that may take on any value within
some range. This type of data provides a more detailed history of
your business process. This involves collecting numeric values that
quantify a measurement and therefore require small samples. If the
data set is potentially large, consider recording a representative sam-
ple for this type of data.
Examples :
• Cost of overnight mail
• Dollar value of stock
• Number of days it takes to solve a problem
• Diameter of a shaft
• Number of hours to process an engineering change request
• Number of errors on a letter
Chapter four: Work performance measures 101

• Counted or attribute data : Data that may take on only discrete values.
Attribute data need not be numeric. These kinds of data are counted,
not measured, and generally require large sample sizes to be use-
ful. Counting methods include defective/nondefective, yes/no, and
accept/reject.
Examples :
• Was the letter typed with no errors?
• Did the meeting start on time?
• Was the phone answered by the second ring?
• Was the report turned in on schedule?

A system owner needs to supervise the data collection process to

determine whether the data are being collected properly and whether
people are carrying out their assignments. Some form of preliminary
analysis is necessary during the data collection process. Is your measure-
ment system functioning as designed? Check the frequency of data collec-
tion. Is it often enough? Is it too often? Make adjustments as necessary and
provide feedback to the data collectors.

Data collection forms

There are two types of forms commonly used to aid in data collection,
often in combination.

• Check sheet : A form specially designed so that the results can be

readily interpreted from the form itself. This form of data collection
is ideal for capturing special (worker-controlled) causes of process
variation since the worker can interpret the results and take correc-
tive actions immediately.
• Data sheet : A form designed to collect data in a simple tabular or
columnar format (often related to time-dependent data). Specific bits
of data— numbers, words, or marks— are entered in spaces on the
sheet. As a result, additional processing is typically required after
the data are collected in order to construct the tools needed for anal-
ysis. This form of data collection is usually used for capturing com-
mon (manager-controlled) causes of process variations.

Data collection system

This system ensures that all of our measurements are collected and stored.
The type of data and frequency of measurement will help you determine
how to collect it. Some data fit well into check sheets or data sheets that
collect information in simple tabular or columnar formats.
102 Work design: A systematic approach

Other measurements lend themselves to easy entry into a computer

database. Whatever system is chosen should provide easy access and be
understandable by those who are tasked with reviewing the data. Those
tasked with performing the data collection should understand the data
collection system, have the necessary forms at hand, be trained in the data
collection, and have access to instructions pertaining to the system.
The data collected needs to be accurate. Inaccurate data may give the
wrong answer to our information questions. One of the most troublesome
sources of error is called bias. It is important to understand bias and to
allow for this during the development and implementation of any data
collection system. The design of data collection forms and processes can
reduce bias.
Some types of biases that may occur are as follows:

• Exclusion : Some part of the process or the data has been left out of the
data collection process.
• Interaction : The data collection itself interferes with the process it is
measuring.
• Perception : The data collector biases (distorts) the data.
• Operational : The data collection procedures were not followed or
were specified incorrectly or ambiguously.
• Nonresponse : Some of the data are missing or not obtained.
• Estimation : Statistical biases have been introduced.
• Collection time period : The time period or frequency selected for data
collection distorts the data, typically by missing significant events or
cyclic occurrences.

Step 7: Analyze/report actual performance

Before drawing conclusions from the data, you should verify that the data
collection process has met the following requirements:

• Review the information questions that were originally asked. Do the

collected data still appear to answer those questions?
• Is there any evidence of bias in the collection process?
• Is the number of observations collected the number specified? If not,
why not?
• Do you have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions?

Once the raw data are collected are verified, it is time for analysis. In
most instances, your recorded data are necessarily the actual performance
measurement. Performance measurements are usually formulated based
on one or more raw data inputs. Therefore, you need to assemble the raw
data into a performance measurement.
Chapter four: Work performance measures 103

The next step in analyzing data is deciding how you are going to
present or display the data. You usually group the data in a form that
makes it easier to draw conclusions. This grouping or summarizing
may take several forms: tabulation, graphs, or statistical comparisons.
Sometimes, single data grouping will suffice for the purpose of decision
making. In more complex cases, and especially where larger amounts of
data must be dealt with, multiple groupings are essential for creating a
clear base for analysis.
After summarizing your data, develop your report. A number of tools
are available to assist you. The following are some of the more widely
used tools and concepts to help you in your reporting.

• Use spreadsheets and databases as appropriate to organize and

categorize the data and to graphically show the trends. This will
greatly improve the ease and quality of interpretation. Some of the
more common graphic presentations are histograms, bar charts, pie
charts, scatter diagrams, and control charts.
• Make the report comparative to the goals.
• Make use of summaries. The common purpose is to present a single
important total rather than many subtotals. Through this summary,
the reader is able to understand enough to judge whether to go into
detail or to skip to the next summary.
• Be aware of pitfalls in your data presentation. Averaging your data
on a monthly basis might shorten the amount of information pre-
sented but could hide variations within the monthly period. Choices
of scales on graphs and plots could skew interpretation.
• Standardize the calendar so that the month begins and ends uni-
formly for all reports. Failing this, the relation of cause to effect is
influenced by the fact that events tend to congest at the end of the
reporting period.
• Adopt a standard format. Use the same size for all sheets or charts.
As far as possible, use the same scales and headings.

Reports may take many forms. However, at this stage, the report is
intended to be a status transfer of information to the responsible decision
maker for the process. Therefore, the report will likely consist of sets of
tables or charts that track the performance measures, supplemented with
basic conclusions.

Step 8: Compare actual performance with goals/standards

Within their span of control, responsible workers compare actual perfor-
mance with the goal or standard. If variance warrants action, a report is
made to the responsible decision maker.
104 Work design: A systematic approach

Once the comparison against the goal or standard is initially estab-

lished, you have several alternatives available for possible actions. You
can decide to

• Forget it; variance is not significant.

• Fix it (steps 9 and 10).
• Challenge the goal or standard (step 11).

If there is no significant variance, then continue the data collection

cycle. If there is a variance between the goal and the performance mea-
sure, look at the magnitude. If it is significant, report to the decision
maker. If a decision to implement a corrective action is warranted, go to
step 9.

Step 9: Determine whether corrective action is necessary

Step 9 is a decision step. You can either change the process or change the
goal. If the variance is large, you may have a problem with your process
and will need to make corrections to bring the performance back in line
with the desired goal or standard. To address these potential problems,
you can form a quality improvement team or do a root cause analysis to
evaluate. Consider, too, that the goal may have been unrealistic.
If the variance is small, your process is probably in good shape. But,
you should consider reevaluating your goals to make them more chal-
lenging. In addition, if you do make changes to the process, you will need
to reevaluate goals to make sure they are still viable.

1. Remove defects; in many cases this is worker controllable.

2. Remove the cause of defects. Depending on the defect cause, this
may be worker or management controllable.
3. Attain a new state of process performance, one that will prevent
defects from happening.
4. Maintain or enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the process.
This is an essential condition for continuing process improvement
and ultimately increasing the competitiveness and profitability of
the business itself.

Step 10: Make changes to bring process back

in line with goals and standards
This is the final step in closing the feedback loop: making changes to
bring the process back in line with the goal or standard. Changes com-
prise a number of actions that are carried out to achieve one or more of the
correction objectives listed in step 9.
Chapter four: Work performance measures 105

The prime result of these corrective actions should be the removal of

all identified causes of defects, resulting in an improved or a new process.

Step 11: Determine if new goals or measures are needed

The decision to create new performance measures or goals will depend on
three major factors.

1. The degree of success in achieving previous objectives

2. The extent of any change to the scope of the work processes
3. The adequacy of current measures to communicate improvement
status relative to critical work processes

Goals need to be challenging but also realistically achievable. If previ-

ously set objectives were attained with great difficulty, or not reached at
all, then it may be reasonable to readjust expectations. This also applies
to the objectives that were too easily met. Extensive scope changes to the
work processes will also necessitate establishing new performance mea-
sures and goals. Changes in performance measures and goals should
be considered annually and integrated into planning and budgeting
activities.

Important terms in performance measurement

• Accuracy : The closeness of a measurement to the accepted true value.
The smaller the difference between the measurement and the true
value, the more accurate the measurement.
• Attribute data : Data that may take on only discrete values; they need
not be numeric. These kinds of data are counted, not measured, and
generally require large sample sizes to be useful.
• Bias (of measurement) : A tendency or inclination of outlook that is a
troublesome source of error in human sensing.
• Check sheet : A form specially designed so that results can be readily
interpreted from the form itself.
• Continuous improvement : The ongoing improvement of products,
services, and processes through incremental and measureable
enhancements.
• Control : The set of activities employed to detect and correct variation
in order to maintain or restore a desired state of conformance with
quality goals.
• Corrective action : Measures taken to rectify conditions adverse to
quality and, where necessary, to preclude repetition.
• Critical activity : Activity/activities that significantly impact total
process efficiency, effectiveness, quality, timeliness, productivity, or
106 Work design: A systematic approach

safety. At the management level, they impact management priori-

ties, organizational goals, and external customer goals.
• Customer : An entity that receives products, services, or deliverables.
Customers may be either internal or external.
• Data : Information or a set of facts presented in descriptive form.
There are two basic kinds of data: measured (also known as variables
data ) and counted (also known as attribute data ).
• Data collection system : A broadly defined term indicating sets of
equipment, log books, data sheets, and personnel used to record and
store the information required to generate the performance mea-
surement of a process.
• Data sheet : A form designed to collect data in a simple tabular
or columnar format. Specific bits of data— numbers, words, or
marks— are entered into spaces on the sheet. Additional processing
is typically required after the data are collected in order to construct
the tools needed for analysis.
• Defect : A nonconformance to the product quality goals; this leads to
customer dissatisfaction.
• Effectiveness : A process characteristic indicating the degree to which
the process output (work product) conforms to requirement.
• Efficiency : A process characteristic indicating the degree to which
the process produces the required output at minimum cost.
• Feedback : Communication of quality performance to sources that can
take appropriate action.
• Feedback loop : A systematic series of steps for maintaining confor-
mance to quality goals by feeding back performance data for evalu-
ation and corrective action. This is the basic mechanism for quality
control.
• Frequency : One of the components of a performance measurement
that indicates how often the measurement is made.
• Goal : A proposed statement of attainment/achievement, with the
implication of sustained effort and energy.
• Indicator : A specialized detecting device designed to recognize the
presence and intensity of certain phenomena and to convert this
sensed knowledge into information.
• Management assessment : The determination of the appropriateness,
thoroughness, and effectiveness of management processes.
• Optimum : A planned result that meets the needs of customer and
supplier alike, meets competition, and minimizes the customer’ s
and supplier’ s combined costs.
• Organization : Any program, facility, operation, or division.
• Performance measure : A generic term encompassing the quantita-
tive basis by which objectives are established and performance is
assessed and gauged. Performance measures include performance
Chapter four: Work performance measures 107

objectives and criteria (POCs), performance indicators, and any

other means of evaluating the success in achieving a specified goal.
• Performance measurement category : An organizationally dependent
grouping of related performance measures that convey a character-
istic of a process, such as cycle time.
• Performance measurement system : The organized means of defining,
collecting, analyzing, reporting, and making decisions regarding all
performance measures within a process.
• Precision : The closeness of a group of repeated measurements to their
mean value. The smaller the difference between the group of repeat
measurements and the mean value, the more precise the instrument.
Precision is an indicator of the repeatability, or consistency, of the
measurement.
• Process : Any activity or group of activities that takes an input, adds
value to it, and provides an output to a customer. The logical orga-
nization of people, materials, energy, equipment, and procedures
into work activities designed to produce a specified end result (work
product).
• Productivity : The value added by the process divided by the value of
the labor and capital consumed.
• Quality : The degree to which a product or service meets customer
requirements and expectations.
• Raw data : Data not processed or interpreted.
• Safety : Measures the overall health of the organization and the work-
ing environment of its employee.
• Self-assessment : The continuous process of comparing performance
with desired objectives to identify opportunities for improvement.
Assessments conducted by individuals, groups, or organizations
relating to their own work.
• Timeliness : Measures whether a unit of work was done correctly
and on time. Criteria must be established to define what constitutes
timeliness for a given unit of work. The criterion is usually based on
customer requirements.
• Unit of measure : A defined amount of some quality feature that
permits evaluation of that feature in numbers.
• Validation : A determination that an improvement action is function-
ing as designed and has eliminated the specific issue for which it
was designed.
• Variable data : Data that may take on any value within some range. It
provides a more detailed history of a business process. This involves
collecting numeric values that quantify a measurement and there-
fore requires small samples.
• Variance : In quality management terminology, any nonconformance
to specification.
108 Work design: A systematic approach

• Verification : The determination that an improvement action has been

implemented as designed.
• Worker controllable : A state in which the worker possesses (1) the
means of knowing what the quality goal is, (2) the means of know-
ing what the actual quality performance is, and (3) the means of
changing performance in the event of nonconformance.

In concluding this chapter, it is important to note that, along with per-

formance measures, the broad field of ergonomics is essential for a sus-
tainable work design for occupational advancement (Konz and Johnson,
2004; Peacock, 2009).

References
Badiru, A. B. (1994), Multifactor learning and forgetting models for productiv-
ity and performance analysis, International Journal of Human Factors in
Manufacturing , Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 37– 54.
Badiru, A. B. and A. Ijaduola (2009), Half-life theory of learning curves for system
performance analysis, IEEE Systems Journal , Vol. 3, No. 2, June, pp. 154– 165.
Badiru, I. A. (2016), Comments about work management, interview with an auto
industry senior engineer about corporate views of work design, Beavercreek,
OH, October 29.
Badiru, A. B. and B. J. Ayeni (1993), Practitioner’s Guide to Quality and Process
Improvement, London, Chapman & Hall.
DOE (1995), How to measure performance: A handbook of techniques and tools,
US Department of Energy, Defense Programs, Special Projects Group (DP-
31), Washington, DC.
Geisler, J. (2012), Work Happy: What Great Bosses Know , New York, Hachette.
Harrington, H. J. (1991), Business Process Improvement , New York, McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M. (1964), Managerial Breakthrough , New York, McGraw-Hill.
Juran, J. M. (1988), Juran on Planning for Quality , New York, The Free Press.
Juran, J. M. (1989), Juran on Leadership for Quality , New York, The Free Press.
Juran, J. M. and F. M. Gryna, Jr (1980), Quality Planning and Analysis , New York,
McGraw-Hill.
Juran Institute (1989), Quality Improvement Tools , Wilton, CT, Juran Institute.
Juran Institute (1990), Business Process Quality Management , Wilton, CT, Juran
Institute.
Konz, S. and S. Johnson (2004), Work Design: Occupational Ergonomics, 6th Edition,
Scottsdale, AZ, Holcomb Hathaway Publishers.
Pall, G. A. (1987), Quality Process Management , Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Peacock, B. (2009), The Laws and Rules of Ergonomics in Design, Singapore, Eazi
Printing Ltd (www.eazi.sg/printing/).
Sieger, D. B. and A. B. Badiru (1995), A performance parameter model for design
integration, Engineering Design and Automation , Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 137– 148.
chapter five

Cognitive task evaluation

Cognitive task evaluation plays and important role in work system design,
so engineers and analysts can understand behaviors that cause errors.
In manufacturing, this is becoming more important as lean production
systems require more cognitive work. This chapter presents some cogni-
tive task analysis methods for process design and modification to aid in
improving work efficiency.

Cognitive ergonomics
According to Karwowski (2012), ergonomics “ promotes a holistic, human-
centered approach to work systems design that considers the physical, cog-
nitive, social, organizational, environmental and other relevant factors.”
Coelho (2011) describes ergonomics as the scientific field that involves the
interactions between humans and other components of a system, and says
that this profession applies theoretical principles, data, and methods to
designing an optimal system for the well-being of the human and for per-
formance. Hollnagel (1997) states the principle meaning of ergonomics is
the science or study of work.
The objective of ergonomics is to understand the interactions of work
systems and their operators in order to enhance performance, increase
safety, and improve user satisfaction (Bouargane and Cherkaoui, 2015).
Designing systems with a better adaptation of work for the human opera-
tor can result in greater efficiency and satisfaction for the operator, as well
as improved productivity, reduced accidents, and lower turnover for the
company (Tajri and Cherkaoui, 2013). There are three domains within the
ergonomic discipline: physical, cognitive, and organizational. This chap-
ter will focus on the cognitive demands of an operator’ s performance.
The term cognitive ergonomics was coined in 1975 by Sime, Fitter, and
Greene (Green and Hoc, 1991). Cognitive ergonomics involves the relation-
ship between tools and their users, putting emphasis on the cognitive pro-
cesses for understanding, reasoning, and usage of knowledge (Green and
Hoc, 1991). According to the International Ergonomic Association, cogni-
tive ergonomics relates to mental processes such as perception, memory,
reasoning, and motor response, as they influence the interactions between
humans and other elements of a work system; it is the ergonomics
of mental processes for improving operator performance. Cognitive

109
110 Work design: A systematic approach

ergonomics involves the psychological aspects of work, evaluating how

work affects the mind and how the mind affects work (Hollnagel, 1997).
It addresses how people process information, generate decisions, and
perform actions (Belkic and Savic, 2008). As stated by the International
Ergonomic Association (2016), relative to human– system design, some
applicable topics in cognitive ergonomics are

• Mental workload
• Decision making
• Skilled performance
• Work stress
• Human– computer interaction
• Human reliability

Over the past 40 years, high-speed technological advances have

propelled cognitive ergonomics development (Hoc, 2008). According to
Kramer (2009), the concept of cognitive ergonomics emphasizes attain-
ing a balance between the human’s cognitive abilities and limitations, in
addition to the machine, task, and environment. This can lead to a reduc-
tion in errors and better performance while working, even in repetitive
physical tasks. Cognitive ergonomics emphasizes the quality of work,
including the outcome, unlike traditional or physical ergonomics, which
looks at the quality of working (Hollnagel, 1997). Traditional ergonomics
aims at reducing operator fatigue and discomfort in an effort to improve
throughput. However, the nature of human work has transformed consid-
erably from working with the body to increased cognitive requirements
as industrial systems have become more automated. The expanded role of
technology, along with the use of complex procedures, has imposed more
demands on operators (Stanton et al., 2010). Instead of physical endurance
and physical strength, there is an increased need for sustained attention,
problem solving, and reasoning. In addition, physically demanding work
that is performed concurrently with a cognitive task can impact mental
workload by weakening mental processing or decreasing performance
(DiDomenico and Nussbaum, 2011). Therefore, the use of cognitive ergo-
nomics plays an important role in optimizing operator and system per-
formance (Zhang et al., 2014). In order to improve human– system design
for performance, cognitive ergonomics should be included in work sys-
tem design, in order to accomplish an in-depth evaluation of the cognitive
elements required to perform a task. There are numerous cognitive task
analysis (CTA) techniques for evaluating the cognitive processes of work
systems, including

• Applied cognitive task analysis (Militello and Hutton, 1998)

• Cognitive work analysis (Vicente, 1999)
Chapter five: Cognitive task evaluation 111

• The critical decision method (Klein et al., 1989)

• Cognitive walkthrough (Polson et al., 1992)

The concept of CTA uses a set of techniques designed to extract infor-

mation relative to the knowledge, thought processes, and goal structures
that underlie observable performance to describe and represent the cog-
nitive elements (Antonova and Stefanov, 2011). Analysts use CTA to col-
lect accurate and comprehensive descriptions of cognitive processes and
decisions (Clark et al., 2008). According to Antonova and Stefanov (2011),
CTA uses the three broad families of knowledge elicitation: observation
and interviews, process tracing, and conceptual techniques. Cooke (1994)
describes the categories as follows:

1. Observations and interviews involve the informal process of watch-

ing the experts and talking with them.
2. Process tracing focuses on the cognitive structure of a specific task
while it is being performed by an expert.
3. Conceptual techniques take data from multiple experts and produce
a structured representation of the domain concepts.

There are five common steps in most of the major CTA methods (Clark
et al., 2008); the steps and order of execution are illustrated in Figure 5.1.
Clark et al. (2008) describe the five common steps of CTA methods as
follows:

• Step 1 , the collection of preliminary knowledge, identifies the

sequence of work elements that will be analyzed. In addition, the
analyst identifies the experts that will participate in the knowledge
elicitation stage during step 3.
• Step 2 identifies knowledge representations. This step uses the infor-
mation collected in step 1 to identify subtasks and the knowledge
required to accomplish the task. Some approaches that can be used
for knowledge representation are concept maps, flow charts, and a
learning hierarchy.
• Step 3 applies the focused knowledge elicitation methods previously
discussed. Recall, during knowledge elicitation, that the analyst
employs various techniques to gather the knowledge obtained in the
preceding step. Analysts typically choose methods suitable for the
knowledge type, as established by the knowledge representations
pinpointed for each task; thus, most knowledge elicitation efforts
involve multiple techniques.
• Step 4 analyzes and verifies the data acquired, because many knowl-
edge elicitation techniques are less formal and need the analyst
to code and format the results for the verification, validation, and
112 Work design: A systematic approach

Collect preliminary knowledge.

Identify knowledge representations.

Apply focused knowledge

elicitation methods.

Analyze and verify data acquired.

Format results for the intended

application.

Figure 5.1    Five common steps of CTA methods.

applicability of usage into the intended application. After the coding

process, the structured output is given to the participating subject
matter experts (SMEs) for verification, modification, and revision to
confirm that the representations of tasks and their underlying cog-
nitive elements are complete and accurate. Once the information in
the structured output has been verified or revised by the SMEs, the
analyst should then compare it with the output of the other SMEs to
validate that the results accurately indicate the desired knowledge
representation.
• Step 5 formats the results for the intended application. For many
of the CTA methods, the results must be transformed into cogni-
tive models that indicate the underlying skills, mental models, and
problem-solving strategies used by the SMEs when executing
complex tasks.

This chapter will review two CTA methods for the evaluation of
cognitive elements in work design: cognitive work analysis (CWA) and
applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA). CWA techniques are considered
complex and require a substantial amount of training. However, ACTA is
regarded as easy to use and does not necessitate cognitive training.

Cognitive work analysis

CWA is a structured approach that systematically shifts from analyzing
mental demands to determining visualizations and the decision-aiding
concepts that can assist the understanding of cognitive work (Stanton
et al., 2004). The CWA framework (Vicente, 1999) was originally devel-
oped at Riso National Laboratories in Denmark by Jens Rasmussen and
his colleagues to analyze cognitive work (Rasmussen et al., 1994). CWA
is a method used to analyze, design, and evaluate interactive systems
Chapter five: Cognitive task evaluation 113

(Sanderson, 1998). According to Stanton et al. (2010), this approach can be

applied to define

1. The functional properties of the work domain to be evaluated

2. The nature of the tasks that are worked within the system
3. The roles of the different actors that exist within the system
4. The cognitive skills and strategies that they utilize to accomplish
activity within the system

CWA provides tools for characterizing, comparing, and evaluating

different designs during the development phase of a system, and it can be
a very effective tool for evaluating different design proposals (Sanderson
et al., 1999). CWA methods have been applied in guiding the redesign of a
human– system interface for a newly automated system, and in the devel-
opment of an information system or decision aid to support a set of tasks
where such support did not formerly exist (Bisantz et al., 2003). Table 5.1
outlines a variety of domains in which CWA has been applied.
Figure 5.2 lays out the five phases of CWA, which model different
constraint sets: work domain analysis (WDA), control task analysis, strat-
egies analysis, social organization and cooperation analysis (SOCA), and
worker competencies analysis.
The WDA phase models the system, considering its purposes and the
limitations enforced by the environment. WDA provides a framework for
developing requirements by evaluating why a new system should exist,
what its environmental context will be, and what functions the new sys-
tem should employ (Sanderson et al., 1999). Control task analysis is uti-
lized to define the tasks within the system and the constraints inflicted
on these tasks under various conditions. Strategies analysis is employed
to see how different activities can be accomplished. In order to determine

Table 5.1    CWA applications

Authors Year of publication Domain
Ashoori et al. 2014 Health care
Bisantz et al. 2003 Military
Burns et al. 2008 Health care
Gous 2013 Air defense
Higgins 1998 Manufacturing
Lintern and Naikar 1998 Training
McIlroy and Stanton 2015 Ecological interface design
Nirula and Woodruff 2006 Education
Qureshi 2000 Air defense
Sanderson et al. 1999 Air defense
Vicente 1999 Nuclear power
114 Work design: A systematic approach

Work domain Control task

analysis analysis

Social
Strategies organization and
analysis cooperation
analysis

Worker
competencies
analysis

Figure 5.2    Phases of CWA.

how social and technical factors can work in unison to enhance system
performance, SOCA is used to determine how activity and its related
strategies can be allocated to human operators. This phase simply studies
who carries out the work elements and how the work is allocated. Worker
competencies analysis pinpoints the capabilities that an ideal worker
should demonstrate by concentrating on the strengths and weaknesses of
the human operator relative to the work system design. Not all the phases
of CWA must be performed; the technique may be regarded as a toolkit
from which the analyst may use single or multiple parts to suit his or
her needs (McIlory and Stanton, 2015). The overall purpose of this analy-
sis is to improve work efficiency by analyzing the design of work using
information flow and representation, task specification, operator training,
and skills requirements, along with the social structures of work teams
(Allwood et al., 2016).

Applied cognitive task analysis

ACTA offers techniques that can be employed to analyze the mental
demands involved in a task. These techniques were developed as part
of a project funded by the Navy Personnel Research and Development
Center (Militello and Hutton, 1998). The ACTA methodology, compared
with traditional task analysis, is most popular among system designers
in exploring complex and dynamic domains (Prasanna et al., 2009). It
is appropriate for job domains where observational data are difficult to
acquire, and can be applied for the identification and classification of com-
plex skills (Antonova and Stefanov, 2011). ACTA consists of three inter-
view methods that assist the analyst in acquiring information about the
skills and cognitive demands required for a task.
Chapter five: Cognitive task evaluation 115

• Task diagram interview

• Knowledge audit interview
• Simulation interview

ACTA is a flexible, easy-to-use method that doesn’ t require the ana-

lyst to be an expert in the knowledge domain (Antonova and Stefanov,
2011). As shown in Figure 5.3, there are seven steps to the ACTA process.
In addition to operator interviews, the ACTA process uses methods such
as task walkthroughs and observations to collect data.
Step 1 is to select and define the work elements of the task to be
analyzed. Next, in step 2, the correct set of SMEs should be identified.
During step 3, the task should be observed by the analyst in order to fol-
low the participant roles throughout the task. Step 4 is the task diagram
interview, which provides the analyst with an overview of the task that
is being studied. This interview offers a high-level review of the cogni-
tive elements in the work task; it limits the SME to between three and six
steps for describing the work elements to ensure that time is not wasted
probing into miniscule details during this high-level interview (Militello
et al., 1997). During this process, the tasks that are extremely challeng-
ing are highlighted. A diagram should be produced to illustrate the task
steps that necessitate the most cognitive skills. In step 5, the knowledge
audit interview draws attention to the tasks that entail expertise. The SME
is questioned for examples within the context of the task, critical cues,
and decision-making strategies. The output of the knowledge audit inter-
view is a table that provides insight as to why the situations that require
expertise present a challenge for less-experienced operators. This table
includes examples of situations in which experience has to be called into
play, along with the cues and strategies used in dealing with difficult
situations (Militello et al., 1997). Next, the simulation interview (step 6)

Step 2 Step 3
Step 1
Select Study work
Define task
operators elements

Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

Task diagram Knowledge Simulation
interview audit interview interview

Step 7
Cognitive
demands table

Figure 5.3    ACTA procedural steps.

116 Work design: A systematic approach

Task
diagram
interview

Cognitive
demands
table

Knowledge
Simulation
audit
interview
interview

Figure 5.4    Data integration for cognitive demands table development. (Adapted
from R. Prasanna et al., Proceedings of the 6th International ISCRAM Conference ,
1– 10, 2009.)

takes place while the task under analysis is being performed. The SME
is probed on the cognitive processes relative to issues such as situation
awareness and potential errors. It allows the analyst to understand the
cognitive processes used within the context of an incident (Militello and
Hutton, 1998). Lastly (step 7), the cognitive demands table integrates the
data obtained from the task diagram, knowledge audit, and simulation
interviews into one organized format.
Figure 5.4 illustrates the integration of the data collection for devel-
oping the cognitive demands table. Not all information discussed in the
interviews will be applicable to the goals of the task evaluation. Therefore,
the cognitive demands table is intended to provide a format for the analyst
in order to focus the analysis of the data collection on the project goals.
This format assists the analyst with identifying common themes in the
data, as well as conflicting information given by various SMEs (Militello
et al., 1997).

Summary
Cognitive ergonomics plays an important role in the design of work sys-
tems. The trends of research in ergonomics are shifting from the physi-
cal and perceptual to the cognitive aspects of tasks, product design, and
human interface design, because this approach has proven to improve
Chapter five: Cognitive task evaluation 117

work efficiency and decrease human errors (Murata, 2000). The goal of
cognitive ergonomists is to design tools and systems that support human
mental processes and minimize biases, based on the scientific under-
standing of attention, perception, memory, mental models. and mental
workload in an effort to expand human cognitive capabilities (Bouargane
and Cherkaoui, 2015). This concept of cognitive ergonomics can assist with
understanding the types of behaviors that cause errors, so systems can
be designed to reduce the frequency of these errors and their outcomes.
There are many cognitive ergonomic techniques that can be utilized for
collecting the appropriate system information, in order to present the data
in the right format such that effective analysis can be completed on the
cognitive requirements for a successful process design and/or modifica-
tion. This is becoming increasingly more important in manufacturing
work design as many production facilities are moving from mass to lean
production environments. In lean production environments, the duties
of operators involve a higher level of cognitive work in comparison with
the duties of workers in a mass production environment (Genaidy and
Karwowski, 2003).

References
Allwood, J. M., Childs, T. H. C., Clare, A. T., Silva, A. K. M. D., Dhokia, V.,
Hutchings, I. M., et al. (2016). Manufacturing at double the speed. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology , 229, 729– 757.
Antonova, A., and Stefanov, K. (2011). Applied cognitive task analysis in the con-
text of serious games development. Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Software, Services and Semantic Technologies (S3T) 2011 ,
pp. 175– 182.
Ashoori, M., Burns, C. M., d’ Entremont, B., and Momtahan, K. (2014). Using team
cognitive work analysis to reveal healthcare team interactions in a birthing
unit. Ergonomics , 57(7), 973– 986.
Belkic, K., and Savic, C. (2008). The occupational stress index: An approach derived
from cognitive ergonomics applicable to clinical practice. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment & Health , 34(6), 169.
Bisantz, A. M., Roth, E., Brickman, B., Gosbee, L. L., Hettinger, L., and McKinney,
J. (2003). Integrating cognitive analyses in a large-scale system design pro-
cess. International Journal of Human– Computer Studies , 58(2), 177– 206.
Bouargane, L., and Cherkaoui, A. (2015). Towards an explicative model of human
cognitive process in a hidden hazardous situation and a cognitive ergo-
nomics intervention in railway environment. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM) 2015,
pp. 968– 976.
Burns, C. M., Enomoto, Y., and Momtahan, K. (2008). A cognitive work analysis of
cardiac care nurses performing teletriage. In A. M. Bisantz and C. M. Burns
(eds.), Applications of Cognitive Work Analysis , pp. 149– 174. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
118 Work design: A systematic approach

Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., van Merrië nboer, J. J., Yates, K., and Early, S. (2008).
Cognitive task analysis. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications
and Technology , 3, 577– 593.
Coelho, D. A. (2011). Human factors and ergonomics: A growing discipline with
multiple goals. Highlights - The Quarterly Newsletter, International Journal
of Human Factors and Ergonomics , Winter ed. http://www.inderscience.com/
info/highlights/2011/winter_ijhfe.pdf (accessed February 2017).
Cooke, N. J. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International
Journal of Human– Computer Studies , 41(6), 801– 849.
DiDomenico, A., and Nussbaum, M. A. (2011). Effects of different physical work-
load parameters on mental workload and performance. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics , 41(3), 255– 260.
Genaidy, A. M., and Karwowski, W. (2003). Human performance in lean produc-
tion environment: Critical assessment and research framework. Human
Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 13(4), 317– 330.
Gous, E. (2013). Utilising cognitive work analysis for the design and evaluation
of command and control user interfaces. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Adaptive Science and Technology 2013, pp. 1– 7.
Green, T. R., and Hoc, J. (1991). What is cognitive ergonomics? Le Travail Humain ,
54, 291– 304.
Higgins, P. G. (1998). Extending cognitive work analysis to manufacturing sched-
uling. Proceedings of the Australasian Computer– Human Interaction Conference
1998, pp. 236– 243.
Hoc, J. (2008). Cognitive ergonomics: A multidisciplinary venture. Ergonomics ,
51(1), 71– 75.
Hollnagel, E. (1997). Cognitive ergonomics: It’ s all in the mind. Ergonomics , 40(10),
1170– 1182.
International Ergonomic Association. Ergonomics: Human centered design.
http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html (accessed September 2016).
Karwowski, W. (2012). The discipline of human factors and ergonomics. In G.
Salvendy (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (4th ed.), pp. 3– 37.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Klein, G. A., Calderwood, R., and Macgregor, D. (1989). Critical decision method
for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics ,
19(3), 462– 472.
Kramer, A. (2009). Cognitive Ergonomics 101: Improving Mental Performance. http://
old.askergoworks.com/news/18/Cognitive-Ergonomics-101-Improving-
Mental-Performance.aspx (accessed February 2017).
Lintern, G., and Naikar, N. (1998). Cognitive work analysis for training system
design. Proceedings of the Australasian Computer– Human Interaction Conference
1998 , pp. 252– 259.
McIlroy, R. C., and Stanton, N. A. (2015). Ecological interface design two decades
on: Whatever happened to the SRK taxonomy? IEEE Transactions on
Human– Machine Systems , 45(2), 145– 163.
Militello, L. G., and Hutton, R. J. (1998). Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA):
A practitioner’ s toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands.
Ergonomics , 41(11), 1618– 1641.
Militello, L. G., Hutton, R. J., Pliske, R. M., Knight, B. J., and Klein, G. (1997). Applied
Cognitive Task Analysis (ACTA) Methodology . Fairborn, OH: Klein.
Chapter five: Cognitive task evaluation 119

Murata, A. (2000). Ergonomics and cognitive engineering for robot– human coop-
eration. Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human
Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) 2000 , pp. 206– 211.
Nirula, L., and Woodruff, E. (2006). Cognitive work analysis and design research:
Designing for mobile human– technology interaction within elementary
classrooms. Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Wireless,
Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education 2006 (WMTE ’ 06) , pp. 32– 35.
Polson, P. G., Lewis, C., Rieman, J., and Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive walkthroughs:
A method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal
of Man– Machine Studies , 36(5), 741– 773.
Prasanna, R., Yang, L., and King, M. (2009). GDIA: A cognitive task analysis proto-
col to capture the information requirements of emergency first responders.
Proceedings of the 6th International ISCRAM Conference , pp. 1– 10.
Qureshi, Z. H. (2000). Modelling decision-making in tactical airborne environ-
ments using cognitive work analysis-based techniques. Proceedings of the
19th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC) 2000 , Vol. 2, pp. 5B3/1-5B3/8.
Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., and Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive Systems
Engineering . New York: Wiley.
Sanderson, P. (1998). Cognitive work analysis and the analysis, design, and evalu-
ation of human– computer interactive systems. Proceedings of the Australasian
Computer– Human Interaction Conference 1998 , pp. 220– 227.
Sanderson, P., Naikar, N., Lintern, G., and Goss, S. (1999). Use of cognitive work
analysis across the system life cycle: From requirements to decommission-
ing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting ,
43(3), pp. 318– 322.
Stanton, N. A., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., and Hendrick, H. W. (2004).
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods . Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., Baber, C., and Jenkins, D. P. (2010).
Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design , 1st Ed.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Tajri, I., and Cherkaoui, A. (2013). Proposal of a model to explain the cognitive pro-
cess of employee, the occurrence of stress and cognitive ergonomics inter-
vention in a total lean environment. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM) 2013 , pp. 1– 10.
Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy
Computer-Based Work . Mahwah, NJ: CRC Press.
Zhang, H., Zhu, Y., Maniyeri, J., and Guan, C. (2014). Detection of variations in
cognitive workload using multi-modality physiological sensors and a
large margin unbiased regression machine. Proceedings of the 36th Annual
International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society ,
pp. 2985– 2988.
chapter six

Mental workload measures

for work evaluation
This chapter covers mental workload (MWL) measures for work evalua-
tion to assess levels of mental load imposed by a system. MWL is an area
of study within cognitive ergonomics. MWL measures are major factors
in system design and the analysis of occupational tasks (DiDomenico
and Nussbaum, 2011). MWL assessments can be used to estimate perfor-
mance requirements for the design of systems and to predict workload
changes with various system modifications (May et al., 1990). Many mod-
ern systems put increasing demands on individuals by requiring them to
perform physically demanding tasks simultaneously with more cognitive
responsibilities. As these procedures for human– machine systems are
becoming more complex and automated, the need for MWL assessment is
becoming more critical (Rubio et al., 2004). In order to develop improved
work systems that are globally competitive, the process designer should
consider MWL evaluations for the development of optimal work perfor-
mance and error reduction.

Information processing
Information processing is extremely important to human performance,
because in situations where humans interact with work systems, “ the
operator must perceive information, must transform that information
into different forms, must take actions on the basis of the perceived and
transformed information, and must process the feedback from that action,
assessing its effect on the environment” (Wickens and Carswell, 2006).
This information is received visually or via an auditory organ (percep-
tion) and must be understood in order to interpret the meaning of the
perceived information so that decisions can be made using the knowledge
stored in the memory system (cognition) (Murata, 2000).
According to the Wickens and Hollands (2000) framework, sensory
memory, working memory, and long-term memory are the three stages of
information processing. Sensory memory is associated with interpreting
data based on past experiences that were sensed or perceived. However,
working memory (i.e., short-term memory) is a brain system that deals
with the immediate, conscious processing of data; it is of limited capacity

121
122 Work design: A systematic approach

and heavily demanding of the attention, as it deals with information that

is not sensed or perceived but is an internal thought. An example of work-
ing memory utilization is quality inspection (i.e., recalling memorized cri-
teria for acceptable quality), which places a sustained load on the working
memory. This demand may fatigue the operator or otherwise affect their
performance in the task (Pesante et al., 2001). Long-term memory is the
cognitive storage of data; a vast amount of information is kept, but it is not
always possible to totally recall it. It is important that the operator is not
oversaturated with tasks because mental overload could lead to perfor-
mance degradation. MWL or simply workload is the interaction between
an operator and his or her assigned task in a human– machine system. In
simplistic terms, it is the demand on an operator.

Mental workload
MWL is defined as a multidimensional model that encompasses task and
performance demands along with operator skill and attention (Stanton
et al., 2004). MWL measures can offer awareness as to where increased
task demands could lead to an adverse influence on human performance.
The demands of a task may require completing physical activities and/or
performing cognitive tasks. Understanding the task demands is important
for work design, in order to design processes to reduce stress levels, acci-
dent rates, and errors. When the sum or the difficulty of the tasks required
to complete a process increases, or when the time allocated for task comple-
tion decreases, workload generally rises (Colombi et al., 2012). Therefore,
increased safety, health, comfort, and long-range productivity can be
accomplished by regulating the task demands, such that the operator is
neither underloaded nor overloaded (Rubio et al., 2004). This is relevant to
work design, because high cognitive load for extended periods of time can
lead to unproductive processes and poor performance as well as ergonomic
problems and mental health symptoms (Lindblom and Thorvald, 2014).
MWL can affect an operator’ s ability to attain or maintain the desired
performance levels (Xie and Salvendy, 2000). The concept of MWL deals
with the difference between the amount of resources available to a per-
son and the quantity of resources needed for the task (Jung and Jung,
2001). For this reason, high workload levels occur when the task demands
exceed the operator’ s mental resource capacity (Loft et al., 2007). Therefore,
MWL can be modified by altering the amount of resources available
within the person or the demands required by the task on the operator.
Multiple resource theory (MRT) is a model that can be employed to assess
the various mental resources for various conditions in the design of the
human– machine system.
According to Estes (2015), workload measurements became an area of
significant research in the late 1960s, when a variety of techniques were being
Chapter six: Mental workload measures for work evaluation 123

produced to measure them. Workload measurements have been utilized in

various functions, including system desirability and system optimization.
As the operator works the system, either with a simulation or the exist-
ing process, the operator’ s MWL can be evaluated and measured. MWL
can be fragmented into two segments: effective and ineffective. Effective
workload (i.e., task load) is the minimum amount of workload produced by
the task requirements. The operator directly accomplishes the work with
this portion of the workload (Xie and Salvendy, 2000). In contrast, ineffec-
tive workload should be avoided by workers because it does not directly
contribute to completing a task (Xie and Salvendy, 2000). Ineffective work-
load can be lowered by learning and training. As operators’ skill levels
increase, their proficiency at completing a task increases and their percep-
tion of workload decreases (Colombi et al., 2012). When executing tasks,
effective workload corresponds to fast and accurate actions, whereas inef-
fective workload is associated with error and inaccuracy. Effective work-
load necessitates the smallest amount of attention because it correlates to
efficiency; however, “ more attention is needed under the ineffective mode
to control each stage of information processing” (Xie and Salvendy, 2000).
As shown in Figure 6.1, there are three categories of MWL measures: sub-
jective, physiological, and performance. These different measures assess
the different dimensions of MWL, so it is advisable to use multiple mea-
sures for better diagnosticity (Miller, 2001; Tsang and Vidulich, 2006).

Subjective measures
Subjective workload measures involve the operator by including his or
her judgment on the cognitive effort entailed to accomplish a task subse-
quent to completing it (Cegarra and Chevalier, 2008; Stanton et al., 2010;
Hertzum and Holmegaard, 2013). These assessments are based on an
individual’ s perception of the effort applied in performing a task. This
method is typically not complicated to administer and has gained consid-
erable theoretical support for its ability to provide sensitive measures on
operator workload (Rubio et al., 2004). As cited by Bommer and Fendley
(2015), subjective MWL measures have been widely accepted and have
proven to be valid and reliable.

Subjective • Perception of the operator

measure
Physiological • Bodily response
measure
• Calculated measure or metric of
Performance operator behavior

Figure 6.1    Measures for MWL analysis.

124 Work design: A systematic approach

Subjective workload measures attempt to quantify the effort utilized

while performing a task. They use numerical ratings that will not mea-
sure task performance or physiological responses associated directly with
the work applied (DiDomenico and Nussbaum, 2008). This method, in
general, is a good indicator of overall workload, because most of these
techniques will not pinpoint or differentiate differences in loading peaks.
There are a host of subjective methods to measure MWL that provide use-
ful information, including

• Cooper– Harper scales (Cooper and Harper, 1969)

• The Bedford scale (Roscoe and Ellis, 1990)
• The subjective workload dominance technique (Vidullch et al., 1991)
• The subjective workload assessment technique (Reid and Nygren,
1988)
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load
Index (NASA-TLX) (Hart and Staveland, 1988)
• Workload profile (WP) (Tsang and Velazquez, 1996)

In this chapter, two subjective MWL methods will be discussed: the

NASA-TLX and WP. These methods were chosen because the NASA-TLX
has been commonly used across diverse domains and WP is based on the
sound underpinning theory of MRT, which can aid in pinpointing the
mental resource causing the workload.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index

The NASA-TLX is the most commonly applied MWL assessment approach
of the subjective category. It has been utilized in various domains includ-
ing civil and military aviation, driving, nuclear power plant control room
operation, and air traffic control (Stanton et al., 2010), has been taught
in university courses, and has been cited in previous studies, including
Endsley and Rodgers (1997), Bertram et al. (1992), and Cao et al. (2009). Its
application has expanded beyond its original applications in aviation and
crew complement. It is “ being used as a benchmark against which the
efficacies of other measures, theories or models are judged” (Hart, 2006).
The NASA-TLX uses a multidimensional scale to quantify the task
performance of the operator. Its multidimensional scale consists of six
subscales.

• Mental demand
• Physical demand
• Temporal demand
• Effort
• Performance
• Frustration level
Chapter six: Mental workload measures for work evaluation 125

Mental demand measures the perceptual elements of the task includ-

ing thinking, looking, and searching activities. Physical demand evalu-
ates whether the physical activity was laborious or relaxed. Temporal
demand measures how much pressure is created by the pace of the activ-
ity. Effort assesses how challenging it was to accomplish the tasks. The
performance dimension takes into account how content the operator was
with his or her execution of the task. The frustration level judges how the
operator felt while completing the task.
Figure 6.2 outlines the seven steps to implementing the NASA-TLX.
Step 1 of the process is to identify the task subject to analysis. The next
step requires breaking down the work elements of the task by conduct-
ing a hierarchical task analysis (HTA). During step 3, operators are cho-
sen to meet the needs of the experimental design or process modification
to be analyzed. Once the operators have been selected, they should be
briefed (step 4) on the aim of the evaluation and the NASA-TLX method.
In step 5, the task under analysis is performed by the operator. After the
task is completed, the operator starts the NASA-TLX rating procedure.
It is recommended that the operators are given the definitions of each
MWL dimension with the rating scale to assist with the process. This step
includes completing a pairwise comparison and interval scale. The pair-
wise comparison is a weighting procedure that poses 15 pairwise com-
binations to the operators and has them choose the scale from each pair
that has the most influence on their perceived workload during the task
under analysis (Stanton et al., 2010). The most common modification to the
NASA-TLX is to exclude the weighting process from the procedure (Hart,
2006). The modified method has been referred to as the raw NASA-TLX
(RTLX); the subscale ratings are averaged to form an overall workload

Step 2
Step 1 Step 3
Break down task
Identify task Choose operators
elements

Step 5 Step 6
Step 4
Operators perform Operators rate
Brief operators
task MWL dimensions

Step 7
Analyst calculates
overall MWL score

Figure 6.2    NASA-TLX procedural steps.

126 Work design: A systematic approach

appraisal. The interval scale rates the six dimensions on a scale of 0– 100,
where 0 represents the lowest task demand and 100 is highest, with the
exception of the performance dimension, where 0 indicates high demand
and 100 is low demand. The final action of the process (step 7) is to calcu-
late the overall workload score.

Workload profile
WP is a multidimensional subjective workload measurement tool that is
based on the multiple resource model proposed by Wickens (1987) (Stanton
et al., 2010; Tsang and Velazquez, 1996; Rubio et al., 2004). This assessment
tool utilizes eight dimensions in the collection of data on the demands
imposed by a task: perceptual/central processing, response selection exe-
cution, spatial processing, verbal processing, visual processing, auditory
processing, manual output, and speech output. The WP technique offers
an overall rating for the specific task elements as well as a rating for each of
the workload dimensions. These multidimensional ratings should provide
the analyst with a helpful interpretation of MWL in order to categorize the
ways in which the task is demanding (Tsang and Velazquez, 1996).
Figure 6.3 summarizes the nine steps of the WP process according by
Stanton et al. (2010). The first step of the process is to specify the tasks or
scenario under analysis. Next, an HTA should be administered in order to
break down the work elements; this aids in understanding the complete
task. Step 3 calls for a workload pro forma to be developed. The pro forma
shown in Figure 6.4 lists the task elements to be rated in random order down
one column and records the eight MRT workload dimensions across the
page. These dimensions are the stages of processing (perceptual/central vs.

Step 2 Step 3
Step 1
Breakdown task Create workload
Identify task
elements pro forma

Step 6
Step 4 Step 5
Operators complete
Choose operators Brief operators
pilot run

Step 7 Step 8 Step 9

Operators perform Operators complete Analyst complete
task workload pro forma overall workload

Figure 6.3    WP procedural steps.

Chapter six: Mental workload measures for work evaluation 127

Workload dimensions
Operator #
Stages of processing Code of processing Input Output

Work elements Perceptual Response Spatial Verbal Visual Auditory Manual Speech

#1

#2

#3

#4

Figure 6.4    WP pro forma. (Adapted from P. S. Tsang and V. L. Velazquez,

Ergonomics , 39 (3), 358– 381, 1996.)

response), the modalities of input (visual vs. auditory) and output (manual
vs. vocal), and the codes of processing (verbal vs. spatial).
The operators are chosen in step 4. In step 5, the operators are briefed
on the purpose of the process evaluation. It is recommended that they
receive a seminar or lesson on MWL, MWL assessment, MRT, and the
WP dimensions, in order to gain a clear understanding of the process,
because one disadvantage of the WP method is that understanding the
different dimensions is difficult if one has limited experience of psychol-
ogy and human factors. Once the operators have a clear understanding
of the technique’ s process, in step 6, a pilot run with a small set of work
elements should be completed to demonstrate how to complete the profile
pro forma. The task under analysis will be performed by the operators in
step 7. Step 8 requires the completion of the WP pro forma. During this
step, the operators rate the proportion of attentional resources used for
each task. Ratings ranging from 0 to 1 for each of the MWL dimensions
hypothesized in the Wickens model of MRT are assigned by the operators.
During the final step (step 9), the analyst calculates the overall workload
for each task by adding the ratings across all of the dimensions.

Multiple Resource Theory The underpinning theory of WP is MRT.

MRT is a predictive model that provides an understanding of opera-
tor performance abilities while multitasking in a complex environment
(Wickens, 2002). A complex environment is a task that has a number of
concurrent work elements that are time shared (Liu and Wickens, 1988).
When an individual performs a task, each operation uses mental process-
ing resources that are vital to carrying out the task (Mitchell, 2003). People
have the capacity to multitask until the task demands exceed their avail-
able resources. According to MRT, the human mind has various resources
128 Work design: A systematic approach

that can be allocated to task demands either individually or collectively,

including visual, auditory, cognitive, motor, and speech resources. When
task demands overlap, available resources are reduced and the MRT
model predicts that performance will degrade. When multiple tasks
involve competing resources, this competition could lead to a compro-
mise in system safety and effectiveness. So, the principal value of the MRT
model is predicting the relative differences in multitasking between vari-
ous conditions (Wickens, 2008).
The MRT model can predict performance breakdowns in high work-
load circumstances, such as those that require an operator to multitask by
performing two or more work elements at one time. This model can make
practical predictions regarding performance breakdowns in a human
operator’ s ability to accomplish tasks— for example, someone driving
an automobile in traffic, a pilot landing an aircraft, or a secretary in a
busy office (Wickens, 2002). A significant application of MRT is identi-
fying resource overload when multitasking conditions occur. Examples
of strategies for reducing resource overload include automating parts of
tasks, reassigning task elements to multiple operators, and changing task
procedures such that process steps are performed sequentially instead of
concurrently (Wickens et al., 2015).
The MRT model uses four dimensions that justify the variances in the
time sharing of performance, and each dimension has two discrete levels
(Wickens, 2002). Wickens (2008) defines the dimensions as follows:

• Processing stages
• Perceptual modalities
• Visual channels
• Processing codes

During the processing stages, perceptual and cognitive tasks utilize

different resources from selective and executive tasks. Individuals are
capable of time sharing effectively between activities that are perceptu-
ally and cognitively demanding because these resources appear to be the
same. The perceptual modalities dimension infers that auditory percep-
tion uses different resources from visual perception. The implication of
this dimension is that time sharing for cross-modal conditions as opposed
to intramodal conditions is superior, because attention can be better dis-
tributed between the eye and ear rather than having two visual or two
auditory channels, since visual perception uses different resources from
auditory perception. Visual channels differentiate between two different
types of resources: focal and ambient vision. Focal vision supports object
recognition, and ambient vision is responsible for the perception of orien-
tation and the movement of objects. Processing codes indicate spatial activ-
ity employs different resources from verbal/linguistic activity. Separating
Chapter six: Mental workload measures for work evaluation 129

spatial and verbal resources improves efficiency. Understanding the

dimensions in the MRT model can aid in evaluating and allocating the
various mental resources for different task conditions in work system
design. There are simulation tools that are based on MRT and can be used
for workload modeling, such as the Improved Performance Research
Integration Tool (IMPRINT) and the Man– Machine Integration Design
and Analysis System (MIDAS) (Wickens, 2008).

Physiological measures
Physiological workload measures are applied mostly to uninterrupted
measurements of the body’ s physical responses (Miller, 2001). An advan-
tage of these measures is they do not interfere with the primary task per-
formance, but depending on the collection method, there may be a degree
of physical constraint imposed (Wickens et al., 2015). The use of physi-
ological measures as an indicator of MWL is based on the assumption
that as task demand increases, changes in various participant physical
responses are noticeable (Stanton et al., 2010). These physical responses
can be measured with various bodily activities, such as

• Cardiac
• Brain
• Respiratory
• Speech
• Eye

Cardiac activity is generally measured with the operator’ s heart rate,

heart rate variability (HRV), and blood pressure. Brain a­ctivity can be
­measured using an electroencephalograph (EEG) and an ­electro-oculegram
(EOG). To measure respiratory activity, the volume of air a person breathes
in and the amount of breaths taken in a given time can be used. Speech
measures of pitch, rate, and loudness can be taken into account when
­evaluating MWL. Eye measures can include fixation rate, fixation ­duration,
blink rate, blink duration, pupil diameter, saccade ­duration, and saccade
frequency.
As previously mentioned, the use of physiological measures can be
evaluated by various methods; however, this review will focus on eye
activity. For over 20 years, psychologists have argued that pupillary
changes are indications of cognitive load, and many studies have vali-
dated this argument (Marshall, 2002). Fixations are moments when the
eyes are spent looking at an object. Blink rate is the number of times the
eyes close in a specified time. Blink duration is an interval of eye closure
defined as the length of time spent blinking. Pupil diameter has been
found to increase with workload: the size of the pupil increases as a higher
130 Work design: A systematic approach

workload is experienced. Saccade is involuntary eye movement between

fixations. According to Ahlstrom and Friedman-Berg (2006), research
findings indicate that blink rate and blink duration decline as workload
decreases, pupil dilation increases as cognitive demand increases, and an
increase in the number of saccades or a decrease in saccade duration are
relative to increased workload. Also, increased fixation duration can be
interpreted as an indicator of increased MWL. Doherty et al.’ s (2010) find-
ings show that the frequency of long fixations increases with increased
workload.
In order to collect the eye measurements, the process of eye track-
ing is utilized. Eye tracking is a technology used for measuring eye
activity: measuring where an individual is looking (i.e., gaze direction)
at any given time, the sequence in which the eyes are shifting from one
location to another, or how much the pupil dilates while looking. An
eye tracker is a device that deals with the measuring of eye positions
and eye movement. Eye trackers are used to evaluate human– machine
interaction. The eye-tracking data are collected using either a remote,
head-mounted, or wearable eyeglass system. These data can be utilized
to collect information relative to numerous gaze measurements. Since
eye movements are commonly considered to be involuntary, eye track-
ing provides objective data of users’ visual interaction with a system
(Bruneau et al., 2002).

Performance
MWL can be measured by monitoring an operator’ s performance and
observing how it varies with changes in task demands (Hertzum and
Holmegaard, 2013). Estimations of MWL can be determined by measur-
ing a person’ s performance on a task and evaluating whether his or her
performance degrades with increasing workload (Miller, 2001). When
considering performance in repetitive task processes such as manu-
facturing operations, not only should the calculated measures of the
operator’ s performance be utilized to evaluate MWL, but unconscious
cognition and learning curves (LCs) should also be factored into the
system’ s design.

Calculated measures
The key categories of performance-based workload measures are primary
and secondary task performance. Primary task performance measures
the operator’ s adequacy in the main task, while secondary task perfor-
mance evaluates the workload of the primary task of interest by assessing
the operator’ s ability to perform a second task in conjunction with the pri-
mary task. According to Miller (2001), primary task performance should
be used to measure MWL, because it is easier to measure than secondary
Chapter six: Mental workload measures for work evaluation 131

task performance and it has been more extensively studied for accuracy.
Also, it is expected that the primary task performance of the operator will
reduce with increased MWL for the task under analysis (Stanton et al.,
2010).
The MWL necessitated for the completion of a given task can be
assessed with performance metrics such as time, speed, or number of
errors (Cegarra and Chevalier, 2008). As cited by Cegarra and Chevalier
(2008), studies have shown a correlation between poor performance in the
main task and the MWL experienced by participants. Bubb (2005) defined
human error probability (HEP) as the likelihood that a task would be
defectively completed during a specified timeframe. HEP is an accuracy
measurement expressed mathematically as follows:

number of observed errors

HEP =
number of the possiblities for an error

Galy et al. (2012) cite a study by Fournier et al. (1999) in which the
authors examined subjects in a multitasking experiment, and the results
revealed that performance decreased as workload increased. This implies
that a decline in performance can be an indicator of MWL overload.
Therefore, the HEP metric should increase as MWL increases. The HEP
metric is only one example of a performance measure. Others can be
defined depending on the goal of the process design.

Unconscious cognition
In repetitive task operations such as production processes, there is a pro-
cess of learning. Learning is a natural phenomenon in which a worker’ s
output improves as his or her productivity levels improve (Badiru,
1995). As an operator becomes more efficient in a process over time and
the learning reduces, an operator can experience unconscious cognition .
Unconscious cognition is the “ mental structure and process that, oper-
ating outside phenomenal awareness, nevertheless influences conscious
experiences, thought and action” (Kihlstrom, 1987). The actions required
to drive an automobile are an example of unconscious cognition. These
actions, which are completed regularly without apparent mental effort
or recollection, are considered by some to be done unconsciously
(Greenwald, 1992). If one does experience unconscious cognition, accord-
ing to Reinhard et al. (2013), unconscious processes are presumed to have
far better processing capabilities than conscious thinking, and as a result
of this unconscious state, one should outperform conscious thought
when decision-making problems are complex. Therefore, being able to
design a work system to achieve unconscious cognition for the operator
would be most desirable.
132 Work design: A systematic approach

Learning
“ Learning refers to the improved operational efficiency and cost reduc-
tion obtained from repetition of a task” (Badiru, 2012a). Workers learn
and improve work performance by repeating tasks over time. As work-
ers become more skilled and develop higher capabilities, a larger men-
tal resource supply is effectively created, improving the efficiency of
the operator (Vidulich and Tsang, 2012). Therefore, their output levels
should improve with learning, which decreases expenditures per unit
and, believably, improves product quality (Badiru, 1995). However, a
worker’ s performance can also regress as a result of forgetting and work
interruptions. Forgetting is an outcome of work interruptions, which is
made apparent by production rate reductions and the manufacturability
of lower-quality products after an inoperative period compared with pro-
duction during continuous operation (Jaber and Bonney, 2011). Therefore,
the ability to predict an operator’ s performance when work resumes is
valuable because this can improve production planning and resource
allocation. In addition, incorporating learning into a production process
decreases fatigue, which can also improve the performance of the system
(Jaber et al., 2013).
“ The learning curve phenomenon has been of interest to research-
ers and practitioners for many years” (Jaber and Bonney, 2011). LCs are
used to determine how fast a skill can be mastered. However, industrial
LCs can be used for production planning and control, and there is a large
body of literature examining in how processes have been improved as a
result of LCs. LCs have been used in manufacturing for decision mak-
ing, manpower scheduling, resource allocation, cost optimization, and
more. Although learning is a well-examined topic, this concept should
be further extended to studies and experiments in order to understand
how forgetting affects MWL. From the literature, it is known that after a
break, the first cycle of work is the longest; and, according to MWL theory,
performance (e.g., time on task) is an indication of cognitive load. This
correlates to an operator experiencing the greatest load at the first cycle of
work. Using LCs to determine learning profiles could assist in reducing
an operator’ s cognitive load at production start-up.
In order to model a worker’ s output, LCs can be utilized. LC analysis
can be useful for predicting expected work rates in processes where out-
put accountability is tracked (Badiru, 2014). In jobs with repetitive tasks,
LCs can mathematically depict a worker’ s performance (Jaber and Bonney,
2011). According to Jaber and Bonney (2011), this method is deemed to
be an effective tool to monitor workers’ performances in repetitive tasks,
leading to a reduction in process loss due to their inability in the first
production cycles. LCs can be applied to the allocation of tasks so as to be
consistent with workers’ learning profiles, in order to control productive
Chapter six: Mental workload measures for work evaluation 133

operations. Other applications of LCs include production planning, cost

estimation and control, resource allocation, lot sizing, and product pricing
(Badiru, 1995). High performance with low mental effort is the most effi-
cient combination of cognitive capacity, which can result from the theory
of learning.

Summary
Processes should be evaluated to confirm whether high levels of MWL are
within workers’ capabilities, such that the average workload is not so high
that it creates cumulative mental fatigue and not so low that operators are
bored and may miss important system cues (Badiru and Resnick, 2013).
There are various MWL measures that can be used to confirm workload
levels imposed by the system. These MWL measures are often used to
verify whether the human is operating within a tolerable information-
processing capacity while executing task functions and elements. As tech-
nology continues to change, there is a constant need to know its impact on
the human operator, in order to design safe and highly productive opera-
tions for work performance. Workload is the quantity of resources applied
in the performance of a specific task (Boff and Lincoln, 1988). The mental
resources of humans are limited; therefore, it is important that the work
performed does not overload human capacity, which could lead to perfor-
mance degradation. In order to optimize MWL in efforts to improve per-
formance, the analyst must have accurate predictions of the performance.
There are three categories of MWL measures: subjective, physiological,
and performance. No single measure of MWL evaluates all of the dimen-
sions of mental load; so, when possible, use a combination of measures
from the three major categories. However, for maximum accuracy, it is
recommended that one measure be continuous, one measure be taken
at intervals during the experiment, and one measure be taken after the
experiment (Miller, 2001). Once an accurate MWL prediction is obtained
for a task, these predictions can be used for the overall capacity planning
of work systems by identifying the need for MWL reductions, as well as
determining whether additional work elements can be assigned to opera-
tors without degrading performance. MRT can be employed to determine
which mental resources were used in an effort to enhance the process
design by restructuring mental resource utilization in order to improve
operator performance.

References
Ahlstrom, U., and Friedman-Berg, F. J. (2006). Using eye movement activity as a
correlate of cognitive workload. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics ,
36(7), 623– 636.
134 Work design: A systematic approach

Badiru, A. (2014). Adverse impacts of furlough programs on employee work rate

and organizational productivity. Defence ARJ , 21(2), 595– 624.
Badiru, A. B. (1995). Multivariate analysis of the effect of learning and forgetting
on product quality. The International Journal of Production Research , 33(3),
777– 794.
Badiru, A. B. (2012a). Half-life learning curves in the defense acquisition life cycle .
Defense Acquisition Research Journal, 19(3), 283–308.
Badiru, A. B. (2012b). Half-life of learning curves for information technology project
management. In J. Wang (ed.), Project Management Techniques and Innovations
in Information Technology, pp. 146–164. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Badiru, A. B., and Resnick, M. (2013). Human factors. In A. B. Badiru (ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Systems Engineering (2nd ed.), pp. 431– 454. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Bertram, D. A., Opila, D. A., Brown, J. L., Gallagher, S. J., Schifeling, R. W., Snow,
I. S., et al. (1992). Measuring physician mental workload: Reliability and
validity assessment of a brief instrument. Medical Care , 30(2), 95– 104.
Boff, K. R., and Lincoln, J. E. (1988). Engineering Data Compendium: Human Perception
and Performance , Vol. 3. Wright-Patterson A.F.B., OH: Harry G. Armstrong
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
Bommer, S. C., and Fendley, M. (2015). Assessing the effects of multimodal commu-
nications on mental workload during the supervision of multiple unmanned
aerial vehicles. International Journal of Unmanned Systems Engineering , 3(1), 38.
Bruneau, D., Sasse, M. A., and McCarthy, J. (2002). The eyes never lie: The use of
eye tracking data in HCI research. Proceedings of the CHI , 2, 25.
Bubb, H. (2005). Human reliability: A key to improved quality in manufactur-
ing. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 15(4),
353– 368.
Cao, A., Chintamani, K. K., Pandya, A. K., and Ellis, R. D. (2009). NASA TLX:
Software for assessing subjective mental workload. Behavior Research
Methods , 41(1), 113– 117.
Cegarra, J., and Chevalier, A. (2008). The use of tholos software for combining
measures of mental workload: Toward theoretical and methodological
improvements. Behavior Research Methods , 40(4), 988– 1000.
Colombi, J. M., Miller, M. E., Schneider, M., McGrogan, M. J., Long, C. D. S., and
Plaga, J. (2012). Predictive mental workload modeling for semiautonomous
system design: Implications for systems of systems. Systems Engineering ,
15(4), 448– 460.
Cooper, G. E., and Harper Jr, R. P., (1969). The use of pilot rating in the evaluation
of aircraft handling qualities . No. AGARD-567. Advisory Group for aero-
space research and development. Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France.
DiDomenico, A., and Nussbaum, M. A. (2008). Interactive effects of physical and
mental workload on subjective workload assessment. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics , 38(11), 977– 983.
DiDomenico, A., and Nussbaum, M. A. (2011). Effects of different physical work-
load parameters on mental workload and performance. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics , 41(3), 255– 260.
Doherty, S., O’ Brien, S., and Carl, M. (2010). Eye tracking as an MT evaluation
technique. Machine Translation , 24(1), 1– 13.
Chapter six: Mental workload measures for work evaluation 135

Endsley, M. R., and Rodgers, M. D. (1997). Distribution of Attention, Situation Awareness,

and Workload in a Passive Air Traffic Control Task: Implications for Operational
Errors and Automation . Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation,
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine.
Estes, S. (2015). The workload curve: Subjective mental workload. Human Factors ,
57(7), 1174– 1187.
Fournier, L. R., Wilson, G. F., and Swain, C. R. (1999). Electrophysiological,
behavioral, and subjective indexes of workload when performing multiple
tasks: Manipulations of task difficulty and training. International Journal of
Psychophysiology , 31(2), 129– 145.
Galy, E., Cariou, M., and Mé lan, C. (2012). What is the relationship between
mental workload factors and cognitive load types? International Journal of
Psychophysiology , 83(3), 269– 275.
Greenwald, A. G. (1992). New look 3: Unconscious cognition reclaimed. American
Psychologist , 47(6), 766.
Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA task load index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. Proceedings
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , 50(9), 904– 908.
Hart, S. G., and Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index):
Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.
Hertzum, M., and Holmegaard, K. D. (2013). Perceived time as a measure of mental
workload: Effects of time constraints and task success. International Journal of
Human– Computer Interaction , 29(1), 26– 39.
Jaber, M., Givi, Z., and Neumann, W. (2013). Incorporating human fatigue and
recovery into the learning: Forgetting process. Applied Mathematical
Modelling , 37(12), 7287– 7299.
Jaber, M. Y., and Bonney, M. (2011). The lot sizing problem and the learning
curve. In M. Y. Jaber (ed.), Learning Curves: Theory, Models, and Applications ,
pp. 265– 291. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Jung, H. S., and Jung, H. (2001). Establishment of overall workload assessment
technique for various tasks and workplaces. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics , 28(6), 341– 353.
Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). The cognitive unconscious. Science , 237(4821), 1445– 1452.
Lindblom, J., and Thorvald, P. (2014). Towards a framework for reducing cogni-
tive load in manufacturing personnel. Advances in Cognitive Engineering and
Neuroergonomics , 11, 233– 244.
Liu, Y., and Wickens, C. (1988). Patterns of task interference when human functions
as a controller or a monitor. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics , 1988, 2, 864– 867.
Loft, S., Sanderson, P., Neal, A., and Mooij, M. (2007). Modeling and predicting
mental workload in en route air traffic control: Critical review and broader
implications. Human Factors , 49(3), 376– 399.
Marshall, S. P. (2002). The index of cognitive activity: Measuring cognitive work-
load. Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power
Plants , 2002, 75– 79.
May, J. G., Kennedy, R. S., Williams, M. C., Dunlap, W. P., and Brannan, J. R. (1990).
Eye movement indices of mental workload. Acta Psychologica , 75(1), 75– 89.
Miller, S. (2001). Workload Measures . Iowa City, IA: National Advanced Driving
Simulator.
136 Work design: A systematic approach

Mitchell, D. K. (2003). Advanced Improved Performance Research Integration Tool

(IMPRINT) Vetronics Technology Test Bed Model Development . Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD: US Army Research Laboratory.
Murata, A. (2000). Ergonomics and cognitive engineering for robot– human coop-
eration. Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human
Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) , 2000, 206– 211.
Pesante, J. A., Williges, R. C., and Woldstad, J. C. (2001). The effects of multitasking
on quality inspection in advanced manufacturing systems. Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 11(4), 287– 298.
Reid, G. B., and Nygren, T. E. (1988). The subjective workload assessment tech-
nique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. Advances in
Psychology , 52, 185– 218.
Reinhard, M., Greifeneder, R., and Scharmach, M. (2013). Unconscious processes
improve lie detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 105(5), 721.
Roscoe, A. H., and Ellis, G. A. (1990). A Subjective Rating Scale for Assessing Pilot Workload
in Flight: A Decade of Practical Use. Bedford, UK: Royal Aerospace Establishment.
Rubio, S., Dí az, E., Martí n, J., and Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective
mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA‐ TLX, and workload profile
methods. Applied Psychology , 53(1), 61– 86.
Stanton, N. A., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., and Hendrick, H. W. (2004).
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., Baber, C., and Jenkins, D. P. (2010).
Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design (1st ed.).
Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Tsang, P. S., and Vidulich, M. A. (2006). Mental workload and situation awareness.
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (3rd ed.), pp. 243– 268. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Vidulich, M. A., and Tsang, P. S. (2012). Mental workload and situation awareness.
In G. Salvendy (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics , pp. 243– 273.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Vidullch, M. A., Ward, G. F., and Schueren, J. (1991). Using the subjective workload
dominance (SWORD) technique for projective workload assessment. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 33(6), 677– 691.
Wickens, C., and Carswell, C. (2006). Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics .
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wickens, C. D., and Hollands, J. G. (2000). Attention, time-sharing, and workload.
Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd ed.), pp. 439–479. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science , 3(2), 159– 177.
Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors ,
50(3), 449– 455.
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., and Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering
Psychology & Human Performance . New York: Psychology Press.
Xie, B., and Salvendy, G. (2000). Prediction of mental workload in single and mul-
tiple tasks environments. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics , 4(3),
213– 242.
section four

Work justification
chapter seven

Cognitive modeling for human

performance predictions
This chapter introduces the cognitive modeling of human performance in
process design and modification as a method to justify the mental load of
work design. Modeling human cognition and understanding the means
by which humans handle information is becoming more and more signifi-
cant as system designers develop automation to aid human operators with
tasks that were traditionally manually controlled and physical in nature
and which are being substituted with tasks that are cognitive in nature
(Gore et al., 2008). As work systems are becoming gradually more auto-
mated, the relevance of designing a system with humans in mind is crucial.
From air traffic control to automobiles, how adequately operators perform
relative to what the system expects of them will impact how well the sys-
tem ultimately functions (Laughery et al., 2000). There are two key ele-
ments to a safety-critical system: the human and the machine (Greoriades
and Sutcliffe, 2008). The interaction between humans and other system
elements, such as hardware, software, tasks, environments, and work
structures, is a human– machine system. This system could be simple,
such as an operator working with a hand tool, or it may be complex, such
as an aviation system. There are three factors that typically have a major
effect on system performance in any human– machine system: human
error, system design, and human limitations (Boff and Lincoln, 1988). A
method for predicting the effects of these factors on the human– machine
system is human performance modeling (HPM), because modeling tools
apply well-established theoretical concepts of human information pro-
cessing to produce performance predictions (Kieras and Meyer, 2000).
Some HPM tools that incorporate cognitive modeling for work system
design and modification are covered in this chapter.

Human performance modeling

The term HPM is used to define systems that simulate human decision
making and actions, which are basically synonymous with cognitive sim-
ulation and artificial intelligence (Boring et al., 2015). HPM is a computer-
aided work analysis software methodology employed to predict complex
human– automation integration and system flow patterns, with the aim of

139
140 Work design: A systematic approach

increasing operator and system safety (Gore, 2002). According to Nan and
Sansavini (2016), the first human performance– related model was devel-
oped in the early 1980s, and since that time many models and approaches
have been developed to assess human performance.
The process of HPM includes inserting human attributes within a
computer software construct that simulates a human operator interact-
ing with an operating environment (Gore and Milgram, 2013). It can be
utilized to illustrate and predict human behaviors working under various
conditions (Jiang et al., 2013). One of the primary advantages of model-
ing is that it lets analysts assess different conditions by altering various
system parameters, such as the working conditions, equipment design,
and manpower allocation, to determine the effects of these parameters
on the predicted performance; such analyses can be applied to establish
the requirements for equipment designs, staffing configurations, training,
task designs, or scheduling (Sebok et al., 2015). On the other hand, in order
to evaluate total performance, parameters such as the number of converg-
ing measures, task latency, the type and probability of errors, the quality
of performance, and workload measures should be evaluated (Laughery
et al., 2012).
According to Laughery et al. (2012), human system modeling can be
utilized to address many questions as a function of the system design,
task allocation, individual capabilities, and environment. Figure 7.1 out-
lines some of those questions as described by Laughery et al. (2012).
Methods for analyzing human performance in the design stage
include prototyping, human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation, and human-
out-of-the-loop (HOOTL) simulation. Prototyping is the process of devel-
oping a pilot form (i.e., a prototype) of a system in order to refine the
requirements of the system or to uncover critical design elements (Gordon
and Bieman, 1995). Prototyping can give both the engineer and the user an
opportunity to evaluate the system in order to assess whether it meets the
user’s needs. Engineers can also use this method to improve their knowl-
edge of the technical demands and feasibility of a proposed system. An
HITL simulation is a modeling framework that involves human interac-
tion (Rothrock and Narayanan, 2011). HITL simulations give researchers
and analysts the ability to study the complexities of a system with human
involvement from a holistic perspective. The disadvantages of these meth-
ods (prototyping and HITL) are the time associated with experimentation
and the cost of building functioning prototypes for an iterative process.
HOOTL simulation is a methodology that makes use of computer mod-
els of human performance by creating a virtual human agent that works
collectively with new technologies and procedures (Gore, 2002). HOOTL
simulations can be utilized in the initial stage of the development pro-
cess of a product, system, or technology to create procedures and train-
ing requirements. In addition, HOOTL simulations can be applied in the
Chapter seven: Cognitive modeling for human performance predictions 141

Time

How much time is required for an operator or team to

perform the work elements of a task?

Workload

What are the workload demands on the operator as

a function of system design and automation?

Manpower

How many operators are required to bolster a safe

and successful performance?

Task allocation
How should the work elements be allocated to optimize
performance? Are there performance trade-offs for the
different configurations of work design?

Environmental stressors

Will environment factors affect the human–system

performance?

Figure 7.1    Questions that can be answered with human system modeling.

assessment of operator safety, operator productivity, and efficient system

design to identify vulnerabilities where potential human– system errors
are likely to occur. The use of HOOTL simulations is more cost and time
efficient than waiting for the concept to be fully designed and used in
practice, as with HITL tests. One criticism of HOOTL methods is that the
simulation software only predicts input– output behavior in mechanistic
terms (Gore, 2002). Therefore, it is imperative to understand the system
structure and define the appropriate inputs for the system.
HPM can be used synergistically with HITL studies, as shown in
Figure 7.2, in the following circumstances (Gore and Milgram, 2013):

1. The development of complex systems that include human operators

interacting with existent technology and automation to complete
numerous interacting and conflicting tasks with time constraints
2. Times when events cannot be investigated fully with HITL subjects
as a result of safety concerns
3. Projects limited by cost constraints
4. Difficult situations associated with simulating unusual events
142 Work design: A systematic approach

Process design
and modification

HPM HITL

Figure 7.2    Modeling synergy in process design and modification.

An example of applying HPM and HITL synergy is Wickens et al.

(2015). This study used both HPM and HITL to validate model predictions
relative to differences in complacency across various stages of automation
by simulating operators working on a robotic arm task in space missions.
Figure 7.2 illustrates how HPM and HITL methods can support both
process design and modification collectively. HITL studies can be used
to validate human performance models. The information obtained from
HITL studies can in turn be utilized to modify the model design for
better performance predictions. On the other hand, HPM can be used
to design better experiments for process design validation. The use of
models for predicting human performance is an efficient approach to
process design and modification. Also, accurate human performance
predictions can be valuable in implementing staff recruitment and per-
sonnel strategies in an effort to improve competitiveness in manufactur-
ing (Li et al., 2016).

Modeling systems
HPM systems conceptualize work design. A few of these are as follows:

• Adaptive Control of Thought— Rational (ACT-R; Anderson et al.,

1996)
• Man– Machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS;
Staveland, 1994)
• Distributed Operator Model Architecture (D-OMAR; Deutsch et al.,
1995)
• Attention– Situation Awareness (A-SA; Wickens et al., 2008)

The following section provides a brief description of seven HPM sys-

tems that integrate cognitive modeling elements.
Chapter seven: Cognitive modeling for human performance predictions 143

1. Micro Saint is a commercial product that supports the development

of task network models (Laughery et al., 2000). Task network model-
ing is an approach to modeling human performance that organizes
task sequences in a manner to represent the human– machine sys-
tem. In a task network model, the performance of a function by a
human operator is disintegrated into a series of subfunctions, which
are then broken down into tasks (Laugherty et al., 2000). Task net-
work modeling can assist with examining designs for various types
of issues, such as how long it takes to perform a task and the poten-
tial error rate.
2. State, Operator, and Result (SOAR) is a general intelligence architec-
ture developed by Laird et al. (1987). It is based on chunking theory,
which is a learning scheme that integrates learning and performance.
This method incorporates existing problem-solving knowledge with
knowledge of results in a given problem space and transforms it into
new knowledge to be used in future problem solving (Laird et al.,
1987). The output from SOAR is a comprehensive simulation from
which a range of performance measures can be obtained (Pew, 2008).
3. Goals— Operator, Methods, and Selection Rules (GOMS) is a systematic
description of how to calculate the time needed to perform a task by
accounting for the physical and mental work essential to completing
the task (Pew, 2008). It identifies the operator’ s goals, breaks down
these goals into subgoals, and demonstrates how they are achieved
through operator interaction to give a description of human per-
formance (Baber et al., 2013). The goals are what the user plans to
achieve; operators are actions executed while working toward a
goal; methods are the sequences of operators and subgoals invoked
to accomplish a goal; and selection rules represent the user’ s knowl-
edge of which method to exercise when there are multiple ways to
accomplish the goal (Oyewole and Haight, 2011). This method was
originally developed by Card et al. (1983).
4. Executive-Process Interactive Control (EPIC) is a computer simulation
modeling tool that was developed by Kieras and Meyer (1995) for
modeling human cognition and performance. EPIC can provide an
in-depth representation of the perceptual, motor, and cognitive con-
straints on a human operator’ s ability to perform tasks (Kieras and
Meyer, 1997). It was originally developed to evaluate human perfor-
mance limitations on the effects of an interface design that supports
complex task performance in multimodal time-stressed domains.
This cognitive architecture is most suited to modeling human multi-
modal and multitasking performance (Meyer et al., 2001; Kieras and
Meyer, 1997).
5. ACT-R , as developed by Anderson (1993), is a model of higher-level
cognition (Anderson et al., 1997). It is a cognitive architecture that
144 Work design: A systematic approach

integrates theories of cognition, visual attention, and motor move-

ment. ACT-R has been used successfully to model higher-level cog-
nition developments such as working memory, scientific reasoning,
and skill acquisition (Ritter and Kim, 2015). It has been applied to
build models in domains such as human– computer interaction, to
generate user models that can evaluate different computer interfaces;
education (cognitive tutoring systems), to predict the problems that
students may have and offer focused help; and computer-generated
forces, to offer cognitive agents that inhabit training environments;
to name a few (Budiu, 2013). One vital aspect of ACT-R that differen-
tiates it from other similar theories is that it permits researchers to
gather quantitative measures that can be directly evaluated against
the quantitative measures collected from human participants (Budiu,
2013).
6. MIDAS is an HPM tool for conducting human factor analyses of
complex human– machine systems that was developed at the NASA
Ames Research Center to evaluate procedures, controls, and displays
prior to applying more expensive and time-consuming hardware
simulators and human subject experiments (Tyler et al., 1998). The
development of MIDAS was a joint effort between the US Army and
NASA called the A3 I Program, which was initiated in 1985. The aim
of the A3 I Program was to support the exploration of computational
representations of human– machine performance to aid designers of
crew systems (Corker and Smith, 1993). The MIDAS Task Loading
Model (MIDAS-TLM) was originally designed to computation-
ally model the demands that various designs impose on operators
to aid engineers in the conceptual design of aircraft crew stations
(Staveland, 1994). The overall goal of the MIDAS-TLM was to predict
the information-processing demands on the individual four psycho-
logical dimensions (i.e., visual, auditory, cognitive, and motor) of the
system’ s operator associated with the tasks of conceptual system
design (Staveland, 1994). The demands are used to calculate an esti-
mate of task loading.
7. Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) is HPM
software that is used as a discrete event simulation tool to predict
mental workload (MWL). Its underpinning theory is based on mul-
tiple resource theory (MRT), as discussed in Chapter 6. IMPRINT
has analytical capabilities including “ human versus system func-
tion allocation, mission effectiveness modeling, maintenance man-
power determination, mental workload estimation, prediction of
human performance under extreme conditions and assessment of
performance as a function of varying personnel skills and abilities”
(Allender, 2000). This HPM method was developed by the Human
Research and Engineering Directorate (HRED) of the US Army
Chapter seven: Cognitive modeling for human performance predictions 145

Research Laboratory (ARL) in the 1980s (Mitchell, 2000). IMPRINT’ s

primary domain usage has been in the military (Mitchell, 2003;
Krausman et al., 2005; Hunn and Heuckeroth, 2006; Chen and
Terrence, 2009). IMPRINT models various scenarios, allowing
human capabilities to be analyzed relative to MWL predictions,
in order to develop a reliable human– system design that uses the
optimal range of mental resources. IMPRINT does not provide rec-
ommendations on how to mitigate mental overload to enhance the
system. However, based on the IMPRINT predictions, the mental
resource demands of these different scenarios can be mapped to the
associated MRT ratings in IMPRINT for the development of mitiga-
tion strategies in work design. Discrete events, with their estimated
task times, and MRT ratings, for their associated mental resources,
are simulation inputs. IMPRINT has a MWL component that classi-
fies workload relative to the MRT dimensions (Wickens, 2008). With
this information, IMPRINT formulates MWL predictions for various
task– design combinations.

The Directory of Design Support Methods provides a broad list of

computer-based modeling techniques for designing a system or apprais-
ing system design. Table 7.1 provides a reference list of applications in
various domains, with supporting HPM methods.

Hierarchical task analysis

In order to properly model a man– machine system, a critical step is to
identify the key elements of the system. Hierarchical task analysis (HTA)
is a technique that can be utilized to determine the process elements as
inputs to the model. It was first developed in the 1960s for training pro-
cess control tasks in the steel and petrochemical industries (Annett, 2003).
HTA is a step-by-step process used to break down a task or system work
elements, so that the task or system can be examined to any specified level
of detail. Actual or potential performance errors can then be identified;
however, it does not provide diagnostic tools for these problems.
HTA has seven primary key steps for implementation, as shown
Figure 7.3. The first step of the process is to decide on the purpose of the
analysis. This is important because it helps define the depth of information
to collect and the collection procedures. The next step (step 2) is to solicit
all relevant stakeholders to establish an agreement on defining the task
goals. This is vital to the analysis for establishing performance goals and
knowing when those goals are met. Step 3 identifies sources of information
and data acquisition. Preferred sources of data will vary depending on the
analysis. Interviews, direct observations, and performance data are exam-
ples of data sources. In step 4, a draft of the work system decomposition
146 Work design: A systematic approach

Table 7.1    Cognitive modeling studies in HPM

Author(s) Year Method Domain
Bommer 2016 IMPRINT MWL modeling Manufacturing
Gore and 2006 MIDAS Test predictions of International Space
Smith simulated operator Station (ISS)
workload
Kieras 2016 EPIC Cognitive Communications
et al. architecture suited (i.e., two-talker
for modeling speech perception
human performance task)
of multimodal and
multitasking work
systems
Nan and 2016 Cognitive A human reliability Infrastructure systems
Sansavini Reliability analysis method (e.g., power supplies,
Error that integrates telecommunications,
Analysis cognitive models rail transportation
Method to assess human systems)
(CREAM) performance
Oyewol 2011 GOMS Cognitive modeling Website design
and for
Haigt human– computer
interaction
Paik and 2015 ACT-R Cognitive Simulated geospatial
Pirolli architecture used (map-based)
to simulate the intelligence tasks
cognitive,
perceptual, and
motor behavior of
humans, including
strategy selection
Zhong 2012 SOAR Cognitive process Traffic tasks
et al. models for (i.e., traffic guidance
problem solving compliance behavior)

diagram or table is developed. A key feature of HTA is to compare what

the operator is actually doing with why he or she does it and to identify
the drawbacks if the task is not performed correctly. When this is under-
stood, a meaningful table or diagram can be created to illustrate the func-
tional structure of the system. Step 5 is the process of cross-checking the
work decomposition diagram or table with the stakeholders to ensure its
reliability for system modeling. This could be an iterative process. During
step 6, important operations are identified regardless of the purpose of
the analysis. As a general rule of thumb, the number of task levels in the
analysis should cease when the probability of system performance failure
Chapter seven: Cognitive modeling for human performance predictions 147

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Define the purpose Stakeholder Select the methods
of the analysis agreement of data acquisition

Step 4 Step 5
Step 6
Draft work Verify
Identify significant
decomposition table decomposition table
operations
or diagram with stakeholders

Step 7
Form hypotheses
and test
(if possible)

Figure 7.3    Procedural steps for implementing HTA. (Adapted from J. Annett,
Handbook of Cognitive Task Design , 2 , 17– 35, 2003.)

multiplied by the cost of failure is acceptably low (Annett, 2003). The final
step (step 7) for the analyst is to develop hypotheses for proposing practi-
cal solutions in order to account for the failures within. However, these
hypotheses must be tested to prove their validity.
In summary, HTA works by disintegrating the system into a hier-
archy of goals, subgoals, operations, and plans; it emphasizes what the
operator is expected to do in terms of actions and/or cognitive processes
to attain a system goal (Salmon et al., 2010). It is a simplistic process that
encompasses reviews of the task or system through observation, surveys,
interviews, walkthroughs, and user trials, to name a few. The informa-
tion gathered from these studies is used to break down and describe the
goals and subgoals involved in the work system. The process of develop-
ing HTA helps the analyst to understand the task or system. The output
of an HTA is tremendously useful in identifying the inputs for numerous
human factor analyses, such as error analysis, interface design and evalu-
ation, and the allocation of function analysis (Stanton et al., 2010).

Summary
With the aim of improving efficiency, HPM is a valuable method of sup-
porting work system design. It can assist with understanding the interac-
tion between the human and the other system elements. HPM can provide
very early predictions of performance in the development phase, in com-
parison with prototyping and HITL testing. There are numerous HPM
methods to choose from, and this chapter has attempted to highlight a
few methods that are usable for cognitive modeling in work design.
148 Work design: A systematic approach

References
Allender, L. (2000). Modeling human performance: Impacting system design, per-
formance, and cost. Simulation Series , 32(3), 139– 144.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, J. R., Matessa, M., and Lebiere, C. (1997). ACT-R: A theory of higher level
cognition and its relation to visual attention. Human– Computer Interaction ,
12(4), 439– 462.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., and Lebiere, C. (1996). Working memory: Activation
limitations on retrieval. Cognitive Psychology , 30(3), 221– 256.
Annett, J. (2003). Hierarchical task analysis. Handbook of Cognitive Task Design , 2,
17– 35.
Baber, C., Jenkins, D. P., Walker, G. H., Rafferty, L. A., Salmon, P. M., and Stanton,
N. A. (2013). Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and
Design . Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Boff, K. R., and Lincoln, J. E. (1988). Engineering Data Compendium: Human Perception
and Performance , Vol. 3. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Harry G.
Armstrong Medical Research Lab.
Bommer, S. (2016). A theoretical framework for evaluating mental workload
resources in human systems design for manufacturing operations. https://
etd.ohiolink.edu/ (accessed February 2017).
Boring, R. L., Joe, J. C., and Mandelli, D. (2015). Human performance modeling for
dynamic human reliability analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and
Risk Management , pp. 223– 234.
Budiu, R. (2013). ACT-R. Carnegie Mellon University. http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu
(accessed September 17, 2016).
Card, S. K., Newell, A., and Moran, T. P. (1983). The Psychology of Human– Computer
Interaction . Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Chen, J., and Terrence, P. (2009). Effects of imperfect automation and individual
differences on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a
simulated multitasking environment. Ergonomics , 52(8), 907– 920.
Corker, K. M., and Smith, B. R. (1993). An architecture and model for cognitive engi-
neering simulation analysis: Application to advanced aviation automation.
Proceedings of the AIAA Computing in Aerospace 9 Conference , pp. 1079– 1088.
Dean, T. F. (1998). Directory of Design Support Methods, Technical Report
ADA355192. San Diego, CA: Defense Technical Information Center, Matris
Office.
Deutsch, S. E., Cramer, N. L., and Feehrer, C. E. (1995). Research, Development,
Training, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Support: Operability Model Architecture.
Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.
Gordon, V. S., and Bieman, J. M. (1995). Rapid prototyping: Lessons learned. IEEE
Software , 12(1), 85.
Gore, B. F. (2002). Human performance cognitive-behavioral modeling: A ben-
efit for occupational safety. International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics , 8(3), 339– 351.
Gore, B. F., Hooey, B. L., Foyle, D. C., and Scott-Nash, S. (2008). Meeting the chal-
lenge of cognitive human performance model interpretability though trans-
parency: MIDAS v5. x. In The 2nd International Conference on Applied Human
Factors and Ergonomics , July , pp. 14–17 .
Chapter seven: Cognitive modeling for human performance predictions 149

Gore, B. F., and Milgram, P. (2013). A validation approach for complex nextgen air
traffic control human performance models. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety,
Ergonomics and Risk Management , pp. 28– 37.
Gore, B. F., and Smith, J. D. (2006). Risk assessment and human performance mod-
elling: The need for an integrated systems approach. International Journal of
Human Factors Modelling and Simulation , 1(1), 119– 139.
Gregoriades, A., and Sutcliffe, A. (2008). Workload prediction for improved design
and reliability of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,
93(4), 530–549.
Hunn, B. P., and Heuckeroth, O. H. (2006). A shadow unmanned aerial vehicle
(uav) improved performance research integration tool (IMPRINT) model
supporting future combat systems. (Report no. ARL-TR-3731.) Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD: US Army Research Laboratory.
Jiang, X., Gao, Q., and Li, Z. (2013). Introducing human performance modeling in
digital nuclear power industry. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Cross-Cultural Design , pp. 27– 36.
Kieras, D. E., and Meyer, D. E. (1995). Predicting human performance in dual-task
tracking and decision making with computational models using the EPIC
architecture. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Command
and Control Research and Technology , National Defense University , June .
Washington, DC: National Defense University.
Kieras, D. E., and Meyer, D. E. (2000). The role of cognitive task analysis in the
application of predictive models of human perfomance. In J. M. Schraagen,
S. F. Chipman, and V. L. Shalin, (eds.), Cognitive Task Analysis, pp. 237–260.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kieras, D. E., Wakefield, G. H., Thompson, E. R., Iyer, N., and Simpson, B. D. (2016).
Modeling two-channel speech processing with the EPIC cognitive architec-
ture. Topics in Cognitive Science , 8(1), 291– 304.
Krausman, A. S., Elliott, L. R., Redden, E. S., and Petrov, P. (2005). Effects of
visual, auditory, and tactile cues on army platoon leader decision making.
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium Command and Control Research
and Technology (ICCRTS ’ 05) , pp. 2– 8.
Laird, J. E., Newell, A., and Rosenbloom, P. S. (1987). SOAR: An architecture for
general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence , 33(1), 1– 64.
Laughery, K. R., Plott, B., Matessa, M., Archer, S., and Lebiere, C. (2012). Modeling
human performance in complex systems. In G. Salvendy (ed.), Handbook
of Human Factors and Ergonomics (4th ed.), pp. 931– 961. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
Laughery, R., Archer, S., Plott, B., and Dahn, D. (2000). Task network modeling
and the micro saint family of tools. Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , 44(6), 721– 724.
Li, N., Kong, H., Ma, Y., Gong, G., and Huai, W. (2016). Human performance
modeling for manufacturing based on an improved KNN algorithm.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , 84(1– 4),
473– 483.
Meyer, D. E., Glass, J. M., Mueller, S. T., Seymour, T. L., and Kieras, D. E. (2001).
Executive-process interactive control: A unified computational theory for
answering 20 questions (and more) about cognitive ageing. European Journal
of Cognitive Psychology , 13(1– 2), 123– 164.
150 Work design: A systematic approach

Mitchell, D. K. (2000). Mental workload and ARL workload modeling tools.

(Technical note ARL-TN-161.) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army
Research Laboratory.
Mitchell, D. K. (2003). Advanced improved performance research integration tool
(IMPRINT) vetronics technology test bed model development. (Report no.
ARL-TN-0208.) Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army Research Laboratory.
Nan, C., and Sansavini, G. (2016). Developing an agent-based hierarchical mod-
eling approach to assess human performance of infrastructure systems.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics , 53, 340– 354.
Oyewole, S. A., and Haight, J. M. (2011). Determination of optimal paths to task
goals using expert system based on GOMS model. Computers in Human
Behavior , 27(2), 823– 833.
Paik, J., and Pirolli, P. (2015). ACT-R models of information foraging in geospatial
intelligence tasks. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory , 21(3),
274– 295.
Pew, R. W. (2008). More than 50 years of history and accomplishments in human
performance model development. Human Factors , 50(3), 489– 496.
Ritter, F., and Kim, J. (2015). ACT-R: Frequently asked questions. http://acs.ist.psu.
edu/projects/act-r-faq/act-r-faq.html#G1 (accessed September 20, 2016).
Rothrock, L., and Narayanan, S. (2011). Human-In-the-Loop Simulations . New York:
Springer.
Salmon, P., Jenkins, D., Stanton, N., and Walker, G. (2010). Hierarchical task analysis
vs. cognitive work analysis: Comparison of theory, methodology and contri-
bution to system design. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(6), 504–531.
Sebok, A., Wickens, C., and Sargent, R. (2015). Development, testing, and vali-
dation of a model-based tool to predict operator responses in unexpected
workload transitions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting , 59(1), 622– 626.
Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Walker, G. H., Baber, C., and Jenkins, D. P. (2010).
Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design. Aldershot,
UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Staveland, L. (1994). Man– machine integration design and analysis system (MIDAS)
task loading model (TLM) experimental and software detailed design report.
Moffet Field, CA: Ames Research Center. Contract NAS2-13210.
Tyler, S. W., Neukom, C., Logan, M., and Shively, J. (1998). The MIDAS human
performance model. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting , 42(3), 320– 324.
Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors ,
50(3), 449– 455.
Wickens, C. D., McCarley, J. S., Alexander, A. L., Thomas, L. C., Ambinder, M., and
Zheng, S. (2008). Attention– Situation Awareness (A-SA) model of pilot error.
Human Performance Modeling in Aviation , 213– 239.
Wickens, C. D., Sebok, A., Li, H., Sarter, N., and Gacy, A. M. (2015). Using modeling
and simulation to predict operator performance and automation-induced
complacency with robotic automation: A case study and empirical valida-
tion. Human Factors , 57(6), 959– 975.
Zhong, S., Ma, H., Zhou, L., Wang, X., Ma, S., and Jia, N. (2012). Guidance compli-
ance behavior on VMS based on SOAR cognitive architecture. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering , 2012 . Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Article ID
530561, doi:10.1155/2012/530561.
chapter eight

Functional interactions of work *

This chapter hypothesizes that the semantic relationship between mod-
ules’ functional descriptions is correlated with the functional interaction
between the modules. A deeper comprehension of the functional interac-
tions between modules enables designers to integrate complex systems
during the early stages of the product design process. Existing approaches
that measure functional interactions between modules rely on the man-
ual provision of designers’ expert analyses, which may be time consum-
ing and costly. The increased quantity and complexity of products in
the twenty-first century further exacerbates these challenges. This work
proposes an approach to automatically quantify the functional interac-
tions between modules, based on their textual technical descriptions.
Compared with manual analyses by design experts who use traditional
Design Structure Matrix approaches, the text mining driven methodology
discovers similar functional interactions, while maintaining comparable
accuracies. The case study presented in this work analyzes an automotive
climate control system and compares the functional interaction solutions
achieved by a traditional design team with those achieved following the
methodology outlined in this chapter.

Introduction
To be successful in today’s global market, companies try to offer com-
petitive and highly differentiated products by analyzing and developing
product functions that satisfy customers’ needs (Umeda et al., 2005). A
product’ s function represents its operational purpose that meets custom-
ers’ requirements (Umeda et al., 2005). This high-level product function,
which directly interfaces with the customer, can be composed of multiple
modules that perform each subfunction. A module performs a specific
function by controlling the interactions of the functions of components
(Jose and Tollenaere, 2005). Analyzing a product’s functional characteris-
tics is the initial step of the design process and precedes the definition of
other aspects such the form and material (Bohm and Stone, 2004; Bryant
et al., 2005; Stone et al., 1999; Umeda et al., 2005). Therefore, engineering

* Reprinted with permission from Kang, S. W., and Tucker, C., An automated approach
to quantifying functional interactions by mining large-scale product specification data,
Journal of Engineering Design  , 27  (1– 3), 2016.

151
152 Work design: A systematic approach

designers need to understand both the functional interactions between

each module and how these interactions impact the overall product. These
functional interactions indicate the degree of modularity among the
attached modules and enable the designers to create new modules for next
generation products by integrating/maintaining current modules within
a product family/product portfolio (Dahmus et al., 2001; Gershenson et al.,
2003; Schilling, 2000). To design a product, the designers must analyze the
degree of functional interactions between modules based on their exper-
tise/domain knowledge (Browning, 2001; Danilovic and Browning, 2007;
Helmer et al., 2010; Pimmler and Eppinger, 1994; Sharman and Yassine,
2004; Sosa et al., 2003, 2004; Yassine and Braha, 2003). However, expert
manual analyses (e.g., analyses by designers that quantify functional
interactions between modules) may be a time consuming and costly pro-
cess (Liang et al., 2008; Mudambi and Schuff, 2010; Rockwell et al., 2008;
Yanhong and Runhua, 2007; Yoon and Park, 2004). These challenges are
further exacerbated by the constant increase in product quantity and com-
plexity, that are primarily driven by customers’ increasing desires for cus-
tomizable products (Alizon et al., 2009; Christensen et al., 2005; Tucker and
Kang, 2012; Tucker and Kim, 2011). For example, at the start of the twentieth
century, 92 modules were required to construct a complete car. However,
more than 3500 modules currently exist in a modern day vehicle (Ford
Motor Company, 1989; Groote, 2005). Over 30,000 new consumer products
launched into the market each year (Christensen et al., 2005). Therefore,
the complexity of managing modular product designs and their inherent
functional interactions becomes cumbersome (Dahmus et al., 2001).
This work measures the functional interactions between modules by
analyzing the semantic relationships between the modules’ functional
descriptions. The methodology presented in this work quantifies the
functional interactions between modules by employing text mining algo-
rithms that analyze modules’ functional descriptions, represented textu-
ally through technical manuals pertaining to each module. The authors
of this work hypothesize that the semantic relationship between mod-
ules’ functional descriptions is correlated with the functional interaction
between the modules. A statistical analysis that compares the results of
the text mining methodology with experts’ manual analysis of functional
interactions (Browning, 2001; Pimmler and Eppinger, 1994; Pimmler, 1994)
is presented. This text mining driven methodology achieves results in a
timely and efficient manner that are comparable to the designers’ manual
analyses.
This chapter is organized as follows. This section discusses the
research motivation; Section 2 describes works related to the research;
Section 3 outlines the proposed methodology; Section 4 presents an auto-
motive climate system case study that demonstrates the feasibility of the
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   153

methodology; the results of the case study are discussed in Section 5; and
Section 6 provides the conclusion and future related work.

Related works
The literature review begins by discussing the functional model used
during the early stages of the product development process (Section 2.1).
Then, the literature regarding semantic analyses in the engineering
design fields is presented (Section 2.2). Section 2.3 reviews the formation
of a module on the basis of functional interactions between modules. In
Section 2.4, the literature related to manual approaches for measuring
functional interactions articulates the need for an automated methodol-
ogy that analyzes these interactions.

Functional modeling in engineering design

A functional model in engineering design is a structured representation of
standardized functions and the flows between these functions within the
formalized design space. The functional model generates a chain of func-
tions as a process connected by energy, signal, and material flows— the
essential requirements for operating each function, hereby developing a
conceptual product design (Baxter et al., 1994; Bonjour et al., 2009; Hirtz
et al., 2002; Kurtoglu et al., 2009; Stone and Wood, 2000). The functions and
flows are defined on a functional basis, which designers describe with
standardized technical terminology (Stone and Wood, 2000).
In product design, functional modeling is a crucial step in defining a
product’ s architecture, wherein the architecture indicates the product’ s
functional structure through which the product’ s function is allocated to
physical modules. Designers have created a functional architecture for a
next generation product on the basis of a functional model and the func-
tional interactions between the candidate modules (Kurtoglu et al., 2009;
Sangelkar and McAdams, 2013; Sen et al., 2010). A quantitative functional
model that captures both the product functionality and customer require-
ments has been proposed (Stone et al., 1999). This model employs modular
theory and requires an assessment tool to build a product repository for
grouping products based on functionality and customer requirements.
Analyzing the interdependency of a product’ s functions can be per-
formed independent of the analysis of a product’ s form (Kurtoglu et al.,
2009; McAdams et al., 1999). This allows designers to make an explicit
connection between modules by measuring the interdependency of func-
tions. These connections are usually inherent in the product development
process. The functional model enables product development and manu-
facturing on a mass customized scale (Kahn et al., 2005).
154 Work design: A systematic approach

A function dividing process (FDP) has been proposed to obtain sub-

system level (e.g., module) functions from system level (e.g., product)
functions (Taura and Nagai, 2013). A FDP divides a system level function
in two ways: the decomposition-based dividing process and the casual-
connection-based dividing process. The causal-connection-based divid-
ing process addresses the functional interdependency among a group
of modules, wherein the functions of a module are similar to the adja-
cent functions of a product at the same level. The decomposition-based
dividing process addresses functional independency when the product
function is realized with the functions of each independent module. The
model generates new module functions by integrating existing sub sys-
tem functions with a functional model.
In the context of systems engineering, the need for a standard design
process has arisen due to the international trade of system products and
services. Therefore, EIA 632 has been established for standardizing func-
tions of systems (Martin, 2000). The ISO/IEC 15288 standard has been
introduced in the engineering design community to provide a common/
comprehensive design framework for managing system development
projects (Arnold and Lawson, 2004). However, as the quantity and diver-
sity of modules continue to increase, designers are presented with the
challenge of searching through the entire design space for novel design
knowledge that can lead to next generation products.
To overcome these challenges, the methodology presented in this
chapter employs semantic analysis techniques that discover functions
from a large set of text data sets that describe modules. Functional inter-
actions between modules are then automatically quantified in order to aid
designers during next generation product design by informing them of
the modules that are tightly or loosely coupled.

Knowledge extraction via semantic analysis

Semantic analysis techniques that discover knowledge from large-scale
textual data sets, have been proposed across a wide range of science and
engineering disciplines. The utilization of these techniques in the science
and engineering fields enables researchers to access an immense number
of textual data sets by mining statistically significant terms. For example,
Bollen et al. have predicted changes in the stock market by analyzing the
moods inherent in large-scale Twitter feeds (Bollen et al., 2011). Eysenbach
has quantified the social impact of scholarly articles based on a semantic
analysis of buzz on Twitter (Eysenbach, 2011). Asur and Huberman have
successfully predicted box office revenues by mining information from
tweets (Asur and Huberman, 2010). Ginsberg et al. have presented a meth-
odology that tracks influenza epidemics in a population by analyzing a
large number of Google search queries that were semantically related to
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   155

the term “ influenza” (Ginsberg et al., 2009). Huang et al. identify complex
phenotypes and demonstrate a disease– drug connectivity map by ana-
lyzing semantic relationships across multiple diseases query expression
profiles (H. Huang et al., 2010). Tuarob et al. have retrieved health-related
information from social media data by analyzing the semantics of hetero-
geneous features (Tuarob et al., 2013). Paul and Dredze were able to iden-
tify ailments along with the terms that represent the symptoms of each
ailment by mining public health information from social network services
such as Twitter (Paul and Dredze, 2014). These studies demonstrate that
it is possible to automatically discover semantic information that attains
statistically significant correlations with ground truth data, despite using
minimal human supervision.
In the engineering design fields, semantic analysis techniques have
been employed to extract design knowledge from text based product data,
including customer feedback and product technical descriptions, in order
to design products that better meet customers’ needs (Ghani et al., 2006;
Menon et al., 2003; Romanowski and Nagi, 2004). Researchers have extracted
product functions from their functional descriptions, such as patents or
official manuals, through text mining techniques (Kang et al., 2013; Tucker
and Kang, 2012; Ghani et al., 2006; Tseng et al., 2007; Tuarob and Tucker,
2014). Menon et al. employed a vector space document representation tech-
nique to derive useful product development information from customer
reviews (Menon et al., 2003). Tuarob and Tucker proposed the method to
identify lead users and product demand by mining product attributes from
a large scale of social media networks (Tuarob and Tucker, 2015a,b). Zhou
et al. have extracted latent customer needs from customer product reviews
through semantic analysis, which identifies the hidden analogical reason-
ing of customers’ preferences (Zhou et al., 2015). Gu et al. have employed a
semantic reasoning tool to represent functional knowledge as function-cell
pairs, where the cell is defined as a conceptual structure denoting the struc-
ture category that interacts with similar functions (Gu et al., 2012). Ghani
et al. have extracted semantics as product attributes on the basis of textual
product descriptions by employing a generative model with the expectation
maximization (EM) technique (Ghani et al., 2006). Tucker and Kang have
extracted semantics as functions and behaviors of products from textual
descriptions in order to discover cross-domain knowledge among multiple
product domains (Tucker and Kang, 2012). Kang et al. have employed a text
mining technique that quantifies functional similarities between end-of-
life (EOL) product descriptions (Kang et al., 2013). Product modules that
exhibited low functional similarity were deemed strong candidates for EOL
value creation. These modules were then combined to form a product with
enhanced functional capabilities made from EOL products.
Existing semantic-based techniques in the engineering literature have
focused on employing text mining techniques either at the early stages of
156 Work design: A systematic approach

customer needs analyses or at the end-of-life decision-making stages. This

work hypothesizes that semantic relationships between modules’ func-
tional descriptions are correlated with functional interactions between
the modules. This work demonstrates the feasibility of employing text
mining algorithms to automatically quantify the functions of a module
and measure the functional correlations between modules. To quantify
the functional interactions of each module, an automatic interaction mea-
surement is proposed in this work that extracts functions and converts
those functions into a vector space on the basis of the semantic relation-
ships of each module.

Modularity based on functional interaction

Modules that make up a product interact with each other through relevant
engineering principles and knowledge (Batallas and Yassine, 2006; Cascini
and Russo, 2007; Hong and Park, 2014; Jiao et al., 2007). Each interaction
type (material, energy, information, spatial) between modules allows
the product to operate its functions in the correct manner (Sharman and
Yassine, 2004). Therefore, engineers assemble a product with modules that
share similar materials, energies, information, and even shapes. Designers
describe a product’ s mechanisms in its official descriptions (e.g., patent,
textbook, manual) with engineering terms or conceptually similar terms
that indicate the interactions and operation processes (Eckert et al., 2005;
Kim et al., 2006; Murphy et al., 2014). Hence, the official textual descrip-
tions of modules contain its functional descriptions and knowledge about
the potential interactions between other modules.
The research on modularity is derived from Suh’ s design axiom,
which establishes an understanding of the interactions between modules
(Suh, 1984). A module is a group of components having strong functional
interactions that proceed to perform a specific function (Fujita and Ishii,
1997; Gershenson et al., 2003; Jose and Tollenaere, 2005). It is difficult to
integrate a module with other modules existing within a product when
there are no functional interactions among them (Sharman and Yassine,
2004). The definition of modularity is further revised by considering inter-
dependent/independent interactions between modules (Gershenson et
al., 2003; Gershenson et al., 2004). A module represents a unit of a product
that independently performs a specific function. Product design method-
ologies based on modularity use modules as the standard units to con-
struct products to increase the efficiency of both the product design and
manufacturing processes (C. C. Huang and Kusiak, 1998). For example,
Volkswagen utilizes a platform which is modularized with a floor panel,
chassis, and so on, for their products (Thevenot and Simpson, 2006).
The Ford Motor Company produces a climate control system to provide
both heating and cooling for their customers by integrating 16 different
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   157

modules (Pimmler and Eppinger, 1994). Huang et al. designed a digital

circuit module containing end users’ needs as functions by integrating
electric components (C. C. Huang and Kusiak, 1998). Modules constitute
a product and its functional interactions that achieve the product’ s pri-
mary function. Understanding the functional interactions between mod-
ules enables designers to identify which modules can be integrated when
creating new modules or enhancing existing ones (Dahmus et al., 2001;
Gershenson et al., 2003; Schilling, 2000). A modular product is constructed
with multiple modules along with their functional interactions, as shown
in Figure 8.1.
Each module performs a specific function(s), and these modules are
connected to each other with different levels of functional interactions, as
shown in Figure 8.1. Although the identification of a functional interac-
tion is an important factor for developing both modules and products,
quantifying the degree of functional interaction (e.g., the line thickness in
Figure 8.1) between modules has, until now, primarily relied extensively
on manual feedback, which can be costly and time consuming, especially
as products become more complex.
The methodology presented in this work automatically quantifies the
degree of functional interaction of each module on the basis of each mod-
ule’ s functional description. This work supports designers by creating
an automated algorithm that discovers which modules can be integrated
into a new module or which modules are not suitable for functional
modifications.

Functional interaction analysis through a design structure matrix

In the context of engineering design, many researchers have employed
a design structure matrix to visualize the functional interactions among
modules on the basis of experts’ knowledge (Dahmus et al., 2001; J. Jiao et al.,

Product X
Function: For main unit charge
M1 by ...

M2 Function: Battery provides a

power for ...
Mn
Mi : Represents each module i (Mi) of
product x, where i = 1 to n
: Represents each interaction
M3
between modules. Each thickness
indicates a degree of interaction
(e.g. , , )

Figure 8.1    A modular product consisting of modules.

158 Work design: A systematic approach

2007; Pimmler and Eppinger, 1994; Sosa et al., 2003, 2004). Steward coined
the term “ Design Structure Matrix (DSM),” a matrix-based approach to
analyzing system design structures (Steward, 1981). The DSM’ s row index
and the column index are described as system elements represented
as modules, with the cells of the matrix representing the interactions
between the elements. The initial stage of creating both matrices defines
each element that is the object of interaction. Pimmler represented these
system elements as product modules, proposing a taxonomy of functional
interactions (spatial, energy, information, material) with a quantification
scheme to facilitate the means by which experts measure each interac-
tion between modules (Pimmler, 1994). Pimmler and Eppinger proposed a
module-based DSM taxonomy to reorganize design teams along the lines
of the functional interactions between modules (Pimmler and Eppinger,
1994). Eppinger extended the DSM to integrate manufacturing systems
by mapping both the functional interactions of power train modules and
the interactions of their manufacturing processes (Eppinger, 1997). Sosa
et al. identified new modular and integrative systems to develop complex
products by clustering the quantified interface between modules and sys-
tems (Sosa et al., 2003). They extended the research to analyze the func-
tional misalignments of the product architecture and the organizational
structure in complex product development by clustering the functional
alignment of modules (Sosa et al., 2004). Karniel and Reich proposed a
“ DSM net” technique as a multilevel process model to create new prod-
ucts (Karniel and Reich, 2012). The DSM net is composed of design and
process activities capable of checking process implementations on the
basis of the functional interactions between modules. Existing DSM
methodologies that measure functional interactions between modules
are based on experts’ analyses. However, it may be difficult for these
manual analyses-based approaches to quantify the functional interac-
tions between modules because modern engineering products, such as
vehicles, require more complicated modules than did earlier products. For
example, approximately 3400 more modules are required for construct-
ing vehicles today than at the start of the twentieth century (Ford Motor
Company, 1989; Groote, 2005). The methodology presented in this work
automatically quantifies the functional interactions across a wide range
of modules, thereby reducing the time and costs associated with manual
analysis techniques.
In the early stages of the product design and development process,
designers have been supported by automatic approaches or platforms in
each step, as shown in Figure 8.2. Although designers are supported in
each step by automated approaches or platforms, Step 5 is still heavily reli-
ant on manual processes. The objective of Step 5 is to quantify the func-
tional interactions between candidate modules for selecting appropriate
modules that satisfy both the design specifications and their interactions.
 Step 1. Step 2. Step 3. Mapping Step 4. Develop Step 5. Measure
Chapter eight:

Identify customer Establish target requirements to design functional architecture functional associations
requirements requirements specifications for a product
– Voice of customer – Consumer – Quality function – Functional model Manual approaches
(VOC)/needs extraction preference models deployment (QFD) – ISO/IEC 15288 have been employed on
models based on – Customer opinion – Conjoint analysis – EIA 632 the basis of an expert’s
sentiment analysis mining models – Convariance structural analysis, such as design
– Discrete choice equation models structure matrix
analysis (DCA) – Nested clustering and
aggregation models

Gamon et al., Yang et al., Petiot and Grognet, Jiao et al., Huang and Bryant et al., Arnold and Primmler and Eppinger,
Wei et al., Zhan et al. Hoyle et al., Malen Mak, Zhang et al. Lawson, Martin, Stone et al. Helmer et al.
and Hancock

Figure 8.2   The beginning phase of the new product development process. (From Arnold, S., and Lawson, H. W., Systems Engineering  ,
Functional interactions of work  

7  (3), 229– 242, 2004; Bryant, C., et al., International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED)   (Vol. 5), Melbourne, Australia, 2005; Gamon,
M., et al ., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis (IDA ’ 05)   (pp. 121– 132), Springer, Berlin,
2005; Helmer, R., et al., Journal of Engineering Design  , 21  (6), 647– 675, 2010; Huang, G. Q., and Mak, K. L., Journal of Engineering Design  ,
10  (2), 183– 194, 1999; Jiao, J. R., and Chen, C., Concurrent Engineering  , 14  (3), 1– 25, 2006; Martin, J. N., Systems Engineering  , 3  (1), 2000;
Petiot, J.-F., and Grognet, S., Journal of Engineering Design  , 17  (3), 217– 233, 2006; Pimmler, T. U., and Eppinger, S. D., Proceedings of the
1994 ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference (DTM ’ 94)   (pp. 342– 351), 1994 ; Stone, R. B., et al., Journal of Engineering Design  ,
19  (6), 489– 514, 2008; Wei, C.-P., et al., Information Systems and e-Business Management  , 8  (2), 149– 167, 2009; Yang, C.-S., et al., Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on Electronic Commerce   (pp. 64– 71), 2009 ; Zhan, J., et al., Expert Systems with Applications  , 36  (2),
2107– 2115, 2009; Zhang, X. (Luke), et al., Journal of Engineering Design  , 23  (1), 23– 47, 2012.)
159
160 Work design: A systematic approach

The methodology presented in Section 3 employs a topic model algo-

rithm and a cosine measure to quantify the functional interactions among
modules, with the purpose of moving toward automated methods that
help to minimize the manual processes of Step 5 in the engineering design
process (Figure 8.2).

Methodology
The methodology quantifies the degree of functional interactions of each
module based on the module’ s functional descriptions by employing a
topic model technique from natural language processing, thereby enabling
designers to automatically model a product’ s functional architecture, and,
as a result, minimize the manual analyses. This entire process, outlined
in Figure 8.3, is defined as the automatic interaction measurement (AIM).
Step 1 describes the function data acquisition process for creat-
ing a database containing products’ module information. In this work,
the module descriptions are assumed to be represented textually. Each
function extracted from a module’ s functional description is converted
into a vector space in Step 2. Step 3 quantifies the functional interactions
between the modules by measuring their vector similarities. Finally, the
methodology can automatically measure the degree of functional interac-
tions between modules and can serve as a guide for designers aiming to
understand the complexities of the functional interactions within modu-
lar products.

Create a database of modules

The first step in the methodology is to construct a database that consists of
a product’ s modules and contains its functional descriptions. A module’ s
function data can be acquired from textual descriptions, such as patents or
official manuals (Brunetti and Golob, 2000; Sheldon, 2009; Sheremetyeva
et al., 1996; Umeda et al., 2005), as shown in Figure 8.4. It is assumed that
each module has a unique identification number (ID) that will be used to

Step 1. Create Step 2. Extract Step 3. Quantify Support designers

database of functions from functional with an automated
modules descriptions interactions methodology to
– Acquire functional – Preprocess – Quantify vector quantifying
descriptions descriptions with distances between funcitonal
(textual datasets) part of speech each function with associations
of each module. tagging, then cosine measure. between modules.
derive functions
as vectors with
topic modeling.
Figure 8.3   Flow diagram of the AIM.
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   161

Collecting descriptions A database containing functions of each module of a product

D d1 ID(i) Module name Functional description (di)
A functional description di
1 Battery charger For main unit charge by ...
d2 d3 tx = p................... Battery Battery provides a power for ...
2
.............................. Ff = 1
.......tx = q. … …

…
n … …
tx = r....................
.........tx = v. Ff = 2

.
..............................
.
.
dn ..............................

................... Ff = s
....

Figure 8.4    Process for extracting the functional descriptions from textual data.

automatically search for and discover the functional interactions between

the modules.

• t x represents the textual terms of a product’ s functional description

(D ).
• D represents a product’ s functional description, which is composed
of the functional description of each module (e.g., D   =  {d 1 , d 2 , … , d n }).
• d i represents each module’ s functional description.
• F f is the f th paragraph of a functional description (d i ).
• S represents the total number of functions of the module that has the
most functions.

A product’ s database composed of each module’ s functional descrip-

tions is created, as shown in Figure 8.4. Because engineering documents
such as a functional description of a module are laid out in a structured
way, a paragraph of the description may contain one topic, which can be
regarded as a function in this research (Nagle, 1996). The next section
describes how the text mining algorithm extracts the functions from the
modules’ textual descriptions.

Extracting functions based on topic modeling

In the context of engineering design, official specifications, technical
manuals, and patents can be regarded as the functional descriptions
that include topics that can be represented as functions, as shown in
Figure 8.4. Because a functional description is usually written in natu-
ral language, it includes many terms that do not provide any important
information. Therefore, unnecessary terms such as linking verbs (e.g.,
is, and, etc.) are eliminated to reduce noise (Munková Daš a et al., 2014;
162 Work design: A systematic approach

Murphy et al., 2014). To extract functions from the descriptions, this work
employs natural language processing techniques: a part-of-speech tagger
and the latent Dirichlet allocation algorithm (Blei et al., 2003). Because
functional terms mainly use verbs and nouns in functional descriptions, a
part-of-speech (POS) tagger algorithm, which identifies verbs and nouns,
is employed in this work (Ahmed et al., 2007; Toutanova and Manning,
2000). Once the POS tagger preprocesses the functional descriptions,
latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) extracts topics (e.g., functions) from the
descriptions. LDA is a generative probabilistic model for compilations
of text corpora, which can be regarded as functional descriptions with
infinite mixtures over intrinsic topic groups (Blei et al., 2003). Because
each paragraph of the description may describe each product’ s function
with terms, the LDA algorithm postulates that the description is a finite
mixture of the number of functions and that each term’ s establishment
is due to one of the functions from the description (Sheldon, 2009). LDA
provides the mixing proportions of functions through a generative prob-
abilistic model on the basis of the Dirichlet distribution, as shown in the
following Equation 8.1:

p ( t x |d i ) = ∑ p ( t |F ) p ( F |d )
f =1
x f f i (8.1)

where:
t x   represents the textual terms of a product’ s functional descrip-
tion D   =  {d 1 , d 2 ,… , d n }
d i  represents each module’ s functional description
F f   is the f th function of a product’ s functional description (D )
S  represents the total number of functions of the module with the
most functions. The total number of functions (S ) is the same
as the number of paragraphs (specifications) in the functional
description of the module that has the most functions.

From the set of modules of a product, each function is sequentially

extracted with topic probabilities from the entire functional description
(D   =   {d 1 , d 2 ,… , d n }), as shown in Table 8.1— that is, Function 1 p (F 1|D ),… ,
Function S p (F S |D ). These functions represent abstracts of each func-
tional description in terms of contextual semantics. From Equation 8.1,
p (F f |d i ) measures the probability of function (F f ) being a topic of a tech-
nical description (d i ). To compare the functional interaction between
modules, each functional probability of the i th module (p (F f |d i )) rep-
resents the functional descriptive vector in matrix form, as shown in
Table 8.1.
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   163

Table 8.1    Quantified functional data set

ID(i ) Module name Function 1 Function 2 … Function S
1 Battery charger p (F 1|d 1 ) p (F 2 |d 1 ) … p (F S|d 1 )
2 Battery p (F 1|d 2 ) p (F 2 |d 2 ) … p (F S|d 2 )

n … p (F 1 |d n ) p (F 2|d n ) … p (F S|d n )

Quantifying functional interactions

To search for functional interactions across textual data sets, the cosine
measure has been employed using the LDA results. The cosine measure
is employed in this work to quantify the degree of functional interaction
between each module. The functional interaction between modules can be
quantified by inputting the functional descriptive vectors from Table 8.1
into the cosine measure. For instance, the functional interaction between
the functional vector “ Battery charger” and “ Battery” can be quantified
with the following Equation 8.2:

Vi =1 ⋅ Vi = 2
Cos (Vi =1|Vi = 2 ) = (8.2)
Vi =1Vi = 2
where:
s

Vi =1 ⋅ Vi = 2 = ∑ p ( F | d ) p ( F |d )
f =1
f 1 f 2
(8.3)

∑ p ( F |d )
2
Vi =1 = f 1 (8.4)
f =1

∑ p ( F |d )
2
Vi = 2 = f 2 (8.5)
f =1

Each variable V i   =  1 and V i   =  2 represents a vector coordinate of the

Battery charger’ s (i   =  1) and Battery’ s (i   =  2) functions in Table 8.1. The cosine
measure is 1 when the angle between the two vectors is 0 degrees, while
the cosine measure is 0 when the angle between the two vectors is 90
degrees. Therefore, the functional interaction increases when the cosine
metric between the functional descriptive vectors is close to 1, whereas 0
means that there are no interactions between the functions. Modules that
164 Work design: A systematic approach

have strong functional interactions with one another can be integrated

into a new module, while modules with low functional interactions may
be independently updated/enhanced with minimal impact on the other
modules (Browning, 2001; Hirtz et al., 2002). In this work, if the cosine
measure between the functional descriptive vectors results in a value of 1,
it is assumed that the corresponding modules are identical. Sophisticated
engineering products, ranging from automobiles to aircrafts, may include
multiple identical modules in one system. For instance, most cars have
two headlights that perform independently of one another. Because the
interactions between one headlight and another module (e.g., wheel)
would result in the same cosine similarity value, regardless of whether it
is the right headlight or the left headlight, directly searching functional
interactions across identical modules is redundant and therefore not con-
sidered in the methodology.

Input: di: a functional description for ith module

Set i = 1
Loop
Run POS
Record POS result
If i > n
End; POS end
import record POS result (i = 1 to n)
Set i = 1
Loop
Set f = 1
Loop
Run LDA
Record LDA result
Set f = f +1
If f > S
End
Set i = i+1
If i > n
End; LDA end
Import record LDA result (i = 1 to n)
Set i = 1
Loop
Set j = i + 1
Loop
Run cosine measure (i,j)
Set t = cosine measure results
If t < 1
Print out t
Set j = j + 1
If j > n
End
Set i = i + 1
If i > n
End; cosine measure end

Figure 8.5   Algorithm flow of the AIM.

Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   165

In the early stages of the product development process, designers

consider functional interactions between different modules for functional
architecture modeling. Figure 8.5 presents the algorithmic flow of the
automated interaction measurement (AIM). The AIM imports data sets
from a database and then cleanses the textual data by employing the POS
tagger. LDA extracts functions from the POS results, and then the cosine
measure quantifies the functional interactions across the modules on the
basis of the LDA results.
In contrast to traditional DSM approaches, the methodology outlined
in this work analyzes functional interactions in an automated manner,
with minimal manual input from designers. This is particularly important
as the number of modules and functional interactions increase in complex
products. To evaluate the AIM, the next section introduces a DSM study as
a case study for comparing the interaction analysis.

Application
The case study analyzes an automotive climate control system that com-
bines 16 modules that have 120 functional interactions. The case study is
introduced to verify the feasibility of the AIM presented in Section 3 by
comparing it to manual analyses performed by design experts. Pimmler
and Eppinger extracted functional interactions between the automotive
climate control system’ s modules through a taxonomy of functional
interactions and a manual quantification process, as shown in Table 8.2
(Pimmler and Eppinger, 1994). Their study analyzed modules with

Table 8.2    Interaction types and quantification of the DSM

Type Interaction values
Spatial Needs for adjacency or orientation between two modules.
Required(+2)/desired(+1)/indifferent(0)/undesired(− 1)/
detrimental(− 2)
Energy Needs for energy transfer/exchange two modules.
Required(+2)/desired(+1)/indifferent(0)/undesired(− 1)/
detrimental(− 2)
Information Needs for data or signal exchange between two modules.
Required(+2)/desired(+1)/indifferent(0)/undesired(− 1)/
detrimental(− 2)
Material Needs for material exchange between two modules.
Required(+2)/desired(+1)/indifferent(0)/undesired(− 1)/
detrimental(− 2)
Source  : Pimmler, T. U., and Eppinger, S. D., Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Design Theory and
Methodology Conference (DTM ’ 94)   (pp. 342– 351), The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1994 .
166 Work design: A systematic approach

four different interaction types (spatial, energy, information, material),

based on five different scores (required/desired/indifferent/undesired/
detrimental) (Pimmler and Eppinger, 1994). Functional interactions are
quantified by four different generic relationship types with values of
− 2, − 1, 0, 1, and 2, as shown in Table 8.2. In Pimmler and Eppinger’ s
study, a design structure matrix was generated by conducting inter-
views with experts from the Ford Motor Company; the original DSM
is described in the Figure 8.6 Appendix (Pimmler and Eppinger, 1994).
Although the manual DSM analysis provides reliable outputs, it may
be difficult to extract functional interactions, as the quantity and com-
plexity of modules continues to increase in today’ s twenty-first-century
product space.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Radiator A 2 0 2 –2
0 2 0 0
Engine fan B 2 0 2 0 1 0
0 2 0 2 0 0
Heater core C 1 0 2 0 –1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Heater hoses D 1 0 –1 0
0 0 0 0
Conedenser E 2 –2 2 0 0 2 –2 2
0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2
Compressor F 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0
Evaporator case G 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Evaporator core H –1 0 –2 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2
Accumulator I –1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0
Refrigeration controls J 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Air controls K 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0
0 0 1 0
Sensors L
2 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Commnad distribution M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Actuators N 2 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
Blower controller O
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
Blower motor P
0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2
Note: Blank matrix elements indicate no interaction (four zero scrores).
Legend:
Spatial: S E :Energy
Information: I M :Materials

Figure 8.6    Appendix. (From Pimmler, T. U., and Eppinger, S. D., Proceedings of the
1994 ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference (DTM ’ 94) (pp. 342– 351), The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 1994.)
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   167

The methodology presented in this work mitigates this challenge by

automatically analyzing functional interactions on the basis of modules’
functional descriptions. To verify the feasibility of the methodology, this
case study compares the interactions from the AIM to those of the DSM
generated by manual expert feedback that has been thoroughly studied
in the engineering design community (Browning, 2001; Pimmler and
Eppinger, 1994).
Sosa et al. have proposed the “ design interface strength” to measure
the degree of the overall functional interactions between modules on
the basis of each interaction type and its scale value from Pimmler and
Eppinger’ s research, shown in Table 8.2 (Sosa et al., 2003, 2004).
The interaction scale ranges from 0 (e.g., all values of each generic
interaction are 0 or a negative value) to 8 (e.g., all values of each generic
interaction are 2) by integrating the four generic interaction types: spatial
|2|  +  energy |2|  +  information |2|  +  material |2| for a maximum of 8. To
distinguish modules in the system, Sosa et al. categorized the strength of
the functional interactions into “ low” (less than 4) and “ high” (greater
than 4) (Sosa et al., 2004).
In this paper, because the interactions are measured on a {0, 1} scale,
the interaction values of the DSM need to be normalized to the same scale.
The manually analyzed interaction values of the automotive control sys-
tem are normalized to a {0, 1} scale, as shown in Table 8.3.
In Table 8.3, “ M” stands for the module, module 1 represents the
radiator, module 2 represents the engine fan, module 3 represents the
heater core, module 4 represents the heater hoses, module 5 represents the
condenser, module 6 represents the compressor, module 7 represents the
evaporator case, module 8 represents the evaporator core, module 9 rep-
resents the accumulator, module 10 represents the refrigerator controls,
module 11 represents the air controls, module 12 represents the sensors,
module 13 represents the command distribution, module 14 represents
the actuator, module 15 represents the blower controller, and module 16
represents the blower motor.
Referring to Sosa et al., interactions can be divided into high or low
values on the basis of the average value across the scale (Sosa et al., 2004).
Therefore, each degree of interaction is divided into high (H) and low val-
ues (L) in this paper, based on whether a functional interaction is greater
or less than 0.5 (given a scale from 0 to 1).
Table 8.4 describes the transformed functional interactions, which
are based on the functional interaction degrees from Table 8.3. The auto-
motive climate control system was analyzed by design experts, whereas
this work automatically quantifies the degree of interactions by automati-
cally analyzing the functional descriptions based on the LDA algorithm
(Ramage and Rosen, 2009).
 168

Table 8.3   Normalized DSM functional interactions on the basis of a manual analysis
Module 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

2 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .13 .00 .00 .00

3 .13 .00 .00 .25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .25

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

5 .50 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

6 .00 .50 .38 .25 .25 .00 .13 .00 .00 .00

7 .25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .25 .25 .50

8 .38 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .25

9 .13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .25 .00 .13 .00 .00 .00

11 .25 .13 .25 .25 .00

12 .13 .00 .00 .00

13 .13 .13 .13

14 .00 .00

15 .50

16
Work design: A systematic approach
Table 8.4   Transformed functional interactions on the basis of the normalized interactions
Module 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Chapter eight:

1 H L L H L L L L L L L L L L L

2 L L H L L L L L L L L L L L

3 L L L L L L L L L L L L L

4 L L L L L L L L L L L L

5 H L H L L L L L L L L

6 L H L L L L L L L L

7 L L L L L L L L H

8 L L L L L L L L

9 L L L L L L L
Functional interactions of work  

10 L L L L L L

11 L L L L L

12 L L L L

13 L L L

14 L L

15 H

16
169
170 Work design: A systematic approach

Create a database of the automotive

climate control system’ s modules
To perform the experiment, this research follows each step of the AIM
(referring to Figure 8.3 of Section 3). Each module’ s functional description
has been collected from Daly’ s document, as shown in Figure 8.7 (Daly,
2006).

• D represents the automotive climate control system’ s functional

description, which is composed of the functional description of each
module (e.g., D   =  {d 1 , d 2 ,… , d 16 })
• d represents each module’ s functional description
• t x represents the textual terms of the automotive climate control sys-
tem’ s functional description (D )
• F f is the f th paragraph of a functional description (d i )
• S represents total number of functions of the module that has the
most functions (e.g., S  =  10 from d 8 ; the other descriptions have less
than 10 paragraphs)

On the basis of the data collection process, the automotive climate

control system’ s database, composed of each module’ s functional descrip-
tions is created, as shown in Table 8.5.

Extracting functions from the functional descriptions

The collected descriptions have been preprocessed by the POS tagger to
extract nouns and verbs before performing LDA (Table 8.6). Both the pre-
processing and function extraction processes are taken into account in
Step 2 of the methodology (Figure 8.3). These natural language processing
techniques are based on the Stanford Natural Language Processing plat-
form (Ramage and Rosen, 2009).

Collecting descriptions A functional description of the

system’s ith module (di)
D: Functional description of the automotive
climate control system tx = p......................
....................tx = q. Ff = 1
d1 d2 d3 ... d16

tx = r.........tx = v. Ff = 2

......................... .
.......................... .
.
.............. Ff = S

Figure 8.7   Functional description extraction process from textual data.

Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   171

Table 8.5   A database containing functions of each module of the climate

control system
ID(i ) Module Functional Description (d i )
1 Radiator The radiator dissipates excess engine heat, …
2 Engine fan The engine fan draws outside air into the engine, …
3 Heater core The heater core transfers heat energy via forced, …
⋮ ⋮ ⋮
16 Blower motor The blower motor moves fresh or vehicle interior air,
…

Table 8.6   Preprocess functional descriptions by the POS tagger

ID Module Description
(i   =  1 to 16) Preprocess by the POS tagger (n: noun, v: verb)
1 Radiator The radiator dissipates excess engine heat, …
Radiator (n) dissipates (v) engine (n) heat (n), …
2 Engine fan The engine fan draws outside air into the, …
Engine fan (n) draws (v) air (n), …
⋮ ⋮ ⋮
16 Blower motor The blower motor moves fresh air or, …
Blower motor (n) moves (v) air (n), …

Table 8.7   Extracted functions from the automotive climate control system
F 1   = F 2   = F 3   = F 4   = F 10   =
heat absorbs transfers coolant … accumulator
P (F f |D ) 0.14257 0.09431 0.09209 0.08999 … 0.00421

The AIM presented in this work measures the degrees of functional

interactions between modules on the basis of functional descriptions.
Given the functional descriptions of the 16 modules, the evaporator core
(module 8) has the most functions among all the modules: S  =  10, referring
to variable S in Equation 8.1.
Therefore, 10 functions (e.g., heat, absorbs, transfers, coolant, air,
energy, provides, temperature, exchanger, accumulator) are extracted
from the preprocessed automotive climate control system’ s entire func-
tional description (D ) by LDA, as shown in Table 8.7.
After each term representing the function of the climate control sys-
tem is extracted, LDA quantifies the probabilities of each function being
a topic of each module’ s technical description. Each functional probabil-
ity (p (F f |d i )) of the climate control systems’ modules represents the func-
tional descriptive vector in matrix form, as shown in Table 8.8.
Quantifying the functional interactions between components is the
final step (Step 3 in Figure 8.3 of Section 3) of the methodology presented
172 Work design: A systematic approach

Table 8.8   Quantified functional data set for each module’ s description
ID Module F 1   = heat F 2   = F 3   = F 4   = … F 10   =
(i   =  1 absorbs transfers coolant accumulator
to 16)
1 Radiator 0.03615 0.01503 0.09474 0 0.10043
2 Engine fan 0.01274 0.10572 0.08347 0 … 0.02443
⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
16 Blower 0 0 0.00045 0.02899 … 0
motor

in this research. The next section describes 120 interactions that are quan-
tified by the AIM on the basis of the values from the LDA results. To verify
the feasibility of the AIM, these interactions are compared with those of
the manually analyzed DSM (Table 8.4) on the basis of the statistical veri-
fication models presented in Section 5.

Results and discussion

The manually analyzed DSM has been shown to be effective for analyz-
ing interactions between objects by providing designers with valuable
results. Therefore, comparable results of the manually analyzed DSM and
the AIM presented in this work will demonstrate the feasibility of quan-
tifying functional interactions in an automated manner so that designers
can focus more on idea generation, rather than on functional mapping.
The degrees of the functional interactions are then quantified by the
cosine measure (Equation 8.2). The quantified interactions of each module
are presented in Table 8.9. Each module (i.e., 1 to 16) represents the same
modules presented in Table 8.4.
The interaction values from the AIM are transformed to binary values
(high or low) using the same scale as the manual process, as shown in
Table 8.10. Because the functional interaction degrees (i.e., manual analy-
sis and the AIM) have been transformed to the same scale, a paired T-test
and a confusion matrix are generated to provide statistical evidence of the
similarity of the results from the AIM (Table 8.10) and the manual analysis
(Table 8.4).

Statistical verification: Paired T-test

Because a manual DSM has been shown to be effective for analyzing
functional interactions, a paired T-test is performed to determine whether
there is a statistically significant difference between the baseline results
(e.g., manual DSM results) and the results generated by the AIM. This is
achieved by comparing the degrees of functional interactions quantified
using the proposed model (Table 8.10) and the manual DSM (Table 8.4).
 Table 8.9    Functional interaction by the AIM
Module 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 .41 .47 .00 .75 .00 .00 .35 .00 .00 .00 .00 .14 .00 .00 .00
2 .00 .00 .22 .00 .08 .00 .00 .02 .28 .00 .00 .00 .01 .18
Chapter eight:

3 .28 .73 .40 .44 .93 .14 .01 .00 .00 .12 .00 .01 .28
4 .08 .00 .54 .03 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00
5 .58 .08 .58 .21 .01 .01 .00 .13 .00 .01 .01
6 .00 .37 .36 .35 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00
7 .41 .03 .21 .20 .00 .10 .40 .41 .50
8 .13 .01 .00 .00 .09 .00 .00 .39
9 .14 .00 .00 .00 .04 .01 .03
10 .01 .00 .01 .17 .42 .01
11 .32 .45 .00 .01 .08
12 .00 .00 .00 .00
13 .00 .36 .00
Functional interactions of work  

14 .34 .78
15 .01
16
173
 174

Table 8.10   Transformed functional interactions from the AIM results

Module 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L
2 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
3 L H L L H L L L L L L L L
4 L L H L L L L L L L L L
5 H L H L L L L L L L L
6 L L L L L L L L L L
7 L L L L L L L L H
8 L L L L L L L L
9 L L L L L L L
10 L L L L L L
11 L L L L L
12 L L L L
13 L L L
14 L H
15 L
16
Work design: A systematic approach
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   175

The paired T-test’ s null hypothesis assumes that the mean difference of
paired values is 0. The paired values are the degrees of the functional
interactions of each module from the manual DSM (Table 8.4) and the
AIM (Table 8.10) results. The values from each analysis are paired if
they have the same indices in both tables (the row and column indices of
Table 8.4 and Table 8.10 represent the same modules). The paired T-test is
performed for 120 paired values (excluding values of identical row– col-
umn indices) to statistically determine whether the proposed automated
and manual DSM results are significantly different. If the test does not
reject the null hypothesis, the AIM can be regarded as a valid model for
analyzing the functional interactions for this case study. Based on the
paired T-test results (N  =  120), the mean difference of the T-test is 0. The
results of this analysis indicate that the null hypothesis is not rejected,
with a T-value of 0.00, a P-value of 1.000, and an α of 0.05. Because the null
hypothesis is strongly supported by having a P-value (1.000) greater than
α (0.05), there is no significant difference between the functional inter-
actions of each module from the proposed automated approach and the
manual DSM. This test statistically verifies that the AIM provides func-
tional interactions similar to the manually analyzed interactions.

Statistical verification: Confusion matrix

The confusion matrix (Table 8.11) shows that the AIM has 94% accuracy
when benchmarked against the manual DSM generation; of a total of 120
instances, 114 (low: 110, high: 4) instances from the predictive model (the
AIM) are matched with the actual model (DSM). In this case study, the
AIM analyzes low interactions among the modules with 98% precision
and 96% recall.
Low interaction can be regarded as a functional independence (mod-
ularity) that affects how designers construct a system architecture with
unique modules. These modules can be assembled for serving their own
independent functions within the system. However, the AIM analyzes
high interactions among the modules with 50% precision and 67% recall,
thereby providing designers with insufficient information regarding how
modules should be integrated when creating a new module for next gener-
ation products. Although the AIM presented in this work performed less
accurately for extracting high interactions between modules, it discovers

Table 8.11    Confusion matrix: DSM vs. the AIM

Predictive class (the AIM)
L (Low) H (High)
Actual class (DSM) L (Low) 110 2
H (High) 4 4
176 Work design: A systematic approach

functionally detachable modules and guides designers in terms of which

modules can be potentially detached, revised, or enhanced, with minimal
impact on other subsystems.
A text mining technique may provide a more efficient means of quan-
tifying functional interactions (especially for low functional interactions)
between modules when compared with a manually generated DSM anal-
ysis, because the number of modules continues to increase along with
their functional descriptions. To support designers with an analysis that
is compatible with experts’ manual analyses, the methodology needs to
be improved for extracting high functional interactions in future work.

Conclusions and future work

This work includes an extensive literature review of research in the engi-
neering design and text mining fields. The literature review has shown
that engineering design methodologies continue to introduce more auto-
mated approaches that support designers at both the customer needs
and end-of-life product stages of the design process. Semantic analyses
have been employed in the engineering design field to discover design
information from customer reviews and functional descriptions. This
work hypothesizes that semantic relationships between modules’ func-
tional descriptions are correlated with functional interactions between
the modules. To support designers in integrating/maintaining modules
during the concept generation process, this work automatically measures
the functional interactions between modules. By employing the LDA
algorithm the cosine metric, the methodology presented in this work dis-
covers functional interactions between modules on the basis of semantic
relationships between textual data sets that describe the modules’ func-
tions. Furthermore, the AIM has been validated using a case study involv-
ing a DSM analysis of an automotive climate system. The case study is
conducted on a limited data set. The results achieved indicate the meth-
odology’ s working prospect scope. The authors would like to emphasize
that this work explores a correlation (not a causal relationship) between
modules’ functional descriptions and modules’ functional interactions.
The functional interactions between modules allow designers to effi-
ciently create a product’ s architecture by integrating the modules’ func-
tions (Fixson, 2007; Gershenson et al., 2003; C. C. Huang and Kusiak, 1998;
Sosa et al., 2003). Functional interactions typically indicate the degree of
modularity among modules at the beginning of the product develop-
ment process, thereby enabling designers to make decisions such as to
extend, upgrade, or maintain existing modules. The AIM algorithm pre-
sented in this work performed less accurately for extracting high interac-
tions between modules than deriving low interactions. Thus, improving
the methodology to accurately extract high functional interactions from
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   177

functional descriptions may enable designers to discover modules that

can be integrated during the creation of new modules for next generation
products.

References  
Ahmed, S., Kim, S., and Wallace, K. M. (2007). A methodology for creating ontolo-
gies for engineering design. Journal of Computing and Information Science in
Engineering , 7(2), 132– 140.
Alizon, F., Shooter, S. B., and Simpson, T. W. (2009). Assessing and improving
commonality and diversity within a product family. Research in Engineering
Design , 20(4), 241– 253.
Arnold, S., and Lawson, H. W. (2004). Viewing systems from a business management
perspective: The ISO/IEC 15288 standard. Systems Engineering, 7(3), 229–242.
Asur, S., and Huberman, B. A. (2010). Predicting the future with social media.
In Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), 2010 IEEE/WIC/
ACM International Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 492– 499). doi:10.1109/WI-IAT.2010.63
Batallas, D., and Yassine, A. (2006). Information leaders in product development
organizational networks: Social network analysis of the design structure
matrix. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 53(4), 570– 582.
Baxter, J. E., Juster, N. P., and De Pennington, A. (1994). A functional data model
for assemblies used to verify product design specifications. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture ,
208(4), 235– 244.
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., and Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of
Machine Learning Research , 3, 993– 1022.
Bohm, M. R., and Stone, R. B. (2004). Representing functionality to support reuse:
Conceptual and supporting functions. In ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp.
411– 419). Salt Lake City, UT. doi:10.1115/DETC2004-57693
Bollen, J., Mao, H., and Zeng, X. (2011). Twitter mood predicts the stock market.
Journal of Computational Science , 2(1), 1– 8.
Bonjour, E., Deniaud, S., Dulmet, M., and Harmel, G. (2009). A fuzzy method for
propagating functional architecture constraints to physical architecture.
Journal of Mechanical Design , 131(6). doi:10.1115/1.3116253
Browning, T. R. (2001). Applying the design structure matrix to system decom-
position and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management , 48(3), 292– 306.
Brunetti, G., and Golob, B. (2000). A feature-based approach towards an inte-
grated product model including conceptual design information. Computer-
Aided Design , 32(14), 877– 887.
Bryant, C., Stone, R., McAdams, D., Kurtoglu, T., and Campbell, M. (2005). Concept
generation from the functional basis of design. In International Conference on
Engineering Design (ICED) (Vol. 5). Melbourne, Australia.
Cascini, G., and Russo, D. (2007). Computer-aided analysis of patents and search
for TRIZ contradictions. International Journal of Product Development , 4(1),
52– 67.
Christensen, C. M., Cook, S., and Hall, T. (2005). Marketing malpractice: The cause
and the cure. Harvard Business Review , 83(12), 74– 83. Retrieved from https://
hbr.org/2005/12/marketing-malpractice-the-cause-and-the-cure.
178 Work design: A systematic approach

Dahmus, J. B., Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., and Otto, K. N. (2001). Modular product

architecture. Design Studies , 22(5), 409– 424.
Daly, S. (2006). Automotive Air-Conditioning and Climate Control Systems . Boston,
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Danilovic, M., and Browning, T. R. (2007). Managing complex product develop-
ment projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matri-
ces. International Journal of Project Management , 25(3), 300– 314.
Eckert, C. M., Martin, S., and Christopher, E. (2005). References to past designs. In
J. S. Gero and N. Bonnardel (eds.), Studying Designers 5 (pp. 3– 19). Sydney,
Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
Eppinger, S. D. (1997). A planning method for integration of large-scale engi-
neering systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering
Design (ICED) (pp. 199– 204). Tampere, Finland.
Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based
on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact.
Journal of Medical Interest Research , 13(4). doi:10.2196/jmir.2012
Fixson, S. K. (2007). Modularity and commonality research: Past developments
and future opportunities. Concurrent Engineering , 15(2), 85– 111.
Ford Motor Company. (1989). 1919– 1927 Model T: Ford Service: Practical Methods for
Repairing and Servicing Ford Cars . Detroit, MI: Ford Motor Company.
Fujita, K., and Ishii, K. (1997). Task structuring toward computational approaches
to product variety design. In Proceedings of the ASME International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences . New York: ASME.
Gamon, M., Aue, A., Corston-Oliver, S., and Ringger, E. (2005). Pulse: Mining cus-
tomer opinions from free text. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis (IDA ’ 05) (pp. 121– 132). Berlin:
Springer. doi:10.1007/11552253_12
Gershenson, J. K., Prasad, G. J., & Zhang, Y. (2003). Product modularity: Definitions
and benefits. Journal of Engineering Design , 14(3), 295– 313.
Gershenson, J. K., Prasad, G. J., and Zhang, Y. (2004). Product modularity: Measures
and design methods. Journal of Engineering Design , 15(1), 33– 51.
Ghani, R., Probst, K., Liu, Y., Krema, M., and Fano, A. (2006). Text mining for prod-
uct attribute extraction. SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter , 8(1), 41– 48.
Ginsberg, J., Mohebbi, M. H., Patel, R. S., Brammer, L., Smolinski, M. S., and
Brilliant, L. (2009). Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query
data. Nature , 457(7232), 1012– 1014.
Groote, S. De. (2005). Construction of an F1 car. Retrieved from http://www.
f1technical.net/articles/1271.
Gu, C.-C., Hu, J., Peng, Y.-H., and Li, S. (2012). FCBS model for functional knowledge
representation in conceptual design. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(8), 577–596.
Helmer, R., Yassine, A. A., and Meier, C. (2010). Systematic module and interface
definition using component design structure matrix. Journal of Engineering
Design , 21(6), 647– 675.
Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., Szykman, S., and Wood, K. L. (2002). A
functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous
efforts. Research in Engineering Design , 13(2), 65– 82.
Hong, E.-P., and Park, G.-J. (2014). Modular design method based on simultane-
ous consideration of physical and functional relationships in the conceptual
design stage. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology , 28(1), 223– 235.
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   179

Huang, C. C., and Kusiak, A. (1998). Modularity in design of products and sys-
tems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and
Humans , 28(1), 66– 77.
Huang, G. Q., and Mak, K. L. (1999). Web-based collaborative conceptual design.
Journal of Engineering Design , 10(2), 183– 194.
Huang, H., Liu, C.-C., and Zhou, X. J. (2010). Bayesian approach to transform-
ing public gene expression repositories into disease diagnosis databases.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ,
107(15), 6823– 6828.
Jiao, J. R., and Chen, C. (2006). Customer requirement management in product
development : A review of research issues. Concurrent Engineering , 14(3),
1– 25.
Jiao, J., Simpson, T. W., and Siddique, Z. (2007). Product family design and plat-
form-based product development: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing , 18(1), 5– 29.
Jose, A., and Tollenaere, M. (2005). Modular and platform methods for product
family design: Literature analysis. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , 16(3),
371– 390.
Kahn, K. B., Castellion, G., and Griffin, A. (2005). The PDMA Handbook of New
Product Development . doi:10.1002/9780470172483.
Kang, S. W., Sane, C., Vasudevan, N., and Tucker, C. S. (2013). Product resynthesis:
Knowledge discovery of the value of end-of-life assemblies and subassem-
blies. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design , 136(1). doi:10.1115/1.4025526
Karniel, A., & Reich, Y. (2012). Multi-level modelling and simulation of new
product development processes. Journal of Engineering Design , 24(3),
185– 210.
Kim, K.-Y., Manley, D. G., and Yang, H. (2006). Ontology-based assembly design
and information sharing for collaborative product development. Computer-
Aided Design , 38(12), 1233– 1250.
Kurtoglu, T., Campbell, M. I., Arnold, C. B., Stone, R. B., and McAdams, D. A.
(2009). A component taxonomy as a framework for computational design
synthesis. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering , 9(1).
doi:10.1115/1.3086032
Liang, Y., Tan, R., and Ma, J. (2008). Patent analysis with text mining for TRIZ. In
Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation
and Technology (pp. 1147– 1151). doi:10.1109/ICMIT.2008.4654531
Martin, J. N. (2000). Processes for engineering a system: An overview of the ANSI/
EIA 632 standard and its heritage. Systems Engineering , 3(1). doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1520– 6858(2000)3:1< 1::AID-SYS1> 3.0.CO;2-0
McAdams, D. A., Stone, R. B., and Wood, K. L. (1999). Functional interdependence
and product similarity based on customer needs. Research in Engineering
Design , 11(1), 1– 19.
Menon, R., Tong, L. H., Sathiyakeerthi, S., Brombacher, A., and Leong, C. (2003).
The needs and benefits of applying textual data mining within the product
development process. Quality and Reliability Engineering International , 20(1),
1– 15.
Mudambi, S. M., and Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A
study of customer reviews on amazon.com. MIS Quarterly , 34(1), 185– 200.
Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2017447.2017457.
180 Work design: A systematic approach

Munková , D., Michal, M., and Martin, V. (2014). Influence of stop-words removal on
sequence patterns identification within comparable corpora. In V. Trajkovik
and M. Anastas (eds.), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 231,
pp. 66– 76). Springer, Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01466-1_6
Murphy, J., Fu, K., Otto, K., Yang, M., Jensen, D., and Wood, K. (2014). Function
based design-by-analogy: A functional vector approach to analogical
search. Journal of Mechanical Design , 136(10), 101102.
Nagle, J. G. (1996). Handbook for Preparing Engineering Documents: From Concept to
Completion . John Wiley.
Paul, M. J., and Dredze, M. (2014). Discovering health topics in social media using
topic models. PloS One , 9(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103408
Petiot, J.-F., and Grognet, S. (2006). Product design: A vectors field-based approach
for preference modelling. Journal of Engineering Design , 17(3), 217– 233.
Pimmler, T. U. (1994). A development methodology for product decomposition
and integration . Research Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Pimmler, T. U., and Eppinger, S. D. (1994). Integration analysis of product decom-
positions. In Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Design Theory and Methodology
Conference (DTM’ 94) pp. 342– 351). New York: The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
Ramage, D., and Rosen, E. (2009). Stanford topic modeling toolbox. Retrieved from
http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/index.shtml.
Rockwell, J. A., Witherell, P., Grosse, I., and Krishnamurty, S. (2008). A web-based
environment for documentation and sharing of engineering design knowl-
edge. In Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 671– 683). Brooklyn,
NY. doi:10.1115/DETC2008-50086
Romanowski, C. J., and Nagi, R. (2004). A data mining approach to forming generic
bills of materials in support of variant design activities. Journal of Computing
and Information Science in Engineering , 4(4), 316–328. doi:10.1115/1.1812556.
Sangelkar, S., and McAdams, D. A. (2013). Mining functional model graphs to
find product design heuristics with inclusive design illustration. Journal of
Computing and Information Science in Engineering , 13(4). doi:10.1115/1.4025469
Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its applica-
tion to interfirm. Academy of Management Review , 25(2), 312– 334.
Sen, C., Summers, J. D., and Mocko, G. M. (2010). Topological information con-
tent and expressiveness of function models in mechanical design. Journal of
Computing and Information Science in Engineering , 10(3). doi:10.1115/1.3462918
Sharman, D. M., and Yassine, A. A. (2004). Characterizing complex product archi-
tectures. Systems Engineering , 7(1), 35– 60.
Sheldon, J. G. (2009). How to Write a Patent Application . New York: Practising Law
Institute.
Sheremetyeva, S., Nirenburg, S., and Nirenburg, I. (1996). Generating patent claims
from interactive input. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on
Natural Language Generation (pp. 61– 70). Philadelphia, PA: The Association
for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., and Rowles, C. M. (2003). Identifying modular and
integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. Journal of
Mechanical Design , 125(2), 240.
Chapter eight: Functional interactions of work   181

Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., and Rowles, C. M. (2004). The misalignment of prod-
uct architecture and organizational structure in complex product develop-
ment. Management Science , 50(12), 1674– 1689.
Steward, D. V. (1981). Design structure system: A method for managing the design
of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 28(3),
71– 74.
Stone, R. B., and Wood, K. L. (2000). Development of a functional basis for design.
Journal of Mechanical Design , 122, 359.
Stone, R. B., Kurtadikar, R., Villanueva, N., and Arnold, C. B. (2008). A customer
needs motivated conceptual design methodology for product portfolio
planning. Journal of Engineering Design , 19(6), 489– 514.
Stone, R. B., Wood, K. L., and Crawford, R. H. (1999). Product architecture devel-
opment with quantitative functional models. In Proceedings of the ASME
1999 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences . New York: The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Suh, N. P. (1984). Development of the science base for the manufacturing
field through the axiomatic approach. Robotics & Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing , 1(3), 397– 415.
Taura, T., and Nagai, Y. (2013). Synthesis of functions: Practice of concept genera-
tion (3). In Concept Generation for Design Creativity . London: Springer.
Thevenot, H., and Simpson, T. (2006). A comprehensive metric for evaluating
component commonality in a product family. In Proceedings of the ASME
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 823– 832). Philadelphia, PA:
ASME.
Toutanova, K., and Manning, C. D. (2000). Enriching the knowledge sources
used in a maximum entropy part-of-speech tagger. In Proceedings of the
2000 Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language
Processing and Very Large Corpora: Held in Conjunction with the 38th
Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 13,
pp. 63– 70). doi:10.3115/1117794.1117802
Tseng, Y., Lin, C., and Lin, Y. (2007). Text mining techniques for patent analysis.
Information Processing & Management , 43(5), 1216– 1247.
Tuarob, S., and Tucker, C. S. (2013). Fad or here to stay: Predicting product market
adoption and longevity using large scale, social media data. In Proceedings
of the ASME International Design Engineering Conferences and Computers
and Information in Engineering Conference. Portland, OR. doi:10.1115/
DETC2013-12661
Tuarob, S., and Tucker, C. S. (2014). Discovering next generation product inno-
vations by identifying lead user preferences expressed through large scale
social media data. In Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference .
Buffalo, NY. doi:10.1115/DETC2014-34767
Tuarob, S., and Tucker, C. S. (2015a). Automated discovery of lead users and latent
product features by mining large scale social media networks. Journal of
Mechanical Design , 137(7). doi:10.1115/1.4030049
Tuarob, S., and Tucker, C. S. (2015b). Quantifying product favorability and extract-
ing notable product features using large scale social media data. Journal of
Computing and Information Science in Engineering , 15(3). doi:10.1115/1.4029562
182 Work design: A systematic approach

Tuarob, S., Tucker, C. S., Salathe, M., and Ram, N. (2013). Discovering health-
related knowledge in social media using ensembles of heterogeneous fea-
tures. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Conference
on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’ 13) (pp. 1685– 1690).
doi:10.1145/2505515.2505629
Tucker, C. S., and Kang, S. W. (2012). A bisociative design framework for
knowledge discovery across seemingly unrelated product domains. In
Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference . Chicago, IL. doi:10.1115/
DETC2012-70764
Tucker, C. S., and Kim, H. M. (2011). Trend mining for predictive product design.
Journal of Mechanical Design , 133(11). doi:10.1115/1.4004987
Umeda, Y., Kondoh, S., Shimomura, Y., and Tomiyama, T. (2005). Development of
design methodology for upgradable products based on function-behavior-
state modeling. AIE EDAM , 19(03), 161– 182.
Wei, C.-P., Chen, Y.-M., Yang, C.-S., and Yang, C. C. (2009). Understanding what
concerns consumers: A semantic approach to product feature extraction
from consumer reviews. Information Systems and e-Business Management , 8(2),
149– 167.
Yang, C.-S., Wei, C.-P., and Yang, C. C. (2009). Extracting customer knowledge from
online consumer reviews: A collaborative-filtering-based opinion sentence
identification approach. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference
on Electronic Commerce (pp. 64– 71). New York: The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
Yanhong, L., and Runhua, T. (2007). A text-mining-based patent analysis in prod-
uct innovative process. In N. León-Rovira and S. K. Cho (eds.), Trends in
Computer Aided Innovation (Vol. 250, pp. 89– 96). New York: Springer.
Yassine, A. A., and Braha, D. (2003). Complex concurrent engineering and the
design structure matrix method. Concurrent Engineering , 11(3), 165– 176.
Yoon, B., and Park, Y. (2004). A text-mining-based patent network: Analytical tool
for high-technology trend. Journal of High Technology Management Research ,
15(1), 37– 50.
Zhan, J., Loh, H. T., and Liu, Y. (2009). Gather customer concerns from online
product reviews: A text summarization approach. Expert Systems with
Applications , 36(2), 2107– 2115.
Zhang, X. (Luke), Simpson, T. W., Frecker, M., and Lesieutre, G. (2012). Supporting
knowledge exploration and discovery in multi-dimensional data with inter-
active multiscale visualisation. Journal of Engineering Design , 23(1), 23– 47.
Zhou, F., Jianxin Jiao, R., and Linsey, J. S. (2015). Latent customer needs elicitation
by use case analogical reasoning from sentiment analysis of online product
reviews. Journal of Mechanical Design , 137(7). doi:10.1115/1.4030159.
section five

Work integration
chapter nine

Theoretical framework
for work integration
This chapter presents a theoretical framework to approach the integration
of cognitive work design in manufacturing. The framework is a system-
atic and iterative approach to evaluating and finding a balance for the
cognitive load on the operator to meet work demands.

Cognitive evaluation in manufacturing

Manufacturing is a human-driven transformation process that uses
energy and manpower to produce consumer goods, which includes the
tasks of production, assembly, logistics, planning, maintenance, and qual-
ity management (Spath et al., 2012). Today’s manufacturing and assembly
processes must be flexible in order to adapt quickly to a growing num-
ber of customized product types and changing market demands (Bannat
et al., 2011). Flexible work entails multitasking and rapid changes in work
conditions (Hoc, 2008).
Due to the growing demand for flexible production systems, adaptive
interfaces for the optimal support of production workers in the manufac-
turing environment have become increasingly relevant (Stork et al., 2007).
Therefore, when developing a system to support the operator, it is impor-
tant that the system provides sufficient information at the correct time
so that the operator can receive and process it with minimal effort. For
example, in the manual assembly process, the system must be aware of
the environment and the current state of the product in the manufactur-
ing process in addition to incorporating data on the cognitive processes
involved during manual assembly (Stoessel et al., 2008). Evaluating the
cognitive processes ensures that the support systems do not overload
the operator. In these complex production environments, operators are
required to filter multiple sources of information, attentively decide on
relevant information, incorporate perceptual information with action
goals, monitor these tasks in their working memory, and control their
appropriate response actions (Stork et al., 2007).
In fast-paced manufacturing operations, there is the potential for
operator errors, which are associated with possible safety issues and lost
revenue. Manufacturing operations are moving away from force-focused

185
186 Work design: A systematic approach

physical activity to cognitive control activity (Spath et al., 2012). Cognitive

control activity applies cognitive ergonomics, which studies work pro-
cesses with a focus on understanding a situation in order to support
reliable, effective, and satisfactory performance (Martin et al., 2011). It
assesses problems relative to attention distribution, decision making, the
formation of learning skills, the usability of human– computer systems,
the cognitive aspects of mental load, stress, and human errors during
work (Martin et al., 2011).
Multitasking can be defined as the result of time allocation decisions
that humans make when they are confronted with more than one task
(Benbunan-Fich et al., 2011). It is a common activity in human– machine
interaction; control room operators in the manufacturing industry may
operate a device and monitor several displays at the same time (Wu and
Liu, 2009). Since multitasking has become more prevalent in manufactur-
ing operations, the need for cognitive work analysis must be examined
in human– system design. Also, with the need for increasing production
speeds to maintain global competitiveness, the cognitive limits of human
performance must be considered in work design (Allwood et al., 2016).
This is an important consideration, because both mental overload and
underload are associated with performance degradation, and optimal
work design will keep the workload within performance range, where the
workload is neither too high nor too low (Stanton et al., 2004). This associa-
tion of optimal work design for improved performance coincides with the
findings originally developed by Robert M. Yerkes and John D. Dodson,
in 1908, to measure performance and arousal levels, which affect stress,
anxiety, and motivation. The Yerkes– Dodson law indicates that improved
performance can result from arousal, as long as the arousal levels are not
too low or too high (Teigen, 1994), which can lead to detriment in decision
making as well as performance.
The evaluation of cognitive ergonomics in manufacturing operations
is limited in the literature. However, this topic is pertinent for modern
work design because, according to Allwood et al. (2016, p. 750):

Despite the extraordinary adaptability of human

beings, the speed of their cognitive processes has
limits, and in turn this will provide a limit to the
absolute speed at which manufacturing can occur:
despite extensive “ hype” about robots taking over
human jobs, the reality of the past 40 years of auto-
mation is that robots or other computer operated
systems are less able than humans to respond to
unfamiliar situations, so while highly controlled
and repeatable tasks can be automated, it is unlikely
that manufacturing will ever be independent of
Chapter nine: Theoretical framework for work integration 187

human control, support, innovation, leadership and

repair.

The implication of cognitive ergonomics in manufacturing is that it

can improve the efficiency of the human– machine system; therefore, work
design should incorporate cognitive ergonomic techniques in an effort to
maximize performance.
Performance optimization influences safety in the work environment
and profitability. Table 9.1 presents a few studies that have previously
investigated the topic of cognitive ergonomics in manufacturing.
Although there is a large body of literature on physical ergonomics
for process improvements, the findings on cognitive ergonomics relative
to mental workload (MWL) in manufacturing are limited. This chapter
will present a systematic approach for measuring MWL in manufactur-
ing, using a combination of analytical and empirical techniques. This
approach uses mathematical modeling, along with physiological, subjec-
tive, and performance measures, to evaluate mental load. Mathematical

Table 9.1    Cognitive ergonomics studies in manufacturing

Year of
Authors Publication Methods
Bommer and 2015 Conducted a pilot study to test a framework
Fendley design for MWL resource evaluation in
manufacturing processes
Lindblom and 2014 Developed a framework to evaluate cognitive
Thorvald work environment problems (CWEPs) that
affect cognitive load in manufacturing
Thorvald and 2014 Development of a cognitive load assessment
Lindblom tool to identify risks of tasks in a workstation
design
Tan et al. 2009 Conducted experiments to investigate MWL in
human– robot collaboration (HRC) for cellular
manufacturing
Layer et al. 2009 Developed a predictive algorithm to simulate
the human performance of an individual
(groups of individuals) relative to cognitive
demands and the quality of work life
attributes
Stoessel et al. 2008 Conducted a study to test a cognitive
assistance system for improving performance
in manual assembly tasks
Genaidy and 2003 Developed a framework to guide future
Karwowski research on the impact of lean production
strategies on work demands
188 Work design: A systematic approach

modeling is used to provide early predictions of MWL for evaluating and

improving the human– system design for a shop floor employee. This sys-
tematic approach presents a framework that evaluates the effect of cog-
nitive resources on human performance in manufacturing operations
applying multiple resource theory (MRT) and MWL measures.

Theoretical framework
The Mental Resource Assessment in Manufacturing (M-RAM) frame-
work, presented in Figure 9.1, is made up of six primary steps (Bommer,
2016). In step 1, the manufacturing process is examined to understand
the work system and its task elements. Any of the cognitive task analysis
methods discussed in Chapter 5 can be used as tools for this evaluation,
as well as hierarchical task analysis (HTA), discussed in Chapter 7. Next,
MRT is employed in step 2 to determine the mental resource utilization
required to accomplish the work elements; the MRT scale in the Improved
Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) is applied to this
evaluation. Mathematical modeling is deployed in step 3 to establish the
expected MWL in the work system design. As discussed in Chapter 7,
there are a number of modeling tools that can be used. However, this
framework uses IMPRINT because of its underpinning theory of MRT.
Step 4 applies human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulations to measure MWL
using subjective, performance, and physiological measures (various mea-
sures were discussed in Chapter 6). The engineer or analyst can apply any
methods from those categories that best fit the work system under analy-
sis. During step 5, the data from steps 3 and 4 are analyzed to determine
whether the process is overloaded or underloaded. If there is an MWL
overload, an analysis using MRT should be performed to establish the
attribution of mental resources that are associated with the mental over-
load and/or performance errors. In the event that a mental overload con-
dition is not found, the process is finished. However, if there is a resulting
mental overload condition, the manufacturing system can be redesigned
(step 6) using MRT principles to reduce the resource utilization associated
with the mental overload, and the MRT rating scale will be applied again
to compare the redesigned system resources with the baseline. Similarly,
for capacity planning, if an underloaded mental condition occurs, the pro-
cess can be modified and mapped back to MRT. Once more, the MWL
is measured. This loop carries on until an optimal workload range is
reached. Mitchell (2000) describes optimal workload as “ a situation in
which the operator feels comfortable, can manage task demands intelli-
gently, and maintain good performance” (Hart, 1991, p. 3).
As manufacturing operations move in the direction of more complex
systems and procedures to become more competitive and adaptive to pro-
duction demands, cognitive demands are becoming an integral component
 Start

Step 6
Study work Revise work
design Step 2 design
Work Determine
elements MRT resource
Define task Step 1 ratings
and cognitive Develop
elements HTA

Discrete Step 3 Workload

events Performance predictions
modeling
no

Selectand Step 5
Step 4 Analyze Does load
conduct MWL HITL collected data meet
evaluations: simulation specification ?
subjective,
physiological,
performance
yes
Chapter nine: Theoretical framework for work integration

End

Figure 9.1    M-RAM procedural steps to the framework. (Adapted from S. C. Bommer, A theoretical framework for evaluating mental
workload resources in human systems design for manufacturing operations, 2016.)
189
190 Work design: A systematic approach

for manufacturing operations. Therefore, cognitive models are helpful for

analyzing the operator’ s performance as it relates to MWL while perform-
ing multitasking functions. Theoretical frameworks to assist the develop-
ment of these cognitive models are needed to offer a better understanding
of the human– system interaction that affects an operator’ s MWL.

Framework validation
Pilot study
A pilot study was conducted in the field to assess and support the need
for cognitive-based design in manufacturing. The pilot is described in
detail by Bommer (2016). The framework applied a systematic approach to
evaluating cognitive load in the medical device domain for the production
of a medical surgical implant for humans. After the devices were laser
welded, a postprocessing procedure was required to clean and check the
quality specifications of the parts. This process was repetitive, such that
the same procedure had to be followed each cycle. This study analyzed
a segment of the process: parts cleaning. Process steps for parts cleaning
include mixing acids for proper formulation, dipping parts in chemicals,
and monitoring equipment settings to track proper processing times. To
study the manufacturing system, experienced real-world process opera-
tors who regularly performed the part cleaning process were utilized in
on-site interviews and process walkthroughs for data collection to test the
initial form of the theoretical framework.
Figure 9.2 lists the five primary steps of the systematic approach of the
theoretical framework used in the pilot study. In step 1, the manufactur-
ing process was investigated to acquire information on the work system.
An HTA was completed to understand the task elements that were being
assessed. Next, an applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA) was utilized to
evaluate the cognitive elements in the human system design. The HTA
and ACTA were used jointly to define the process steps and cognitive ele-
ments, which were the discrete events in IMPRINT. During step 2, MRT
was applied using the scale in IMPRINT to assess the mental resources

Step 1 Step 3
Investigate the Step 2 Obtain MWL
work process Apply MRT predictions

Step 4 Step 5
Assess task Modify work
overloads elements

Figure 9.2    Procedural steps of the pilot study.

Chapter nine: Theoretical framework for work integration 191

required for completion of the process task’ s discrete events. This step
assigns MRT ratings for each discrete event itemized in step 1; these rat-
ings were the inputs for IMPRINT. Next, in step 3, MWL predictions were
obtained by simulating the process in IMPRINT. The discrete events, with
their estimated task times, and the MRT ratings for the associated mental
resources were the primary simulation inputs. With these data, IMPRINT
provided the workload predictions and a workload profile for the defined
task. To mitigate a MWL overload condition, an analysis using MRT was
done in step 4 to verify the attribution of mental resources that correlate
with the mental overload. If a mental overload condition was not mea-
sured, this would terminate the process. In the event of a mental over-
load situation, the manufacturing system would be modified, during step
5, based on MRT principles, to reduce the resources contributing to the
mental overload; MRT would then be applied again to compare the modi-
fied system resources with the baseline. Once again, MWL is measured
using IMPRINT. This loop continues until an optimal solution range is
achieved. Once an optimal range is attained, a different variation of work
elements is tested on the shop floor. The different work element variations
and their associated load could be documented to form a cognitive ergo-
nomic index for a quick design reference.
The results of the pilot study predicted that overlapping more than
two inspection tasks during the cleaning process would be unmanage-
able by the operator, because a three-task overlap created a workload that
surpassed the threshold. This means the predicted workload value of a
three-task overlap for inspection could potentially put the operator in a
state of high load, which could potentially create inefficiencies in the pro-
cess. These findings support the idea that the proposed framework could
be applied during the design and setup phases of a process to construct
better operations for evaluating the mental overload of the operator in
repetitive task processes. When evaluating the results of this pilot study,
this model can be valuable for understanding operator MWL resources
in human– machine design. This is useful for the capacity planning of
process setups in systems that have yet to be built and for modifications
to existing systems, to improve the design of the modern manufacturing
processes that necessitate more cognitive demands. Also, more studies
should be performed to validate the appropriate MWL threshold by ana-
lyzing where increased task demands degrade performance.
In the next section, the framework was expanded, as depicted in the
preceding section “ Theoretical Framework,” by adding performance
measures and workload assessments for further validation. Subjective
workload assessment techniques and physiological measures will be used
to verify the mathematical simulation results. In order to gather physi-
ological data to support the subjective workload measures, eye tracking
will be exploited in the next study.
192 Work design: A systematic approach

Laboratory experiment
Bommer (2016) conducted a within-subjects design experiment to vali-
date the M-RAM framework, using a repetitive task simulation composed
of toy building blocks in a laboratory setting at Wright State University
in the Human Performance and Cognition Laboratory. The experiment
was designed and implemented using the process steps and flow of the
M-RAM framework described in “ Theoretical Framework.” The proce-
dural steps of the experiment are outlined in Figure 9.3.
Prior to beginning the experiment, each subject was provided with
a briefing on the test scenarios and procedures. Next, the protocol for
informed consent was followed. For each simulated scenario (i.e., treat-
ment) the subjects were allowed up to 5 minutes to review the work
instructions and train with the toy building blocks and inspection tools.
Toy building blocks were chosen as the experimental apparatus because of
their similarity to an assembly process. During the HITL simulation, the
subjects had to follow a combination of color criteria and use a scale and
caliper to obtain specified inspection measurements. There were different
instructions for each test scenario. The color coding and tool measure-
ments were used to simulate inspection tasks. Next, eye-tracking glasses
were used to collect fixation frequency measures. The eye-tracking system
was calibrated before collecting data from each treatment. Immediately
following each system calibration, an experimental treatment was per-
formed. Each treatment was given a targeted cycle time, although the
process was self-paced. Each cycle was completed five consecutive times
during each treatment. After completing each scenario, the analyst pro-
vided the subject with a NASA-TLX questionnaire to complete. Table 9.2
outlines the dependent and independent variables in the experiment.

Step 2 Step 3
Step 1
Complete Training of
Brief subjects
informed consent subjects

Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

Calibrate eye- Subjects perform Administer
tracking glasses task NASA-TLX

Step 7
Collect and
analyze results

Figure 9.3    Procedural steps of the laboratory experiment.

Chapter nine: Theoretical framework for work integration 193

Table 9.2    Experimental variables

Type Variable Measure
Independent Task complexity Assembly and inspection with tools
Assembly with tools
Assembly and inspection
Assembly only
Dependent Mental workload Subjective: NASA-TLX
Physiological: fixation frequency
Performance: human error probability (HEP)

The independent variable of task complexity was made up of four

levels. The levels consisted of various combinations and quantities of work
elements, including inspection and assembly tasks. The dependent vari-
able of MWL consisted of a measure from the three categories of MWL
discussed in Chapter 6 (subjective, physiological, and performance). Each
of the response variables for this experiment is an element in the theoreti-
cal framework. The process flow of the theoretical framework (Figure 9.1)
was applied to develop and examine the different conditions of the sim-
ulated processes in this experiment. A statistical software package was
used to analyze the response variables. The experimental treatments were
randomized to minimize any nuisance variables.
In summary, this experiment simulated a manual repetitive manufac-
turing process with inspection tasks in a laboratory setting to validate the
M-RAM framework. The framework was validated using mathematical
modeling and MWL measures. As part of the validation, four experimen-
tal scenarios (i.e., treatments) with toy building blocks were used, which
varied in difficulty by the type and number of work elements imposed on
the operator. The key finding of the experiment is that the MWL inputs of
the M-RAM framework all predicted a statistically significant difference
between the different treatment levels for each task modeled. A correla-
tion analysis was conducted to evaluate linearity among the MWL mea-
sures, and two of the three measures were highly correlated, although
all three measures showed significant differences across treatment lev-
els. Therefore, when applying the framework, it is important to use all
the measurement categories to make MWL predictions. The results of the
experimental findings support the hypothesis that the M-RAM frame-
work accurately predicts MWL for repetitive manufacturing tasks.
In addition, the findings of this study highlighted the influence of
inspection tasks on the mental load of an operator during a manual assem-
bly procedure. Although the simulated task would be considered rather
simple, when the inspection tasks were inserted into the work design,
the cognitive load of the operator peaked. An extensive study applying
194 Work design: A systematic approach

this framework (Figure 9.1) could benefit the manufacturing industry by

developing regression models for practical applications to optimize cog-
nitive load in work design, which could improve safety and performance.

Summary
The objective of this M-RAM framework is to present the theory of cogni-
tive ergonomics and its applications to the evaluation of operator MWL
resources in manufacturing operations, which involve repetitive tasks
and require multitasking, in an effort to improve operator performance
and human– system design. This approach provides an alternative method
for system design and work development, as multitasking is becoming
an important function of production processes. Work system design that
requires simple routine procedures must be approached in a different
manner from tasks with higher cognitive load, in order to maintain the
desired levels of performance. Eklund (2000) demonstrates a connection
between workers’ job characteristics, which include physical, physiologi-
cal, cognitive, and other organizational factors, and its associated quality
and productivity performance measures.
The study of cognitive load in manufacturing operations is a relatively
new focus in cognitive ergonomics, and the literature is limited in regard
to this type of cognitive evaluation. Therefore, this framework is vital
for providing a method, which uses MRT as the underpinning theory, of
evaluating and mitigating cognitive load in repetitive task manufacturing
operations that require multitasking. It is an innovative approach in man-
ufacturing for human systems design, because this framework integrates
cognitive load into the manufacturing work design. It is applicable to the
changing demands of the manufacturing industry and can be utilized
throughout various domains. Bommer (2016) first introduced this frame-
work during a pilot study. Since that time, the theoretical framework has
been further developed and validated in laboratory settings, which justi-
fies future work with more extensive studies and validation in the field. In
closing, the concept of cognitive ergonomics finds a balance between the
human’ s cognitive abilities and limitations, as well as the machine, task,
and environment (Kramer, 2009). Therefore, the presented framework is a
tool for finding this balance in work design.

References
Allwood, J. M., Childs, T. H., Clare, A. T., De Silva, A. K., Dhokia, V., Hutchings, I. M.,
et al. (2016). Manufacturing at double the speed. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology , 229, 729– 757.
Bannat, A., Bautze, T., Beetz, M., Blume, J., Diepold, K., Ertelt, C., et al. (2011).
Artificial cognition in production systems. IEEE Transactions on Automation
Science and Engineering , 8(1), 148– 174.
Chapter nine: Theoretical framework for work integration 195

Benbunan-Fich, R., Adler, R. F., and Mavlanova, T. (2011). Measuring multi-tasking

behavior with activity-based metrics. ACM Transactions on Computer– Human
Interaction (TOCHI) , 18(2), 7.
Bommer, S. C. (2016). A theoretical framework for evaluating mental work-
load resources in human systems design for manufacturing operations.
Electronic thesis or dissertation. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu.
Bommer, S. C., and Fendley, M. (2015). Reducing mental workload resources in
human systems design for manufacturing operations. Proceedings of the IIE
Annual Conference 2015, pp. 1654.
Eklund, J. (2000). Development work for quality and ergonomics. Applied
Ergonomics , 31(6), 641– 648.
Genaidy, A. M., and Karwowski, W. (2003). Human performance in lean pro-
duction environment: Critical assessment and research framework.
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 13(4),
317– 330.
Hart, S. G. (1991). Pilots’ workload coping strategies. In AIAA/NASA/FAA/
HFS Conference on Challenges in Aviation Human Factors: The National
Plan.
Hoc, J. (2008). Cognitive ergonomics: A multidisciplinary venture. Ergonomics ,
51(1), 71– 75.
Kramer, A. (2009). An introduction to cognitive ergonomics. Ask Ergo Works.
Retrieved from http://old.askergoworks.com/news/18/Cognitive-Ergonomics-
101-Improving-Mental-Performance.aspx.
Layer, J. K., Karwowski, W., and Furr, A. (2009). The effect of cognitive demands
and perceived quality of work life on human performance in manufac-
turing environments. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics , 39(2),
413– 421.
Lindblom, J., and Thorvald, P. (2014). Towards a framework for reducing cogni-
tive load in manufacturing personnel. Advances in Cognitive Engineering and
Neuroergonomics , 11, 233– 244.
Martin, P. R., Cheung, F. M., Knowles, M. C., Kyrios, M., Littlefield, L., and
Overmier, J. B. (2011). IAAP Handbook of Applied Psychology . Chichester, UK:
John Wiley.
Mitchell, D. K. (2000). Mental workload and ARL workload modeling tools
(Technical Note ARL-TN-161). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army
Research Laboratory.
Spath, D., Braun, M., and Meinken, K. (2012). Human factors in manufacturing.
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (4th ed.), pp. 1643– 1666.
Stanton, N. A., Hedge, A., Brookhuis, K., Salas, E., and Hendrick, H. W. (2004).
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods . Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Stoessel, C., Wiesbeck, M., Stork, S., Zaeh, M. F., and Schuboe, A. (2008). Towards
optimal worker assistance: Investigating cognitive processes in manual
assembly. In Manufacturing Systems and Technologies for the New Frontier ,
pp. 245– 250. London: Springer.
Stork, S., Stobel, C., Muller, H., Wiesbeck, M., Zah, M., and Schubo, A. (2007).
A neuroergonomic approach for the investigation of cognitive processes in
interactive assembly environments. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International
Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) , 2007,
pp. 750– 755.
196 Work design: A systematic approach

Tan, J. T. C., Duan, F., Zhang, Y., Watanabe, K., Kato, R., and Arai, T. (2009).
Human– robot collaboration in cellular manufacturing: Design and devel-
opment. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems , pp. 29– 34.
Teigen, K. H. (1994). Yerkes– Dodson: A law for all seasons. Theory & Psychology ,
4(4), 525– 547.
Thorvald, P., and Lindblom, J. (2014). Initial development of a cognitive load assess-
ment tool. Proceedings of the 5th AHFE International Conference on Applied
Human Factors and Ergonomics, 19– 23 July 2014, Krakow, Poland , pp. 223– 232.
Wu, C., and Liu, Y. (2009). Development and evaluation of an ergonomic soft-
ware package for predicting multiple-task human performance and mental
workload in human– machine interface design and evaluation. Computers &
Industrial Engineering , 56(1), 323– 333.
chapter ten

Project management for

work management
Every work element should be managed as a project. Project management
is work management and vice versa. If they are not managed like projects,
some work elements run the risk of being means to no end. Badiru (2016)
comments, “ It is our natural biological imperative to work [… ] unfortu-
nately there is no imperative for that work to be useful.” Project man-
agement is the process of managing, allocating, and timing resources in
order to achieve a given objective in an expedient manner. The objective
may be stated in terms of time (schedule), performance output (quality), or
cost (budget). It is the process of achieving objectives by utilizing the com-
bined capabilities of available resources. Time is often the most critical
aspect of managing any project. Time is the physical platform on which
project accomplishments are made. So, it must be managed concurrently
with any other important aspects in a project. Project management covers
the following basic functions:

1. Planning
2. Organizing
3. Scheduling
4. Control

The complexity of a project can range from simple, such as the paint-
ing of a vacant room, to very complex, such as the introduction of a new
high-tech product. The technical differences between project types are of
great importance when selecting and applying project management tech-
niques. Figure 10.1 illustrates the various dimensions of the application of
project management to an industrial system.
Project management techniques are widely used in many human
endeavors, such as construction, banking, manufacturing, marketing,
health care, sales, transportation, and research and development, as well
as in academic, legal, political, and government establishments, just to
name a few. In many situations, the on-time completion of a project is of
paramount importance. Delayed or unsuccessful projects not only trans-
late to monetary losses but also impede subsequent undertakings. Project

197
198 Work design: A systematic approach

Planning
Organizing Scheduling

Training Optimization

Project
Risk management management Contract management

Cost control Resource management

Work design Software tools

Performance control

Figure 10.1    Multiple dimensions of project management.

management takes a hierarchical view of a project environment, covering

the following top-down levels:

1. System level
2. Program level
3. Project level
4. Task level
5. Activity level

Project review and selection criteria

Project selection is an essential first step in focusing the efforts of an orga-
nization. Figure 10.2 presents a simple graphical evaluation of project
selection. The vertical axis represents the value-added basis of the project
under consideration, while the horizontal axis represents the level of com-
plexity associated with the project. In this example, value can range from
low to high, while complexity can range from easy to difficult. The figure
shows four quadrants containing regions of high value with high com-
plexity, low value with high complexity, high value with low complexity,
and low value with low complexity. A fuzzy region is identified with an
overlay circle. The organization must evaluate each project on the basis
of overall organization value streams. The figure can be modified to rep-
resent other factors of interest to an organization instead of value-added
and project complexity.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 199

High level

(Decision region)
Go

Value added

No-Go
(Decision region)

Low level
Easy Difficult
region region
Work complexity

Figure 10.2    Project selection quadrant: go or no-go .

Criteria for project review

Some of the specific criteria that may be included in project review and
selection are as follows:

• Cost reduction
• Customer satisfaction
• Process improvement
• Revenue growth
• Operational responsiveness
• Resource utilization
• Project duration
• Execution complexity
• Cross-functional efficiency
• Partnering potential

Hierarchy of work selection

In addition to evaluating an overall project, the elements making up the
project may need to be evaluated on the basis of the following hierarchy.
This will facilitate achieving an integrated project management view of
the organization’ s operations.

• System
• Program
200 Work design: A systematic approach

• Task
• Work packages
• Activity

Sizing of projects
Associating a size measure with an industrial project provides a means
of determining the level of relevance and the effort required. A simple
guideline is as follows:

• Major (over 60 man-months of effort)

• Intermediate (between 6 and 60 man-months)
• Minor (less than 6 man-months)

Planning levels
When selecting projects and their associated work packages, planning
should be done in an integrative and hierarchical manner using the fol-
lowing levels of planning:

• Supra level
• Macro level
• Micro level

Hammersmith’ s project alert scale: Red, yellow, green convention

Hammersmith (2006) presented a guideline alert scale for project tracking
and evaluation. He suggested putting projects into categories of red , yel-
low , or green with the following definitions:

Red : If not corrected, the project will be late and/or over budget.
Yellow : The project is at risk of turning red .
Green : The project is on time and on budget.

Product assurance concept for corporate projects

Product assurance activities will provide the product deliverables
throughout a program development period. These specific activities for
continuous effort are to

1. Track and incorporate specific technologies : The technology manage-

ment task will track pertinent technologies through various means
(e.g., vendor surveys and literature research). More importantly, the
task will determine strategies to incorporate specific technologies.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 201

2. Analyze technology trends and conduct long-range planning : The output

of technology assessments should be used to formulate long-range
policies, directions, and research activities so as to promote longev-
ity and evolution.
3. Encourage government and industry leaders’ participation : In order to
determine a long-term strategy, technical evaluators need to work
closely with government and industry leaders so as to understand
their long-range plans. Technology panels may be formed to encour-
age participation from these leaders.
4. Influence industry directions : As with other development programs,
program management can be used to influence industry directions
and spawn new technologies. Since the effort can be treated as a
model, many technologies and products that have been developed
can be applied to other similar systems.
5. Conduct prototyping work : Prototyping will be used to evaluate the
suitability, feasibility, and cost of incorporating a particular tech-
nology. In essence, it provides a less costly mechanism to test a
technology before significant investment is made in the product
development process. Technologies that are high risk with high pay-
offs should be chosen as the primary subjects for prototyping.

Body-of-knowledge methodology
The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®) is published and
disseminated by the Project Management Institute (PMI). The body of
knowledge comprises specific knowledge areas, which are organized into
the following broad areas:

1. Project integration management

2. Project scope management
3. Project time management
4. Project cost management
5. Project quality management
6. Project human resource management
7. Project communications management
8. Project risk management
9. Project procurement management

These segments of the PMBOK cover the range of functions associ-

ated with any project, particularly complex ones. Multinational projects,
particularly, pose unique challenges pertaining to reliable power supplies,
efficient communication systems, credible government support, depend-
able procurement processes, the consistent availability of technology, pro-
gressive industrial climates, trustworthy risk mitigation infrastructures,
202 Work design: A systematic approach

regular supplies of skilled labor, uniform focus on the quality of work,

global consciousness, hassle-free bureaucratic processes, coherent safety
and security systems, steady law and order, unflinching focus on cus-
tomer satisfaction, and fair labor relations. Assessing and resolving con-
cerns about these issues in a step-by-step fashion will create a foundation
of success for a large project. While no system can be perfect and satisfac-
tory in all aspects, a tolerable trade-off on these factors is essential for
project success.

Components of knowledge areas

The key components of each element of the body of knowledge are as
follows:

• Integration
• Integrative project charters
• Project scope statements
• Project management plans
• Project execution management
• Change control
• Scope management
• Focused scope statements
• Benefit– cost analysis
• Project constraints
• Work breakdown structures
• Responsibility breakdown structures
• Change control
• Time management
• Schedule planning and control
• Program evaluation and review technique (PERT) and Gantt
charts
• Critical path methods
• Network models
• Resource loading
• Reporting
• Cost management
• Financial analysis
• Cost estimating
• Forecasting
• Cost control
• Cost reporting
• Quality management
• Total quality management
• Quality assurance
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 203

• Quality control
• Cost of quality
• Quality conformance
• Human resources management
• Leadership skill development
• Team building
• Motivation
• Conflict management
• Compensation
• Organizational structures
• Communications
• Communication matrices
• Communication vehicles
• Listening and presenting skills
• Communication barriers and facilitators
• Risk management
• Risk identification
• Risk analysis
• Risk mitigation
• Contingency planning
• Procurement and subcontracts
• Material selection
• Vendor prequalification
• Contract types
• Contract risk assessment
• Contract negotiation
• Contract change orders

Step-by-step implementation
The efficacy of the systems approach to project management is based on
step-by-step and component-by-component implementation of the proj-
ect management process. The major knowledge areas of project manage-
ment are administered in a structured outline covering the following six
basic clusters: (1) initiating, (2) planning, (3) executing, (4) monitoring,
(5) controlling, and (6) closing. The implementation clusters represent five
process groups that are followed throughout the project life cycle. Each
cluster itself consists of several functions and operational steps. When
the clusters are overlaid on the nine knowledge areas, we obtain a two-
dimensional matrix that spans 44 major process steps. Table 10.1 shows an
overlay of the project management knowledge areas and the implementa-
tion clusters. The monitoring and controlling clusters are usually admin-
istered as one process group (monitoring and controlling). In some cases,
it may be helpful to separate them to highlight the essential attributes of
 Table 10.1    Overlay of project management areas and implementation clusters
Project management process clusters
204

Knowledge areas Initiating Planning Executing Monitoring and controlling Closing

Project integration Developing the Developing a project Directing and managing Monitoring and controlling
project charter management plan project execution project work
Developing the Integrated change control
preliminary
project scope
Scope Scope planning Scope verification
Scope definition Scope control
Creating a WBS
Time Activity definition Schedule control
Activity sequencing
Activity resource estimating
Activity duration estimating
Schedule development
Cost Cost estimating Cost control
Cost budgeting
Quality Quality planning Performing quality assurance Performing quality control
Human resources Human resource planning Acquiring the project team Managing project team
Developing the project team
Communication Communication planning Information distribution Performance reporting
Stakeholder management
Risk Risk management planning Risk monitoring and control
Risk identification
Qualitative risk analysis
Quantitative risk analysis
Risk response planning
Procurement Planning purchases and Requesting seller responses Contract administration Contract
acquisitions closure
Work design: A systematic approach

Planning contracting Selecting sellers

Chapter ten: Project management for work management 205

each cluster of functions over the project life cycle. In practice, the pro-
cesses and clusters do overlap. Thus, there is no crisp demarcation of
when and where one process ends and where another one begins over the
project life cycle. In general, the project life cycle defines the following:

1. Resources that will be needed in each phase of the project life cycle
2. Specific work to be accomplished in each phase of the project life cycle

It should be noted that project life cycle is distinguished from prod-

uct life cycle. The project life cycle does not explicitly address operational
issues, whereas the product life cycle mostly concerns operational issues
from the product’ s delivery to the end of its useful life. Note that for sci-
ence, technology, and engineering (STE) projects, the shape of the life
cycle curve may be expedited due to the rapid developments that often
occur in STE activities. For example, for a high-tech project, the entire life
cycle may be shortened, with a very rapid initial phase, even though the
conceptualization stage may be very long. Typical characteristics of a proj-
ect life cycle include the following:

1. Cost and staffing requirements are lowest at the beginning of the

project and ramp-up during the initial and development stages.
2. The probability of successfully completing the project is lowest at the
beginning and highest at the end. This is because many unknowns
(risks and uncertainties) exist at the beginning of the project. As
the project nears its end, there are fewer opportunities for risks and
uncertainties.
3. The risks to the project organization (project owner) are lowest at the
beginning and highest at the end. This is because not much invest-
ment has gone into the project at the beginning, whereas much has
been committed by the end of the project. There is a higher sunk cost
manifested at the end of the project.
4. The ability of the stakeholders to influence the final project outcome
(cost, quality, and schedule) is highest at the beginning and becomes
progressively lower toward the end of the project. This is intuitive
because influence is best exerted at the beginning of an endeavor.
5. The value of scope changes decreases over time during the project
life cycle, while the cost of scope changes increases over time. The
suggestion is to decide and finalize scope as early as possible. If
there are to be scope changes, make them as early as possible.

Project systems structure

The overall execution of a project management system is outlined in the
following sections.
206 Work design: A systematic approach

Problem identification
Problem identification is the stage where a need for a proposed project
is identified, defined, and justified. A project may be concerned with the
development of new products, the implementation of new processes, or
the improvement of existing facilities.

Project definition
Project definition is the phase at which the purpose of the project is clari-
fied. A mission statement is the major output of this stage. For example,
a prevailing low level of productivity may indicate a need for a new
manufacturing technology. In general, the definition should specify how
project management may be used to avoid missed deadlines, poor sched-
uling, inadequate resource allocation, lack of coordination, poor quality,
and conflicting priorities.

Project planning
A plan represents the outline of the series of actions needed to accom-
plish a goal. Project planning determines how to initiate a project and
execute its objectives. It may be a simple statement of a project goal or it
may be a detailed account of procedures to be followed during the project.
Planning can be summarized as

• Objectives
• Project definition
• Team organization
• Performance criteria (time, cost, quality)

Project organization
Project organization specifies how to integrate the functions of the per-
sonnel involved in a project. Organizing is usually done concurrently
with project planning. Directing is an important aspect of project orga-
nization. Directing involves guiding and supervising the project person-
nel. It is a crucial aspect of the management function. Directing requires
skillful managers who can interact with subordinates effectively through
good communication and motivation techniques. A good project manager
will facilitate project success by directing his or her staff, through proper
task assignments, toward the project goal.
Workers perform better when there are clearly defined expectations.
They need to know how their job functions contribute to the overall goals
of the project. Workers should be given some flexibility for self-direction
in performing their functions. Individual worker needs and limitations
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 207

should be recognized by the manager when directing project functions.

Directing a project requires skills dealing with motivating, supervising,
and delegating.

Resource allocation
Project goals and objectives are accomplished by allocating resources to
functional requirements. Resources can consist of money, people, equip-
ment, tools, facilities, information, skills, and so on. These are usually in
short supply. The people needed for a particular task may be committed
to other ongoing projects. A crucial piece of equipment may be under the
control of another team.

Project scheduling
Timeliness is the essence of project management, and scheduling is often
the major focus. The main purpose of scheduling is to allocate resources
so that the overall project objectives are achieved within a reasonable time
span. Project objectives are generally conflicting in nature. For example,
the minimization of the project completion time and the minimization
of the project costs are conflicting objectives. That is, one objective is
improved at the expense of worsening the other. Therefore, project sched-
uling is a multiple-objective decision-making problem.
In general, scheduling involves the assignment of time periods to
specific tasks within the work schedule. Resource availability, time limi-
tations, urgency levels, required performance levels, precedence require-
ments, work priorities, technical constraints, and other factors complicate
the scheduling process. Thus, the assignment of a time slot to a task does
not necessarily ensure that the task will be performed satisfactorily in
accordance with the schedule. Consequently, careful control must be
developed and maintained throughout the project-scheduling process.

Project tracking and reporting

This phase involves checking whether or not project results conform to
project plans and performance specifications. Tracking and reporting are
prerequisites for project control. A properly organized report of the proj-
ect status will help identify any deficiencies in the progress of the project
and help pinpoint corrective actions.

Project control
Project control requires that appropriate actions be taken to correct unac-
ceptable deviations from expected performance. Control is actuated
through measurement, evaluation, and corrective action. Measurement is
208 Work design: A systematic approach

the process of measuring the relationship between planned performance

and actual performance with respect to project objectives. The variables
to be measured, the measurement scales, and the measuring approaches
should be clearly specified during the planning stage. Corrective actions
may involve rescheduling, the reallocation of resources, or the expedition
of task performance. Control involves

• Tracking and reporting

• Measurement and evaluation
• Corrective action (plan revision, rescheduling, updating)

Project termination
Termination is the last stage of a project. The phase-out of a project is as
important as its initiation. The termination of a project should be imple-
mented expeditiously; it should not be allowed to drag on after the expected
completion time. A terminal activity should be defined for the project dur-
ing the planning phase. An example of a terminal activity may be the sub-
mission of a final report, the powering on of new equipment, or the signing
of a release order. The conclusion of such an activity should be viewed as
the completion of the project. Arrangements may be made for follow-up
activities that may improve or extend the outcome of the project. These
follow-up or spin-off projects should be managed as new projects but with
proper input– output relationships within the sequence of projects.

Project systems implementation outline

The traditional project management framework encompasses the follow-
ing broad sequence of categories (Badiru et al. 2008):

Planning → Organizing → Scheduling → Control → Termination

An outline of the functions to be carried out during a project should

be made during the planning stage. A model of this outline follows. It
may be necessary to rearrange the contents of the outline to fit the specific
needs of the project.

Planning
1. Specify the project background.
a. Define the current situation and process.
i. Understand the process.
ii. Identify important variables.
iii. Quantify variables.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 209

b. Identify areas for improvement.

i. List and discuss the areas.
ii. Study potential strategies for a solution.
2. Define unique terminologies relevant to the project.
a. Industry-specific terminologies.
b. Company-specific terminologies.
c. Project-specific terminologies.
3. Define the project goal and objectives.
a. Write a mission statement.
b. Solicit inputs and ideas from personnel.
4. Establish performance standards.
a. Schedule.
b. Performance.
c. Cost.
5. Conduct a formal project feasibility study.
a. Determine the impact on cost.
b. Determine the impact on organization.
c. Determine the project deliverables.
6. Secure management support.

Organizing
1. Identify the project management team.
a. Specify the project organization structure.
i. Matrix structure.
ii. Formal and informal structures.
iii. Justify the structure.
b. Specify the departments involved and key personnel.
i. Purchasing.
ii. Materials management.
iii. Engineering, design, manufacturing, and so on.
c. Define the project management responsibilities.
i. Select the project manager.
ii. Write the project charter.
iii. Establish the project policies and procedures.
2. Implement the Triple C model.
a. Communication.
i. Determine communication interfaces.
ii. Develop a communication matrix.
b. Cooperation.
i. Outline the cooperation requirements, policies, and
procedures.
210 Work design: A systematic approach

c. Coordination.
i. Develop a work breakdown structure.
ii. Assign task responsibilities.
iii. Develop a responsibility chart.

Scheduling (resource allocation)

1. Develop a master schedule.
a. Estimate the task duration.
b. Identify task precedence requirements.
i. Technical precedence.
ii. Resource-imposed precedence.
iii. Procedural precedence.
c. Use analytical models.
i. Critical path method (CPM).
ii. PERT.
iii. Gantt chart.
iv. Optimization models.

Control (tracking, reporting, and correction)

1. Establish guidelines for tracking, reporting, and control.
a. Define data requirements.
i. Data categories.
ii. Data characterization.
iii. Measurement scales.
b. Develop data documentation.
i. Data update requirements.
ii. Data quality control.
iii. Establish data security measures.
2. Categorize the control points.
a. Schedule an audit.
i. Activity network and Gantt charts.
ii. Milestones.
iii. Delivery schedule.
b. Performance audit.
i. Employee performance.
ii. Product quality.
c. Cost audit.
i. Cost containment measures.
ii. Percent completion versus budget depletion.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 211

3. Identify the implementation process.

a. Comparison with targeted schedules.
b. Corrective course of action.
i. Rescheduling.
ii. Reallocation of resources.

Termination (close, phase-out)

1. Conduct a performance review.
2. Develop a strategy for follow-up projects.
3. Arrange for personnel retention, release, and reassignment.

Documentation
1. Document the project outcome.
2. Submit the final report.
3. Archive the report for future reference.

Systems decision analysis

Systems decision analysis facilitates proper consideration of the essen-
tial elements of decisions in a project systems environment. These essen-
tial elements include the problem statement, the data and information
requirements, the performance measure, the decision model, and the
implementation of the decision. The recommended steps are described in
the following sections.

Step 1. Problem statement

Solving a problem involves choosing between competing, and probably
conflicting, alternatives. The components of problem solving in project
management include

• Describing the problem (goals, performance measures)

• Defining a model to represent the problem
• Solving the model
• Testing the solution
• Implementing and maintaining the solution

Problem definition is very crucial. In many cases, the symptoms of a

problem are more readily recognized than its cause and location . Even after
the problem is accurately identified and defined, a benefit– cost analysis
may be needed to determine if the cost of solving the problem is justified.
212 Work design: A systematic approach

Step 2. Data and information requirements

Information is the driving force of the project decision process. Information
clarifies the relative states of past, present, and future events. The col-
lection, storage, retrieval, organization, and processing of raw data are
important components of information generation. Without data, there
can be no information. Without good information, there cannot be a valid
decision. The essential requirements for generating information are

• Ensuring that an effective data collection procedure is followed

• Determining the type and the appropriate amount of data to collect
• Evaluating the data collected with respect to information potential
• Evaluating the cost of collecting the required data

For example, suppose a manager is presented with a recorded fact that

says, “ Sales for the last quarter are 10,000 units.” This constitutes ordinary
data. There are many ways of using these data to make a decision depend-
ing on the manager’ s value system. An analyst, however, can ensure the
proper use of the data by transforming it into information, such as “ Sales
of 10,000 units for last quarter are within x % of the targeted value.” This
type of information is more useful to the manager for decision making.

Step 3. Performance measure

A performance measure for the competing alternatives should be speci-
fied. The decision maker assigns a perceived worth or value to the avail-
able alternatives. Setting a measure of performance is crucial to the
process of defining and selecting alternatives. Some performance mea-
sures commonly used in project management are project cost, completion
time, resource usage, and stability in the workforce.

Step 4. Decision model

A decision model provides the basis for the analysis and synthesis of
information and is the mechanism by which competing alternatives are
compared. To be effective, a decision model must be based on a systematic
and logical framework for guiding project decisions. A decision model
can be a verbal, graphical, or mathematical representation of the ideas in
the decision-making process. A project decision model should have the
following characteristics:

• A simplified representation of the actual situation

• An explanation and prediction of the actual situation
• Validity and appropriateness
• Applicability to similar problems
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 213

The formulation of a decision model involves three essential

components.

• Abstraction : Determining the relevant factors

• Construction : Combining the factors into a logical model
• Validation : Assuring that the model adequately represents the
problem

The basic types of decision models for project management are as

follows:

• Descriptive models . These models are directed at describing a deci-

sion scenario and identifying the associated problem. For example,
a project analyst might use a CPM network model to identify bottle-
neck tasks in a project.
• Prescriptive models . These models furnish procedural guidelines for
implementing actions. The Triple C approach (Badiru, 2008), for
example, is a model that prescribes the procedures for achieving
communication , cooperation , and coordination in a project environment.
• Predictive models . These models are used to predict future events
in a problem environment. They are typically based on historical
data about the problem situation. For example, a regression model
based on past data may be used to predict future productivity gains
associated with expected levels of resource allocation. Simulation
models can be used when uncertainties exist in the task durations or
resource requirements.
• Satisficing models . These are models that provide trade-off strate-
gies for achieving a satisfactory solution to a problem within given
constraints. Goal programming and other multicriteria techniques
provide good satisficing solutions. For example, these models are
helpful in cases where time limitations, resource shortages, and per-
formance requirements constrain the implementation of a project.
• Optimization models . These models are designed to find the best
available solution to a problem, subject to a certain set of constraints.
For example, a linear programming model can be used to determine
the optimal product mix in a production environment.

In many situations, two or more of the preceding models may be involved

in the solution of a problem. For example, a descriptive model might provide
insights into the nature of the problem; an optimization model might pro-
vide the optimal set of actions to take in solving the problem; a satisficing
model might temper the optimal solution with reality; a prescriptive model
might suggest the procedures for implementing the selected solution; and a
predictive model might present a projection of what to expect in the future.
214 Work design: A systematic approach

Step 5. Making the decision

Using the available data, information, and decision model, the decision
maker will determine the real-world actions that are needed to solve the
stated problem. A sensitivity analysis may be useful for determining what
changes in parameter values might cause a change in the decision.

Step 6. Implementing the decision

A decision represents the selection of an alternative that satisfies the
objective stated in the problem statement. A good decision is useless until
it is implemented. An important aspect of a decision is to specify how it
is to be implemented. Selling the decision and the project to management
requires a well-organized, persuasive presentation. The way a decision
is presented can directly influence whether or not it is adopted. The pre-
sentation of a decision should include at least the following: an executive
summary, the technical aspects of the decision, the managerial aspects of
the decision, the resources required to implement the decision, the cost of
the decision, the time frame for implementing the decision, and the risks
associated with the decision.

Group decision making

Systems decisions are often complex, diffuse, distributed, and poorly
understood. No one person has all the information to make all decisions
accurately. As a result, crucial decisions are made by a group of people.
Some organizations use outside consultants with the appropriate expertise
to make recommendations for important decisions. Other organizations
set up their own internal consulting groups without having to go outside
the organization. Decisions can be made through linear responsibility;
in which case, one person makes the final decision based on inputs from
other people. Decisions can also be made through shared responsibility;
in which case, a group of people share the responsibility for making joint
decisions. The major advantages of group decision making are as follows:

1. The facilitation of a systems view of the problem environment.

2. The ability to share experience, knowledge, and resources. Many
heads are better than one. A group will possess greater collective
ability to solve a given decision problem.
3. Increased credibility. Decisions made by a group of people often
carry more weight in an organization.
4. Improved morale. Personnel morale can be positively influenced
because many people have the opportunity to participate in the
decision-making process.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 215

5. Better rationalization. The opportunity to observe other people’ s

views can lead to an improvement in an individual’ s reasoning
process.
6. The ability to accumulate more knowledge and facts from diverse
sources.
7. Access to broader perspectives spanning different problem scenarios.
8. The ability to generate and consider alternatives from different
perspectives.
9. The possibility of broad-based involvement, leading to a higher like-
lihood of support.
10. The possibility of group leverage for networking, communication,
and political clout.

In spite of the much-desired advantages, group decision making does

pose the risk of flaws. Some possible disadvantages of group decision
making are as follows:

1. Difficulty in arriving at a decision

2. A slow operating time frame
3. The possibility of individuals having conflicting views and objectives
4. The reluctance of some individuals in implementing the decision
5. The potential for power struggles and conflicts within the group
6. A loss of productive employee time
7. Too much compromise, leading to less than optimal group output
8. The risk of one individual dominating the group
9. Overreliance on the group process, impeding the agility of manage-
ment to make fast decisions
10. The risk of people dragging their feet due to repeated and iterative
group meetings

Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a way of generating many new ideas. In brainstorming,
the decision group comes together to discuss alternate ways of solving
a problem. The members of the brainstorming group may be from dif-
ferent departments, may have different backgrounds and training, and
may not even know one another. The diversity of the participants helps
create a stimulating environment for generating different ideas from dif-
ferent viewpoints. The technique encourages the free outward expression
of new ideas, no matter how far fetched they might appear. No criticism of
any new idea is permitted during the brainstorming session.
A major concern in brainstorming is that extroverts may take control.
For this reason, an experienced and respected individual should manage
the discussions. The group leader establishes the procedure for proposing
216 Work design: A systematic approach

ideas, keeps the discussions in line with the group’ s mission, discourages
disruptive statements, and encourages the participation of all members.
After the group has run out of ideas, open discussions are held to
weed out the unsuitable ones. It is to be expected that even rejected ideas
may eventually stimulate the generation of other more favorable ideas.
Guidelines for improving brainstorming sessions are as follows:

• Focus on a specific decision problem.

• Keep ideas relevant to the intended decision.
• Be receptive to all new ideas.
• Evaluate the ideas on a relative basis after exhausting new ideas.
• Maintain an atmosphere conducive to cooperative discussions.
• Maintain a record of the ideas generated.

Delphi method
The traditional approach to group decision making is to obtain the opin-
ion of experienced participants through open discussions. An attempt is
made to reach a consensus among the participants. However, open group
discussions are often biased because of the influence of subtle intimida-
tion from dominant individuals. Even when the threat of a dominant indi-
vidual is not present, opinions may still be swayed by group pressure.
This is called the bandwagon effect of group decision making.
The Delphi method attempts to overcome these difficulties by requir-
ing individuals to present their opinions anonymously through an inter-
mediary. The method differs from other interactive group methods
because it eliminates face-to-face confrontations. It was originally devel-
oped for forecasting applications, but it has been modified in various ways
for application to different types of decision making. The method can be
quite useful for project management decisions. It is particularly effec-
tive when decisions must be based on a broad set of factors. The Delphi
method is normally implemented as follows:

1. Problem definition . A decision problem that is considered significant

is identified and clearly described.
2. Group selection . An appropriate group of experts or experienced indi-
viduals is formed to address the particular decision problem. Both
internal and external experts may be involved in the Delphi process.
A leading individual is appointed to serve as the administrator of
the decision process. The group may operate through correspon-
dence or gather together in a room. In either case, all opinions are
expressed anonymously. If the group meets in the same room, care
should be taken to provide enough room so that each member does
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 217

not have the feeling that someone may accidentally or deliberately

observe their responses.
3. Initial opinion poll . The technique is initiated by describing the prob-
lem to be addressed in unambiguous terms. The group members are
requested to submit a list of major concerns in their specialty areas
as they relate to the decision problem.
4. Questionnaire design and distribution . Questionnaires are prepared
to address the areas of concern related to the decision problem.
The written responses to the questionnaires are collected and
organized by the administrator. The administrator aggregates the
responses in a statistical format. For example, the average, mode,
and median of the responses may be computed. This analysis is
distributed to the decision group. Each member can then see how
his or her responses compare with the anonymous views of the
other members.
5. Iterative balloting . Additional questionnaires based on the previous
responses are passed to the members. The members submit their
responses again. They may choose to alter or not to alter their previ-
ous responses.
6. Silent discussions and consensus . The iterative balloting may involve
anonymous written discussions of why some responses are correct
or incorrect. The process is continued until a consensus is reached.
A consensus may be declared after five or six iterations of the ballot-
ing or when a specified percentage (e.g., 80%) of the group agrees on
the questionnaires. If a consensus cannot be declared on a particular
point, it may be displayed to the whole group with a note that it does
not represent a consensus.

In addition to its use in technological forecasting, the Delphi method

has been widely used in other general decision making. Its major char-
acteristics— the anonymity of responses, the statistical summary of
responses, and the controlled procedure— make it a reliable mechanism
for obtaining numeric data from subjective opinion. The major limitations
of the Delphi method are as follows:

1. Its effectiveness may be limited in cultures where strict hierarchy,

seniority, and age influence decision-making processes.
2. Some experts may not readily accept the contribution of nonexperts
to the group decision-making process.
3. Since opinions are expressed anonymously, some members may
take the liberty of making ludicrous statements. However, if the
group composition is carefully reviewed, this problem may be
avoided.
218 Work design: A systematic approach

Nominal group technique

The nominal group technique is a silent version of brainstorming. It is a
method of reaching consensus. Rather than asking people to state their
ideas aloud, the team leader asks each member to jot down a minimum
number of ideas— for example, five or six. A single list of ideas is then
written on a chalkboard for the whole group to see. The group then dis-
cusses the ideas and weeds out some iteratively until a final decision is
made. The nominal group technique is easier to control. Unlike brain-
storming, where members may get into shouting matches, the nominal
group technique permits members to silently present their views. In addi-
tion, it allows introverted members to contribute to the decision without
the pressure of having to speak out too often.
In all of the group decision-making techniques, an important aspect
that can enhance and expedite the decision-making process is to require
that members review all pertinent data before coming to the group meet-
ing. This will ensure that the decision process is not impeded by trivial
preliminary discussions. Some disadvantages of group decision making
are as follows:

1. Peer pressure in a group situation may influence a member’ s opin-

ions or discussions.
2. In a large group, some members may not get to participate effec-
tively in the discussions.
3. A member’ s relative reputation in the group may influence how well
his or her opinion is rated.
4. A member with a dominant personality may overwhelm other
members in the discussions.
5. The limited time available to the group may create pressure that
forces some members to present their opinions without fully evalu-
ating the ramifications of the available data.
6. It is often difficult to get all members of a decision group together at
the same time.

Despite the noted disadvantages, group decision making has many

definite advantages that may nullify the shortcomings. The advantages
as presented earlier will have varying levels of effect from one organiza-
tion to another. The Triple C approach (Badiru, 2008) may also be used
to improve the success of decision teams. Teamwork can be enhanced in
group decision making by adhering to the following guidelines:

1. Get a willing group of people together.

2. Set an achievable goal for the group.
3. Determine the limitations of the group.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 219

4. Develop a set of guiding rules for the group.

5. Create an atmosphere conducive to group synergism.
6. Identify the questions to be addressed in advance.
7. Plan to address only one topic per meeting.

For major decisions and long-term group activities, arrange for team
training that allows the group to learn the decision rules and responsibili-
ties together. The steps for the nominal group technique are

1. Silently generate ideas in writing.

2. Record ideas without discussion.
3. Conduct group discussion for the clarification of meaning, not
argument.
4. Vote to establish the priority or rank of each item.
5. Discuss the vote.
6. Cast the final vote.

Interviews, surveys, and questionnaires

Interviews, surveys, and questionnaires are important information-gath-
ering techniques. They also foster cooperative working relationships. They
encourage direct participation and inputs into project decision-making
processes. They provide an opportunity for employees at the lower levels
of an organization to contribute ideas and inputs for decision making.
The greater the number of people involved in the interviews, surveys, and
questionnaires, the more valid the final decision. The following guide-
lines are useful for conducting interviews, surveys, and questionnaires to
collect data and information for project decisions.

1. Collect and organize background information and supporting

documents on the items to be covered by the interview, survey, or
questionnaire.
2. Outline the items to be covered and list the major questions to be
asked.
3. Use a suitable medium of interaction and communication: tele-
phone, fax, e-mail, face to face, observation, meeting venue, poster,
or memo.
4. Tell the respondent the purpose of the interview, survey, or ques-
tionnaire, and indicate how long it will take.
5. Use open-ended questions that stimulate ideas from the respondents.
6. Minimize the use of yes/no questions.
7. Encourage expressive statements that indicate the respondent’ s
views.
220 Work design: A systematic approach

8. Use the who, what, where, when, why, and how approach to elicit spe-
cific information.
9. Thank the respondents for their participation.
10. Let the respondents know the outcome of the exercise.

Multivoting
Multivoting is a series of votes used to arrive at a group decision. It can
be used to assign priorities to a list of items. It can be used at team meet-
ings after a brainstorming session has generated a long list of items.
Multivoting helps reduce such long lists to a few items, usually three to
five. The steps for multivoting are

1. Take a first vote. Each person votes as many times as desired, but
only once per item.
2. Circle the items receiving a relatively higher number of votes than
the other items (i.e., a majority vote).
3. Take a second vote. Each person votes for a number of items equal
to one-half the total number of items circled in step 2. Only one vote
per item is permitted.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the list is reduced to three to five items
depending on the needs of the group. It is not recommended to mul-
tivote down to only one item.
5. Perform further analysis of the items selected in step 4, if needed.

Project systems hierarchy

To reemphasize the general systems hierarchy presented in Chapter 1, this
section discusses systems hierarchy within the specific context of project
systems hierarchy.
The traditional concepts of systems analysis are applicable to the proj-
ect process. The definitions of a project system and its components are as
follows:

• System . A project system consists of interrelated elements orga-

nized for the purpose of achieving a common goal. The elements
are organized to work synergistically to generate a unified out-
put that is greater than the sum of the individual outputs of the
components.
• Program . A program is a very large and prolonged undertaking.
Such endeavors often span several years. Programs are usually asso-
ciated with particular systems. For example, we may have a space
exploration program within a national defense system.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 221

• Project . A project is a time-phased effort of much smaller scope and

duration than a program. Programs are sometimes viewed as con-
sisting of a set of projects. Government projects are often called pro-
grams because of their broad and comprehensive nature. Industry
tends to use the term project because of the short-term and focused
nature of most industrial efforts.
• Task . A task is a functional element of a project. A project is composed
of a sequence of tasks that all contribute to the overall project goal.
• Activity . An activity can be defined as a single element of a project.
Activities are generally smaller in scope than tasks. In a detailed
analysis of a project, an activity may be viewed as the smallest, most
practically indivisible work element of the project. For example,
we can regard a manufacturing plant as a system. A plant-wide
endeavor to improve productivity can be viewed as a program. The
installation of a flexible manufacturing system is a project within
the productivity improvement program. The process of identifying
and selecting equipment vendors is a task, and the actual process of
placing an order with a preferred vendor is an activity.

The emergence of systems development has had an extensive effect on

project management in recent years. A system can be defined as a collec-
tion of interrelated elements brought together to achieve a specified objec-
tive. In a management context, the purposes of a system are to develop and
manage operational procedures and to facilitate an effective decision-mak-
ing process. Some of the most common characteristics of a system include

1. Interaction with the environment

2. Objectives
3. Self-regulation
4. Self-adjustment

Representative components of a project system are the organiza-

tional, planning, scheduling, information management, control, and proj-
ect delivery subsystems. The primary responsibilities of project analysts
involve ensuring the proper flow of information throughout the project
system. The classical approach to the decision process follows rigid lines
of organizational charts. By contrast, the systems approach considers all
the interactions necessary among the various elements of an organization
in the decision process.
The various elements (or subsystems) of the organization act simulta-
neously in a separate but interrelated fashion to achieve a common goal.
This synergism helps to expedite the decision process and to enhance the
effectiveness of decisions. The supporting commitments from other sub-
systems of the organization serve to counterbalance the weaknesses of a
222 Work design: A systematic approach

given subsystem. Thus, the overall effectiveness of the system is greater

than the sum of the individual results from the subsystems.
The increasing complexity of organizations and projects makes the
systems approach essential management environment. As the number
of complex projects increase, there will be an increasing need for proj-
ect management professionals who can function as systems integrators.
Project management techniques can be applied to the various stages of
implementing a system as shown in the following guidelines:

1. Systems definition : Define the system and associated problems using

keywords that signify the importance of the problem to the overall
organization. Locate experts in this area who are willing to contrib-
ute to the effort. Prepare and announce the development plan.
2. Personnel assignment: The project group and the respective tasks should
be announced, a qualified project manager should be appointed, and
a solid line of command should be established and enforced.
3. Project initiation : Arrange an organizational meeting, during which
a general approach to the problem should be discussed. Prepare a
specific development plan and arrange for the installation of the
required hardware and tools.
4. System prototype : Develop a prototype system, test it, and learn more
about the problem from the test results.
5. Full system development : Expand the prototype to a full system, eval-
uate the user interface structure, and incorporate user training facili-
ties and documentation.
6. System verification : Involve experts and potential users, ensure that
the system performs as designed, and debug the system as needed.
7. System validation : Ensure that the system yields the expected out-
puts. Validate the system by evaluating performance levels, such as
the percentage of success in so many trials, measuring the level of
deviation from expected outputs, and measuring the effectiveness of
the system output in solving the problem.
8. System integration : Implement the full system as planned, ensure the
system can coexist with systems already in operation, and arrange
for technology transfer to other projects.
9. System maintenance : Arrange for the continuing maintenance of the
system. Update solution procedures as new pieces of information
become available. Retain responsibility for system performance or
delegate to well-trained and authorized personnel.
10. Documentation : Prepare full documentation of the system, prepare a
user’ s guide, and appoint a user consultant.

Systems integration permits the sharing of resources, such as physi-

cal equipment, concepts, information, and skills. Systems integration is
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 223

now a major concern of many organizations. Even some of the organi-

zations that traditionally compete and typically shun cooperative efforts
are beginning to appreciate the value of integrating their operations. For
these reasons, systems integration has emerged as a major interest in busi-
ness. Systems integration may involve the physical integration of techni-
cal components, the objective integration of operations, the conceptual
integration of management processes, or a combination of any of these.
Systems integration involves the linking of components to form sub-
systems and the linking of subsystems to form composite systems within
a single department and/or across departments. It facilitates the coordina-
tion of technical and managerial efforts to enhance organizational func-
tions, reduce cost, save energy, improve productivity, and increase the
utilization of resources. Systems integration emphasizes the identification
and coordination of the interface requirements among the components
in an integrated system. The components and subsystems operate syner-
gistically to optimize the performance of the total system. Systems inte-
gration ensures that all performance goals are satisfied with a minimum
expenditure of time and resources. Integration can be achieved in several
forms including the following:

1. Dual-use integration : This involves the use of a single component by

separate subsystems to reduce both the initial cost and the operating
cost during the project life cycle.
2. Dynamic resource integration : This involves integrating the resource
flows of two normally separate subsystems so that the resource
flow from one to or through the other minimizes the total resource
requirements in a project.
3. Restructuring of functions : This involves the restructuring of func-
tions and the reintegration of subsystems to optimize costs when a
new subsystem is introduced into the project environment.

Systems integration is particularly important when introducing new

technology into an existing system. It involves coordinating new opera-
tions to coexist with existing operations. It may require the adjustment
of functions to permit the sharing of resources, the development of new
policies to accommodate product integration, or the realignment of mana-
gerial responsibilities. It can affect both the hardware and software com-
ponents of an organization. The following guidelines and questions are
relevant to systems integration.

• What are the unique characteristics of each component in the inte-

grated system?
• How do the characteristics complement one another?
• What physical interfaces exist among the components?
224 Work design: A systematic approach

• What data/information interfaces exist among the components?

• What ideological differences exist among the components?
• What are the data flow requirements for the components?
• Are there similar integrated systems operating elsewhere?
• What are the reporting requirements in the integrated system?
• Are there any hierarchical restrictions on the operations of the com-
ponents of the integrated system?
• What internal and external factors are expected to influence the inte-
grated system?
• How can the performance of the integrated system be measured?
• What benefit– cost documentations are required for the integrated
system?
• What is the cost of designing and implementing the integrated
system?
• What are the relative priorities assigned to each component of the
integrated system?
• What are the strengths of the integrated system?
• What are the weaknesses of the integrated system?
• What resources are needed to keep the integrated system operating
satisfactorily?
• Which section of the organization will have primary responsibility
for the operation of the integrated system?
• What are the quality specifications and requirements for the inte-
grated systems?

The integrated approach to project management starts with a manage-

rial analysis of the project effort. Goals and objectives are defined, a mis-
sion statement is written, and the statement of work is developed. After
these, traditional project management approaches, such as the selection
of an organization structure, are employed. Conventional analytical tools,
including the CPM and the precedence diagramming method (PDM), are
then mobilized. The use of optimization models is then appropriate. Some
of the parameters to be optimized are cost, resource allocation, and sched-
ule length. It should be understood that not all project parameters will
be amenable to optimization. Commercial project management software
should only be used after the managerial functions have been completed.
Some project management software has built-in capabilities for planning
and optimization needs.
A frequent mistake in project management is the rush to use project
management software without first completing the planning and analyti-
cal studies required by the project. Project management software should
be used as a management tool, the same way a word processor is used as a
writing tool. Using a word processor will be ineffective without first orga-
nizing one’ s thoughts about what is to be written. Project management is
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 225

much more than just the software. If project management is carried out in
accordance with the integration approach presented in the flowchart, the
odds of success will be increased. Of course, the structure of the flowchart
should not be rigid. Flows and interfaces among the blocks in the flow-
chart may need to be altered or modified depending on specific project
needs.

Work breakdown structure

Work breakdown structure (WBS) refers to the itemization of a project for
planning, scheduling, and control purposes. It presents the inherent com-
ponents of a project in a structured block diagram or interrelationship
flow chart. A WBS shows the relative hierarchies of the parts (phases, seg-
ments, milestone, etc.) of a project. The purpose of constructing a WBS is
to analyze the elemental components of the project in detail. If a project is
properly designed through the application of a WBS at the project plan-
ning stage, it becomes easier to estimate the cost and time requirements of
a project. Project control is also enhanced by the ability to identify how the
components of a project link together. Tasks that are contained in the WBS
collectively describe the overall project goal. Overall project planning and
control can be improved by using a WBS approach. A large project may be
broken down into smaller subprojects that may, in turn, be systematically
broken down into task groups. Thus, a WBS permits the implementation
of a divide and conquer concept for project control.
Individual components in a WBS are referred to as WBS elements,
and the hierarchy of each is designated by a level identifier. Elements
at the same level of subdivision are said to be of the same WBS level.
Descending levels provide increasingly detailed definitions of project
tasks. The complexity of a project and the degree of control desired deter-
mine the number of levels in the WBS. Each component is successively
broken down into smaller details at lower levels. The process may con-
tinue until specific project activities are reached. In effect, the structure of
the WBS looks very much like an organizational chart. The basic approach
for preparing a WBS is as follows:

• Level 1 WBS : This contains only the final goal of the project. This
item should be identifiable directly as an organizational budget
item.
• Level 2 WBS : This level contains the major subsections of the project.
These subsections are usually identified by their contiguous location
or by their related purposes.
• Level 3 WBS : Level 3 of the WBS structure contains the definable
components of the level 2 subsections. In technical terms, this may
be referred to as the finite element level of the project.
226 Work design: A systematic approach

The subsequent levels of a WBS are constructed in more specific detail,

depending on the span of control desired. If a complete WBS becomes
too crowded, separate WBS layouts may be drawn for the level 2 compo-
nents. A statement of work (SOW) or WBS summary should accompany
the WBS. The SOW is a narrative of the work to be done. It should include
the objectives of the work, its scope, resource requirements, tentative due
date, feasibility statements, and so on. A good analysis of the WBS struc-
ture will make it easier to perform resource work rate analysis.

Work feasibility
The feasibility of a project can be ascertained in terms of technical factors,
economic factors, or both. A feasibility study is documented with a report
showing all the ramifications of the project and should be broken down
into the following categories:

Technical feasibility : Technical feasibility refers to the ability of the

process to take advantage of the current state of the technology in
pursuing further improvement. The technical capability of the per-
sonnel as well as the capability of the available technology should
be considered.
Managerial feasibility : Managerial feasibility involves the capability of the
infrastructure of a process to achieve and sustain process improve-
ment. Management support, employee involvement, and commit-
ment are key elements required to ascertain managerial feasibility.
Economic feasibility : This involves the ability of the proposed project to
generate economic benefits. A benefit– cost analysis and a break-even
analysis are important aspects of evaluating the economic feasibility
of new industrial projects. The tangible and intangible aspects of a
project should be translated into economic terms to facilitate a con-
sistent basis for evaluation.
Financial feasibility : Financial feasibility should be distinguished from
economic feasibility. Financial feasibility involves the capability of
the project organization to raise the appropriate funds needed to
implement the proposed project. Project financing can be a major
obstacle in large multiparty projects because of the level of capi-
tal required. Loan availability, credit worthiness, equity, and loan
schedule are important aspects of financial feasibility analyses.
Cultural feasibility : Cultural feasibility deals with the compatibility of
the proposed project with the cultural setup of the project environ-
ment. In labor-intensive projects, planned functions must be inte-
grated with the local cultural practices and beliefs. For example,
religious beliefs may influence what an individual is willing or not
willing to do.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 227

Social feasibility : Social feasibility addresses the influences that a pro-

posed project may have on the social system in the project envi-
ronment. The ambient social structure may be such that certain
categories of workers may be in short supply or nonexistent. The
effect of the project on the social status of the project participants
must be assessed to ensure compatibility. It should be recognized
that workers in certain industries may have certain status symbols
within the society.
Safety feasibility : Safety feasibility is another important aspect that
should be considered in project planning. Safety feasibility refers to
an analysis of whether the project is capable of being implemented
and operated safely, with minimal adverse effects on the environ-
ment. Unfortunately, environmental impact assessments are often
not adequately addressed in complex projects. As an example, the
North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United
States, Canada, and Mexico was temporarily suspended in 1993
because of legal considerations regarding the potential environmen-
tal impacts of the projects to be undertaken under the agreement.
Political feasibility : A politically feasible project may be referred to as
a politically correct project . Political considerations often dictate the
direction for a proposed project. This is particularly true for large
projects with national visibility that may have significant gov-
ernment inputs and political implications. For example, political
necessity may be a source of support for a project regardless of the
project’ s merits. On the other hand, worthy projects may face insur-
mountable opposition simply because of political factors. Political
feasibility analysis requires an evaluation of the compatibility of the
project goals with the prevailing goals of the political system. In
general, a feasibility analysis for a project should include the follow-
ing items:
1. Need analysis : This indicates the recognition of a need for the proj-
ect. The need may affect the organization itself, another orga-
nization, the public, or the government. A preliminary study is
conducted to confirm and evaluate the need. A proposal of how
the need may be satisfied is then made. Pertinent questions that
should be asked include the following:
• Is the need significant enough to justify the proposed project?
• Will the need still exist by the time the project is completed?
• What are the alternative means of satisfying the need?
• What are the economic, social, environmental, and political
impacts of the need?
2. Process work : This is the preliminary analysis done to determine
what will be required to satisfy the need. The work may be per-
formed by a consultant who is an expert in the project field. The
228 Work design: A systematic approach

preliminary study often involves system models or prototypes.

For technology-oriented projects, artist conceptions and scale
models may be used for illustrating the general characteristics
of a process. A simulation of the proposed system can be carried
out to predict the outcome before the actual project starts.
3. Engineering and design : This involves a detailed technical study of
the proposed project. Written quotations are obtained from sup-
pliers and subcontractors as needed. Technology capabilities are
evaluated as needed. Product design, if needed, should be done
at this stage.
4. Cost estimate: This involves estimating project cost to an acceptable
level of accuracy. Levels of around –5% to +15% are common at
this level of a project plan. Both the initial and operating costs are
included in the cost estimation. Estimates of capital investment and
recurring and nonrecurring costs should also be contained in the
cost estimate document. A sensitivity analysis can be carried out on
the estimated cost values to see how sensitive the project plan is to
changes in the project scenario.
5. Financial analysis : This involves an analysis of the cash flow pro-
file of the project. The analysis should consider rates of return,
inflation, sources of capital, payback periods, the break-even
point, residual values, and sensitivity.
6. Project impacts : This portion of the feasibility study provides an
assessment of the impact of the proposed project. Environmental,
social, cultural, political, and economic impacts may be some of
the factors that will determine how a project is perceived by the
public. The value-added potential of the project should also be
assessed.
7. Conclusions and recommendations : The feasibility study should
end with the overall outcome of the project analysis. This may
constitute either an endorsement or a disapproval of the project.

Motivating the worker

Motivation is an essential component of implementing a project plan. Those
who will play a direct role in the project must be motivated to ensure pro-
ductive participation. Direct beneficiaries of the project must be motivated
to make good use of the outputs of the project. Other groups must be moti-
vated to play supporting roles to the project. Motivation may take several
forms. For projects that are of a short-term nature, motivation could either
be impaired or enhanced by the strategy employed. Impairment may occur
if a participant views the project as a mere disruption of regular activities
or as a job without long-term benefits. Long-term projects have the advan-
tage of giving participants enough time to readjust to the project efforts.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 229

Theory X principle of motivation

Theory X assumes that the worker is essentially uninterested and unmo-
tivated to perform his or her work. Motivation must be instilled in the
worker by the adoption of external motivating agents. A Theory X worker
is inherently indolent and requires constant supervision and prodding to
get him or her to perform. To motivate a Theory X worker, a mixture of
managerial actions may be needed. Examples of motivation approaches
under Theory X include

• Rewards to recognize improved effort

• Strict rules to constrain worker behavior
• Incentives to encourage better performance
• Threats to job security associated with performance failure

Theory Y principle of motivation

Theory Y assumes that the worker is naturally interested and motivated
to perform his or her job. The worker views the job function positively
and uses self-control and self-direction to pursue the project goals. Under
Theory Y, management has the task of taking advantage of the worker’ s
readiness and positive intuition so that his or her actions coincide with the
project objectives. Thus, a Theory Y manager attempts to use the worker’ s
self-direction as the principal instrument for accomplishing work. In gen-
eral, Theory Y management encourages the following:

• Worker-designed job methodology

• Worker participation in decision making
• Cordial management– worker relationship
• Worker individualism within acceptable company limits

Motivating and demotivating factors

The Herzberg motivation concept takes a look at the characteristics of
work itself as the motivating factor. There are two motivational factors,
classified as hygiene factors and motivators . Hygiene factors are neces-
sary but not sufficient conditions for a contented worker. The negative
aspects of the factors may lead to a disgruntled worker, whereas the posi-
tive aspects do not necessarily enhance motivation. Examples include the
following:

1. Administrative policies : Bad policies can lead to the discontent of

workers, while good policies are viewed as routine, with no specific
contribution to improving worker satisfaction.
230 Work design: A systematic approach

2. Supervision : A bad supervisor can make a worker unhappy and

less productive, but a good supervisor cannot necessarily improve
worker performance.
3. Working conditions : Bad working conditions can enrage workers, but
good working conditions do not automatically generate improved
productivity.
4. Salary : Low salaries can make a worker unhappy, disruptive, and
uncooperative, but a raise will not necessarily encourage him or
her to perform better. While a raise in salary will not necessarily
increase professionalism, a reduction in salary will most certainly
have an adverse effect on morale.
5. Personal life : Miserable personal life can adversely affect a worker’ s
performance, but a happy life does not imply that he or she will be a
better worker.
6. Interpersonal relationships : Good peer, superior, and subordinate rela-
tionships are important to keep a worker happy and productive, but
extraordinarily good relations do not guarantee that he or she will
be more productive.
7. Social and professional status : Low status can force a worker to per-
form at his or her low “ level,” whereas high status does not imply
that he or she will perform at a higher level.
8. Security: A safe environment may not motivate a worker to per-
form better, but unsafe conditions will certainly impede his or her
productivity.

Motivators are motivating agents that should be inherent in the work

itself. If necessary, project task assignments should be redesigned (or reen-
gineered) to include inherent motivating factors. Some guidelines follow.

1. Achievement : The job design should facilitate opportunities for

worker achievement and advancement toward personal goals.
2. Recognition : The mechanism for recognizing superior performance
should be incorporated into the task assignment. Opportunities for
recognizing innovation should be built into the task.
3. Work content : The work content should be interesting enough to
motivate and stimulate the creativity of the worker. The amount of
work and the organization of the work should be designed to fit a
worker’ s needs.
4. Responsibility : The worker should have some measure of responsibil-
ity for how his or her job is performed. Personal responsibility leads
to accountability, which leads to better performance.
5. Professional growth : The work should offer an opportunity for
advancement so that the worker can set his own achievement level
for professional growth within a project plan.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 231

Management by objective
Management by objective (MBO) is a management concept whereby a
worker is allowed to take responsibility for the design and performance
of a task under controlled conditions. It gives each worker a chance to set
his or her own objectives in achieving project goals. The worker can moni-
tor his own progress and take corrective actions when needed without
management intervention. Workers under the concept of Theory Y appear
to be the best suited for the MBO concept. MBO has some disadvantages,
however, which include the possible abuse of the freedom to self-direct
and the possible disruption of overall project coordination. The advan-
tages of MBO include the following:

1. Encouraging each worker to find better ways of performing the job

2. Avoiding the over-supervision of professionals
3. Helping workers become better aware of what is expected of them
4. Permitting timely feedback on worker performance

Management by exception
Management by exception (MBE) is an after-the-fact management
approach to the issue of control. Contingency plans are not made and
there is no rigid monitoring. Deviations from expectations are viewed as
exceptions to the normal course of events. When intolerable deviations
from plans occur, they are investigated and an action is taken. The major
advantage of MBE is that it lessens the management workload and reduces
the cost of management. However, it is a risky concept to follow, especially
for high-stakes industry projects. Many of the problems that can develop
in complex projects are such that after-the-fact corrections are expensive
or impossible.

Matrix organization structure

The matrix organization is a frequently used organizational structure in
industry. It is used where there are multiple managerial accountabilities
and responsibilities for a project. It combines the advantages of the tra-
ditional structure and the product organization structure. The hybrid
configuration of the matrix structure facilitates maximum resource uti-
lization and increased performance within time, cost, and performance
constraints. There are usually two chains of command involving both
horizontal and vertical reporting lines. The horizontal line deals with the
functional line of responsibility, while the vertical line deals with the proj-
ect line of responsibility.
232 Work design: A systematic approach

The advantages of matrix organization include the following:

• Good team interaction.

• The consolidation of objectives.
• A multilateral flow of information.
• Lateral mobility for job advancement.
• Individuals have an opportunity to work on a variety of projects.
• The efficient sharing and utilization of resources.
• Reduced project cost due to the sharing of personnel.
• The continuity of functions after project completion.
• Stimulating interactions with other functional teams.
• Functional lines rally to support the project efforts.
• Each person has a “ home” office after project completion.
• The company knowledge base is equally available to all projects.

Some of the disadvantages of matrix organization are as follows:

• The matrix response time may be slow for fast-paced projects.

• Each project organization operates independently.
• Overhead costs due to additional lines of command.
• Potential conflicts of project priorities.
• Problems inherent in having multiple bosses.
• The complexity of the structure.

Traditionally, industrial projects are conducted in serial functional

implementations such as research and development, engineering, manu-
facturing, and marketing. At each stage, unique specifications and work
patterns may be used without consulting the preceding and succeeding
phases. The consequence is that the end product may not possess the orig-
inal intended characteristics. For example, the first project in the series
might involve the production of one component, while the subsequent
projects might involve the production of other components. The compos-
ite product may not achieve the desired performance because the compo-
nents were not designed and produced from a unified point of view. The
major appeal of matrix organization is that it attempts to provide synergy
within the groups in an organization.

Team building of workers

Team building is a key part of project management, because workers are
expected to perform not just on one team but on a multitude of interfacing
teams. To facilitate effective team building, it is important to distinguish
between a functional organization structure and an operational organi-
zation structure. Within a team, the functional structure is developed
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 233

according to the functional lines of responsibility, while the operational

structure takes into account the way workers actually organize them-
selves to accomplish a task. The operational organization can be central-
ized, hierarchical, or mixed.
In a centralized structure, workers rely on a specific individual or
office for reporting and directive purposes. In a hierarchical structure, the
lines of functional reporting existing in the organization are observed as
workers pursue their tasks. This approach may discourage free and infor-
mal interaction, thereby creating obstacles to effective work. In a mixed
structure, different heterogeneous teams of workers interact to solve a
problem with the aid of a central coordination agent. The effectiveness of a
team can be affected by its size and its purpose. Small teams are useful for
responsiveness and prompt action. Large teams are useful for achieving a
widespread information base, inclusion, and participation. Strategies for
enhancing project team building include

1. Interoffice employee exchange programs

2. The interproject transferability of personnel
3. In-house training for new employees
4. The diversification and development of in-house job skills
5. The use of in-house personnel as in-house consultants

One of the most important ingredients for establishing a good team is

commitment. The Triple C approach can help achieve such commitment.
The organizational structure must create an environment that promotes,
or even demands, teamwork. The project manager should strive to pro-
vide and maintain an atmosphere that fulfills the needs and expectations
of workers. A team should offer opportunities for positive professional
interactions as well as avenues for advancement. Some of the expectations
and opportunities that a team environment should offer are as follows:

• Good team leadership

• A challenging (but not problematic) work environment
• Recognition for team accomplishment
• Recognition for individual contributions
• The ability to speak in a collective voice to management
• Opportunities for career growth
• Opportunities for social interaction
• The possibility of both exercising individual discretion and arriving
at a collective consensus

Some of the barriers to team building are changes in the work environ-
ment , a lack of member commitment , poor intrateam communication , a lack of
management support , and the team superstar model . On some teams, only one
234 Work design: A systematic approach

or a few individuals lead the efforts and get all the credit at the expense
of the other team members. A teaming approach that allows everyone to
pitch in and share credit equitably is preferred. If the team excels, every-
one excels. Shared project glory is everyone’ s glory.

Project partnering
Project partnering involves having project teams and stakeholders oper-
ating as partners in the pursuit of project goals. The benefits of project
partnering include improved efficiency, cost reduction, resource shar-
ing, better effectiveness, increased potential for innovation, and the
improved quality of products and services. Partnering creates a collec-
tive feeling of being together on the project. It fosters a positive attitude,
which makes it possible to appreciate and accept the views of others. It
also recognizes the objectives of all parties and promotes synergism. The
communication, cooperation, and coordination concepts of the Triple C
model facilitate partnering. Suggestions for setting up project partnering
are as follows:

• Use an inclusive organization structure.

• Identify project stakeholders and clients.
• Create informational linkages.
• Identify the lead partner.
• Collate the objectives of partners.
• Use a responsibility chart to assign specific functions.

Team leadership
Good leaders lead by example. Others attempt to lead by dictating. It is an
element of human nature that people learn and act best when good exam-
ples are available for them to emulate, and they generally do not forget
the lessons they learn in this way. Good examples observed in childhood,
for instance, can provide a lifetime’ s worth of guidance. A leader should
have a spirit of performance that stimulates his or her subordinates to
perform at their own best. Rather than dictating what needs to be done,
a good leader should show what needs to be done. Showing, in this case,
does not necessarily imply actual physical demonstration of what is to be
done. Rather, it implies projecting a commitment to the function at hand
and a readiness to participate as appropriate. In the traditional model,
managers manage workers to get them to work. There may be no point of
convergence or active participation. Modern managers, however, team up
with workers to get the job done. A good leadership model will encom-
pass listening and asking questions, specifying objectives, developing
clear directions, removing obstacles, encouraging individual initiatives,
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 235

learning from past experiences, reiterating the project requirements, and

getting everyone involved.
Telling, showing, and involving are good practices for project team
leadership. Project team leadership involves dealing with managers and
supporting personnel across the functional lines of the project. It is a mis-
conception to think that a leader leads only his or her own subordinates.
Leadership responsibilities can cover functions vertically up or down. A
good project leader can lead and inspire not only his or her subordinates
but also the entire project organization, including the highest superi-
ors. Generally, leadership involves recognizing an opportunity to make
improvements in a project and taking the initiative to lead the implemen-
tation of the improvements. In addition to inherent personal qualities,
leadership style can be influenced by training, experience, and dedication.
Guidelines for project team leadership are as follows:

• Avoid organizational politics and personal egotism.

• Lead by example.
• Place principles above personality.
• Focus on the big picture of project goals.
• Build up credibility with successful leadership actions.
• Demonstrate integrity and ethics in decision processes.
• Cultivate and encourage a spirit of multilateral cooperation.
• Preach less and implement more.
• Back up words with action.

Activity scheduling
Project scheduling is the time-phased arrangement of project activities
subject to precedence, time, and resource constraints in order to accom-
plish project objectives. Project scheduling is distinguished from indus-
trial job shop, flow shop, and other production sequencing problems
because of the nonrepetitive nature of most projects. In production sched-
uling, the scheduling problem follows a standard procedure that deter-
mines the characteristics of the production operations. A scheduling
technique that works for one production run may be expected to work
equally effectively for succeeding and identical production runs. In other
words, reliable precedents can be found for production scheduling prob-
lems. On the other hand, projects are usually one-time endeavors that are
rarely duplicated in identical circumstances. In some cases, it may be pos-
sible to duplicate the concepts of the whole project or a portion of it. The
construction of a dam is a good example. The concepts of dam construc-
tion will, most likely, be the same in all dam operations. It would, how-
ever, be highly unlikely to have two dam construction projects that were
exactly alike. Even if two projects are identical in many details, manpower
236 Work design: A systematic approach

availability (a critical component of any project) is likely to be different.

This, of course, makes project scheduling more challenging than produc-
tion scheduling.
Project scheduling represents the core of project management efforts
because it involves the assignment of time periods to specific tasks within
the work schedule. Resource availability, time limitations, urgency and
priority, performance specification, precedence constraints, milestones,
technical precedence constraints, and other factors complicate the sched-
uling process. Generally, project scheduling involves

• Analyzing resource availability in terms of human resources, mate-

rials, capital, and so on
• Applying scheduling techniques (CPM, PERT, Gantt charts, PDM)
• Tracking and reporting
• Control and termination

Work control
Project or work control requires that appropriate actions be taken to
correct deviations from expected performance. Control involves mea-
surement, evaluation, and correction. Measurement is the process of
measuring the relationship between planned performance and actual
performance with respect to project objectives. The variables to be mea-
sured, the measurement scales, and the measuring approaches should
be clearly specified during the planning stage. Corrective actions may
involve rescheduling, the reallocation of resources, or the expediting
of tasks. In some cases, project termination is an element of project
control.

The Triple C model

The Triple C model (Badiru, 2008) is an effective tool for project planning
and control. The model can facilitate better resource management by iden-
tifying the crucial aspects of a project. The model states that project man-
agement can be enhanced by its implementation within the integrated
functions of

• Communication
• Cooperation
• Coordination

The model facilitates a systematic approach to project planning,

organizing, scheduling, and control. It highlights what must be done
and when. It also helps to identify the resources (manpower, equipment,
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 237

facilities, etc.) required for each effort. Triple C points out important ques-
tions, such as

• Does each project participant know what the objective is?

• Does each participant know his or her role in achieving the objective?
• What obstacles may prevent a participant from playing his or her
role effectively?

Figure 10.3 shows a graphical representation of the Triple C model for

project management in coordinated application with the DEJI model for
work design. If resource management is viewed as a three-legged stool,
then communication, cooperation, and coordination constitute the three
legs. Communication channels provide the basis for effective communi-
cation, partnership forms the basis for cooperation, and organizational
structure provides the basis for coordination. Consequently, there must
be appropriate communication channels, partnership, and proper orga-
nizational structure for Triple C to be effective. This is summarized as
follows:

1. For effective communication, create good communication

channels.
2. For enduring cooperation, establish partnership arrangements.
3. For steady coordination, use a workable organization structure.

How Communication Who

Why What

Work
Design
Evaluation
Justification
Coordination Integration Cooperation

When Where

Figure 10.3    The Triple C approach combined with the DEJI model for work
management.
238 Work design: A systematic approach

Project communication
The communication function of project management involves making
sure that all those concerned become aware of project requirements and
progress. Those that will be affected by the project directly or indirectly,
as direct participants or as beneficiaries, should be informed as appropri-
ate regarding the following:

• The scope of the project

• The personnel contribution required
• The expected cost and merits of the project
• The project organization and implementation plan
• The potential adverse effects if the project should fail
• The alternatives, if any, for achieving the project goal
• The potential benefits (direct and indirect) of the project

Communication channels must be kept open throughout the project

life cycle. In addition to internal communication, appropriate external
sources should also be consulted. The project manager has several “ must-
do” requirements.

• Exude commitment to the project.

• Utilize a communication responsibility matrix.
• Facilitate multichannel communication interfaces.
• Identify internal and external communication needs.
• Resolve organizational and communication hierarchies.
• Encourage both formal and informal communication links.

When clear communication is maintained between management

and employees and among peers, many project problems can be averted.
Project communication may be carried out in one or more of the following
formats:

• One-to-many
• One-to-one
• Many-to-one
• Written and formal
• Written and informal
• Oral and formal
• Oral and informal
• Nonverbal gestures

A communication responsibility matrix (table or spreadsheet) shows

the links between sources of communication and targets of communication.
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 239

Cells within the matrix indicate the subject of the desired communication.
There should be at least one filled cell in each row and each column of
the matrix. This ensures that each individual within a department has at
least one communication source or target associated with him or her. With
a communication responsibility matrix, a clear understanding of what
needs to be communicated and to whom can be developed.

Project cooperation
The cooperation of the project personnel must be explicitly elicited. Merely
voicing consent for a project is not enough assurance of full cooperation.
The participants and beneficiaries of the project must be convinced of its
merits. Some of the factors that influence cooperation in a project envi-
ronment include manpower requirements, resource requirements, budget
limitations, past experiences, conflicting priorities, and a lack of uniform
organizational support. A structured approach to seeking cooperation
should clarify the following:

• The cooperative efforts required

• The precedents for future projects
• The implications of what a lack of cooperation can do to a project
• The criticality of cooperation to project success
• The organizational impact of cooperation
• The time frame involved in the project
• The rewards for good cooperation

Cooperation is a basic virtue of human interaction. More projects fail

due to a lack of cooperation and commitment than any other project fac-
tors. To secure and retain the cooperation of project participants, their first
reaction to the project must be positive. The most positive aspects of a
project should be the first items of project communication. Guidelines for
securing cooperation for projects are as follows:

• Establish achievable goals for the project.

• Clearly outline the individual commitments required.
• Integrate project priorities with existing priorities.
• Eliminate the fear of job loss due to automation.
• Anticipate and eliminate potential sources of conflict.
• Use an open-door policy to address project grievances.
• Remove skepticism by documenting the merits of the project.

For resource management, there are different types of cooperation

that should be considered and encouraged. Some examples of these are
as follows:
240 Work design: A systematic approach

• Functional cooperation : This is cooperation induced by the nature of

the functional relationship between two groups. The two groups
may be required to perform related functions that can only be
accomplished through mutual cooperation.
• Social cooperation : This is the type of cooperation effected by the
social relationship between two groups. The prevailing social rela-
tionship motivates cooperation that may be useful in getting project
work done.
• Legal cooperation : Legal cooperation is the type of cooperation that is
imposed through some authoritative requirement. In this case, the
participants may have no choice other than to cooperate.
• Administrative cooperation : This is cooperation brought on by admin-
istrative requirements that make it imperative that two groups work
together on a common goal.
• Associative cooperation : This is a type of cooperation that may also be
referred to as collegiality . The level of cooperation is determined by
the association that exists between two groups.
• Proximity cooperation : Cooperation due to the fact that two groups are
geographically close is referred to as proximity cooperation. Being
close makes it imperative that the two groups work together.
• Dependency cooperation : This is cooperation caused by the fact that
one group depends on another group for some important aspect.
Such dependency is usually of a mutual, two-way nature. One group
depends on the other for one thing, while the latter group depends
on the former for some other thing.
• Imposed cooperation : In this type of cooperation, external agents must
be employed to induce cooperation between two groups. This is
applicable for cases where the two groups have no natural reason to
cooperate. This is where the approaches presented earlier for seek-
ing cooperation can become very useful.
• Lateral cooperation : Lateral cooperation involves cooperation with
peers and immediate associates. Lateral cooperation is often easy
to achieve because existing lateral relationships create a conducive
environment for project cooperation.
• Vertical cooperation : Vertical or hierarchical cooperation refers to
cooperation that is implied by the hierarchical structure of the proj-
ect. For example, subordinates are expected to cooperate with their
superiors.

Whichever type of cooperation is available in a project environment,

the cooperative forces should be channeled toward achieving project
goals. Documentation of the prevailing level of cooperation is useful for
winning further support for a project. Clarification of project priorities
will facilitate personnel cooperation. The relative priorities of multiple
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 241

projects should be specified so that a project that is of high priority to one

segment of an organization is also of high priority to all groups within the
organization. Interestingly, competition can be used as a mechanism for
cooperation. This happens in an environment where constructive com-
petition paves the way for cooperation of the form that we can refer to as
coopetition .

Project commitment
Cooperation must be supported with commitment. To cooperate is to sup-
port the ideas of a project. To commit is to willingly and actively partici-
pate in project efforts again and again throughout both the easy times and
the vicissitudes of the project. The ungrudging provision of resources is
one way that management can express commitment to a project.

Triple C + commitment = project success

By using a Pareto-type distribution, the cooperating elements of a

project can be classified into the following three levels:

1. Top 10% (Easily cooperative)

2. Middle 80% (Good prospects for cooperation)
3. Bottom 10% (Lost causes)

In terms of where to place efforts for cooperation, the top 10% do

not need much effort, while the bottom 10% do not deserve much effort.
The top 10% are the motivated individuals who will easily cooperate (i.e.,
Theory Y workers), while the bottom 10% are the disagreeable individu-
als who will fail to see reason no matter what is presented to them (i.e.,
Theory X workers). The best way to deal with those bottom 10% is through
accommodation or exclusion. Project efforts should be concentrated where
the most gains can be achieved.

Project coordination
After successfully initiating the communication and cooperation
functions, the efforts of the project personnel must be coordinated.
Coordination facilitates the harmonious organization of the project
efforts. The development of a responsibility chart can be very helpful
at this stage. A responsibility chart is a matrix consisting of columns of
individual or functional departments and rows of required actions. Cells
within the matrix are filled with relationship codes that indicate who is
responsible for what. The responsibility matrix helps to avoid neglecting
242 Work design: A systematic approach

crucial communication requirements and obligations. It can help resolve

questions such as the following:

• Who is to do what?
• How long will it take?
• Who is to inform whom of what?
• Whose approval is needed for what?
• Who is responsible for which results?
• What personnel interfaces are required?
• What support is needed from whom and when?

Resolving project conflicts

When implemented as an integrated process, the Triple C model can
help avoid conflicts in a project. When conflicts do develop, it can help in
resolving the conflicts. Several types of conflicts can develop in the project
environment. Some of these conflicts are as follows:

Scheduling conflicts can develop because of improper timing or sequenc-

ing of project tasks. This is particularly common in large multiple
projects. Procrastination can lead to having too much to do at once,
thereby creating a clash of project functions and discord between
project team members. Inaccurate estimates of time requirements
may lead to unfeasible activity schedules. Project coordination can
help avoid schedule conflicts.
Cost conflicts . Project cost may not be generally acceptable to the clients
of a project. This will lead to project conflict. Even if the initial cost of
the project is acceptable, a lack of cost control during project imple-
mentation can lead to conflicts. Poor budget allocation approaches
and the lack of a financial feasibility study will cause cost conflicts
later on in a project. Communication and coordination can help pre-
vent most of the adverse effects of cost conflicts.
Performance conflicts . If clear performance requirements are not estab-
lished, performance conflicts will develop. A lack of clearly defined
performance standards can lead each person to evaluate his or her
own performance based on personal value judgments. In order to
uniformly evaluate the quality of work and monitor project prog-
ress, performance standards should be established by using the
Triple C approach.
Management conflicts . There must be a two-way alliance between man-
agement and the project team. The views of management should be
understood by the team. The views of the team should be appreci-
ated by management. If this does not happen, management conflicts
will develop. A lack of a two-way interaction can lead to strikes and
Chapter ten: Project management for work management 243

industrial action, which can be detrimental to project objectives. The

Triple C approach can help create a conducive dialogue environment
between management and the project team.
Technical conflicts . If the technical basis of a project is not sound, techni-
cal conflicts will develop. Manufacturing and automation projects
are particularly prone to technical conflicts because of their signifi-
cant dependence on technology. Lacking a comprehensive techni-
cal feasibility study will lead to technical conflicts. Performance
requirements and systems specifications can be integrated through
the Triple C approach to avoid technical conflicts.
Priority conflicts can develop if project objectives are not defined prop-
erly and applied uniformly across a project. A lack of direction in
project definition can lead each project member to define individual
goals that may be in conflict with the intended goal of a project. A
lack of consistency in the project mission is another potential source
of priority conflicts. The overassignment of responsibilities with no
guidelines for relative significance levels can also lead to priority
conflicts. Communication can help defuse priority conflicts.
Resource conflicts . Resource allocation problems are a major source of
conflicts in project management. Competition for resources, includ-
ing personnel, tools, hardware, software, and so on, can lead to dis-
ruptive clashes among project members. The Triple C approach can
help secure resource cooperation.
Power conflicts . Project politics can lead to power plays as one indi-
vidual seeks to widen his or her scope of power. This can, obvi-
ously, adversely affect the progress of a project. Project authority
and project power should be clearly differentiated: project authority
is the control that a person has by virtue of his or her functional
post, while project power relates to the clout and influence a person
can exercise due to connections within the administrative structure.
People with popular personalities can often wield a lot of project
power in spite of low or nonexistent project authority. The Triple
C model can facilitate a positive marriage of project authority and
power to the benefit of project goals. This will help define clear lead-
ership for a project.
Personality conflicts are a common problem in projects involving a large
group of people. The larger the project, the larger the size of the
management team needed to keep things running. Unfortunately, a
larger management team also creates opportunities for personality
conflicts. Communication and cooperation can help defuse person-
ality conflicts. Some guidelines for resolving project conflicts are as
follows:
• Approach the source of conflict.
• Gather all the relevant facts.
244 Work design: A systematic approach

• Notify those involved in writing.

• Solicit mediation.
• Report to the appropriate authorities.
• Use a grievance resolution program within the organization.

References
Badiru, A. B. (2008), Triple C Model of Project Management: Communication,
Cooperation, and Coordination , CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Badiru, A. B., S. A. Badiru, and I. A. Badiru (2008), Industrial Project Management:
Concepts, Tools, and Techniques , CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Badiru, I. A. (2016), Comments about work management, interview with an auto
industry senior engineer about corporate views of work design, Beavercreek,
OH, October 29.
Hammersmith, A. G. (2006), Implementing a PMO: The diplomatic pit bull, work-
shop presentation at East Tennessee PMI chapter meeting, January 10.
chapter eleven

Considerations for
worker well-being*

Overview
Action to address workforce functioning and productivity requires a broader
approach than the traditional scope of occupational safety and health.
Focus on “well-being” may be one way to develop a more encompassing
objective. Well-being is widely cited in public policy pronouncements, but
often as “… and well-being” (e.g., health and well-being). It is generally
not defined in policy and rarely operationalized for functional use. Many
definitions of well-being exist in the occupational realm. Generally, it is a
synonym for health and a summative term to describe a flourishing worker
who benefits from a safe, supportive workplace, engages in satisfying work,
and enjoys a fulfilling work life. We identified issues for considering well-
being in public policy related to workers and the workplace.

Background
Major changes in population demographics and the world of work have sig-
nificant implications for the workforce, business, and the nation (Stone, 2004;
Howard, 2010; Kompier, 2006; Schulte, 2006; Holzer, 2007; Cummings, 2008;
Kitt, 2013; Sparks et al., 2001). New patterns of hazards, resulting from the
interaction of work and nonwork factors, are affecting the workforce. (Stone,
2004; Howard, 2010; Sparks et al., 2001; Schulte et al., 2012; Guillemin, 2011;
Pandalai et al., 2013) As a consequence, there is a need for an overarching
or unifying concept that can be operationalized to optimize the benefits of
work and simultaneously address these overlapping hazards. Traditionally,
the distinct disciplines of occupational safety and health, human resources,
health promotion, economics, and law have addressed work and nonwork
factors from specialized perspectives, but today, changes in the world of work
require a holistic view. There are numerous definitions of well-being within

* Reprinted verbatim with permission from Schulte, Paul A. et al. (2015), Considerations for
incorporating “well-being” in public policy for workers and workplaces, American Journal of
Public Health, Vol. 105, No. 8, pp. e31–e44, August 2015. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302616
(Authors: Paul A. Schulte, Rebecca J. Guerin, Anita L. Schill, Anasua Bhattacharya,
Thomas R. Cunningham, Sudha P. Pandalai, Donald Eggerth, and Carol M. Stephenson.)

245
246 Work design: A systematic approach

and between disciplines, with subjective and objective orientations address-

ing such conceptualizations as happiness, flourishing, income, health, auton-
omy, and capability (Ringen, 1996; Danna and Griffin 1999; Cronin de Chavez,
2005; Adler, 2011; Diener, 2013; Fleuret, 2007; Ng ECW, 2013; Seligman, 2011;
Ryff, 2014; Agrawal, 2001; Warr, 1987). Well-being is widely cited in public
policy pronouncements, but often in the conjunctive form of “… and well-
being” (as in health and well-being). It is rarely defined or operationalized
in policy. In this chapter, we consider if the concept of “well-being” is useful
in addressing contemporary issues related to work and the workforce and, if
so, whether it can be operationalized for public policy and what the implica-
tions are of doing so. We discuss the need to evaluate a broad range of work
and nonwork variables related to worker health and safety and to develop a
unified approach to this evaluation. We discuss the potential of well-being
to serve as a unifying concept, with focus on the definitions and determi-
nants of well-being. Within this part of the discussion, we touch on topics
of responsibility for well-being. We also explore issues of importance when
one is incorporating well-being into public policy. We present examples of
the incorporation of the principles of well-being into public policy, and the
results thus far of the implementation of such guidance. We describe research
needs for assessing well-being, particularly the need to operationalize this
construct for empirical analysis. We aim to contribute to the ongoing efforts
of occupational safety and health and public health researchers, practitioners,
and policymakers to protect working populations.

New patterns of hazards

Many of the most prevalent and significant health-related conditions in
workers are not caused solely by workplace hazards, but also result from
a combination of work and nonwork factors (including such factors as
genetics, age, gender, chronic disease, obesity, smoking, alcohol use, and
prescription drug use). (Schulte et al., 2012; Pandalai et al., 2013) One man-
ifestation of this interaction of work and nonwork risks is the phenom-
enon known as presenteeism— diminished performance at work because
of the presence of disease or a lack of engagement— which appears to be
the single largest cause of reduced workforce productivity (Hemp, 2004;
Bustillos, 2013; de Perio et al., 2014; Johns, 2010). Chronic disease is also
a major factor in worker, enterprise, and national productivity and well-
being. The direct and indirect costs of chronic disease exceed $1 trillion
annually. (DeVol et al., 2007) Moreover, the costs of forgone economic
opportunity from chronic disease are predicted to reach close to $6 tril-
lion in the United States by 2050. (DeVol et al., 2007) Chronic disease places
a large burden on employers as well as on workers.
Although the classic significant occupational hazards still remain,
work is changing. Many transitions characterize the twenty-first-century
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 247

economy: from physical to more mental production, from manufacturing

to service and health care. New ways of organizing— contracting, down-
sizing, restructuring, lean manufacturing, contingent work, and more self-
employment (Stone, 2004; Howard, 2010; Holzer, 2007; Cummings, 2008;
Ng ECW, 2013; Tehrani et al., 2007; Osterman and Shulman, 2011)— affect
many in the labor force, and heightened job uncertainty, unemployment,
and underemployment also characterize work in the global marketplace.
(Stone, 2004; Howard, 2010; Kitt 2013; Sparks, Faragher, Cooper et al., 2001;
Guillemin, 2011; Osterman and Shulman, 2011)
Increasingly, work is done from home. Sedentary work accounts for
larger portions of time spent in the workplace (Church, Thomas, Tudor-
Locke et al., 2011). New employment relations and heightened worker
responsibilities are manifest in what organizational theorists have termed
the “ psychological contract” to characterize the nature of employers’ and
employees’ mutual expectations and perceptions of work production
(Stone, 2004). It may be as Stone has concluded, that “ the very concept
of workplace as a place and the concept of employment as involving an
employer are becoming outdated in some sectors” (Stone, 2004: p. ix). The
demographics of the workforce are also changing. More immigrants and
women are joining the labor force, and older workers (those aged 55 years
and older) are now the largest and fastest-growing segment of the work-
force. (Costa et al., 2005; Shrestha, 2006; Flynn, 2014)
Immigrants are projected to make up roughly 23% of working-
age adults by 2050, (Flynn, 2014; Passel JS, Cohn, 2008; Cierpich et al.,
1992– 2006) a demographic shift that has significant implications on and
for public health. Among other issues, Latino immigrants suffer signifi-
cantly higher workplace mortality rates (5.0 per 100,000) than all work-
ers (4.0 per 100,000) (Flynn, 2014; Passel JS, Cohn, 2008; Cierpich et al.,
1992– 2006). There is growing participation of men and women in previ-
ously gender-segregated fields and the integration of 2.4 million veterans
who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2011 (Flynn, 2014; Passel
JS, Cohn, 2008; Cierpich et al., 1992– 2006; Waterstone, 2010).
In some countries, workers are voluntarily working later in life; in oth-
ers, decreased dependency ratios require them to work longer (Shrestha,
2006; Rissa and Kaustia, 2007; Harter et al., 2003). There also are many
workers wanting to work but without the necessary skills to meet job
requirements (Kochan, 2012).

The unifying concept of well-being

With the seismic shifts occurring in the global economy, there is a need
for a concept that unifies all the factors that affect the health of work-
ers, as well as the quality of their working lives (Antonovsky, 1996; Dewe
and Kompier, 2008; Bauer, 2010; Schulte, 2010; Vainio, 2012). Well-being
248 Work design: A systematic approach

may be such a concept and, furthermore, it could be addressed as either

an outcome in and of itself that might be improved by the application of
prevention or intervention strategies that target risk factors, or it may be
looked at as a factor that influences other outcomes. For example, healthy
well-being has been linked to such outcomes as increased productivity,
lower health care costs, health, and healthy aging (Rissa and Kaustia, 2007;
Harter et al., 2003; Prochaska, 2011; Budd and Spencer, 2014; Gandy et al.,
2014; Grawitch et al., 2006). Numerous studies have shown links between
individuals’ negative psychological well-being and health (Huppert, 2009;
Chida and Steptoe; 2008). Conversely, evidence from both longitudinal
and experimental studies demonstrates the beneficial impact of a posi-
tive emotional state on physical health and survival (Pressman et al., 2015,
Diener and Chan, 2011, Howell et al., 2007). In these contexts, well-being
might be thought of as a factor that has an impact on various outcomes.
In other contexts, well-being is the outcome. Studies have shown that
working conditions, including such factors as stress, respect, work–life
balance, and income, affect well-being (Noor, 2003; Karanika-Murray and
Weyman, 2013; Hodson, 1999, 2001; Mellor and Webster, 2013).
Well-being has been defined and operationalized in different ways, con-
sistent with roles either as a risk factor or as an outcome. Depending on the
context, the literature associating well-being with productivity, health care
costs, and healthy aging is heterogeneous, of variable quality, and difficult to
assess and compare. Nonetheless, there are well-designed studies in different
disciplines that indicate the potential benefits of using and operationalizing the
concept of well-being (Ringen, 1999; Adler, 2011; Costa et al., 2005; Prochaska
et al., 2011; Huppert, 2009; Boehm et al., 2011; Warr, 1990; Linley, 2009).
The use of an overarching concept such as “ well-being” in pub-
lic policy may more accurately capture health-related issues that have
shifted over the past 30 years along with changes in population demo-
graphics, disease patterns, and the world of work. These shifts, which
include changes in the nature of work, the workforce, the workplace, and
the growing impact of chronic disease, have resulted in complex issues
that interact and do not fit neatly in one field or discipline, making them
especially difficult to address (Holzer and Nightingale, 2007; Sparks et al.,
2001; Cronin de Chavez, 2005; Ng ECW, 2013).

Definitions, determinants, and

responsibility for well-being
The published literature abounds with many definitions of well-being.
These definitions may be objective, subjective (with a focus on satisfac-
tion, happiness, flourishing, thriving, engagement, and self-fulfillment) or
some synthesis of both (Danna, 1999; Cronin de Chavez, 2005; Prochaska
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 249

Subjective Objective

Experienced Evaluative Economic Health and

well-being well-being basic
(hedonic) survival

• Environmental
Eudaimonic • Cultural
“Flourishing” • Social
• Political

Composites
(e.g., Work Ability
Index)

Challenge
To determine implications for public policy for each type of well-being
in regard to
• Driving policy
• Measuring policy effectiveness
• Serving as benchmarks in policy

Figure 11.1    Types of well-being and policy challenges. (Based on National

Research Council, Paper on measuring subjective well-being in a policy frame-
work, Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2013; Xing Z and Chu L,
Research on constructing composite indicator of objective well-being from
China mainland, Proceedings of the 58th World Statistical Congress , Dublin, Ireland,
International Statistical Institute, 2011, 3081– 3097.)

et al., 2011; Kahneman et al., 1993, Sen, 1993; Atkinson et al., 2012; Adler,
2013; National Research Council, 2013; Dolan and White, 2007). With
regard to work, some definitions focus on the state of the individual
worker, whereas others focus on working conditions, and some focus on
life conditions. Figure 11.1 shows three major types of well-being— objec-
tive, subjective, and composite— and the policy challenges related to them.

Objective well-being
Defining and measuring well-being objectively for use in policy is to be
able to make well-being judgments that are not purely subjective, that are
independent of preferences and feelings, and that have some social agree-
ment that such measures are basic components of well-being (Gaspart,
1997). Thus, having enough food, clothing, and shelter are rudimentary
components of objective well-being. Their absence correlates with lack
of well-being. For workers, income, job opportunity, participation, and
250 Work design: A systematic approach

employment are examples of components or facets of objective well-

being. For companies, absenteeism, presenteeism, workers’ compensa-
tion claims, and productivity are objective indicators of well-being. The
importance of measuring well-being with an objective index has been
expressed in philosophical debates on distributive justice (Rawls, 2009;
Sen, 1999; Cohen, 1993).
If well-being is measured objectively, its index applies to everybody in
the workforce so levels of well-being can be compared (National Research
Council, 2013). However, when objective well-being is assessed by using
“ objective lists,” there are questions of what should be on the list and how
it should be ordered (Dolan, 2007).
Objective well-being has various domains. Xing and Chu identified
six major domains of objective well-being: health and basic survival, eco-
nomic, environmental, cultural, social, and political (Figure 11.1) (Xing
and Chu, 2011).
In recent years, the use of objective measures of well-being has been
questioned and a call has been made for more overarching indicators of
well-being (Otoiu et al., 2014; Sen, 1999; Stiglitz et al., 2009). This is in part
attributable to the fact that objective well-being indicators, such as eco-
nomic ones, do not always adequately portray the quality of life. In 1974,
Easterlin demonstrated that increases in income do not match increases in
subjective well-being (Easterlin, 1974). This is because people’ s aspirations
change in line with changes in their objective circumstances (Dolan and
White, 2007).

Subjective well-being
Subjective well-being is multifaceted and includes evaluative and expe-
rienced well-being (hedonic) and eudaimonic well-being, which refers
to a person’ s perceptions of meaningfulness, sense of purpose, and
value of his or her life (National Research Council, 2013). Subjective well-
being as originated by Warr has been described as assessable on three
axes: displeasure-to-pleasure, anxiety-to-comfort, and depression-to-
enthusiasm (Warr, 1999). Research has shown that subjective well-being
measures relate in a predictable manner to physiological measures, such
as cortisol levels and resistance to infection (Steptoe et al., 2005). More
specifically for the work environment, well-being can be described in
a model that identifies job-specific well-being that includes people’ s
feelings about themselves, in their job, and more general feelings about
one’ s life, referred to as “ context-free” well-being (Warr, 1999; Hassan
et al., 2009).
If subjective well-being is to be used in policy, the measures of it
have to be shown as valid, reproducible, and able to indicate “ interper-
sonal cardinality” because individuals may interpret scales differently.
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 251

Interpersonal cardinality means that when two persons rate their subjec-
tive well-being as, for example, “ 5 out of 10,” they mean the same thing
(Bronsteen et al., 2014). Consideration of subjective well-being raises the
question of the extent that it is related to personality traits, emotions,
psychological traits that promote positive emotions, and the relation-
ship with health status (Ryan and Deci, 2001). Subjective well-being also
needs to be considered with regard to whether it changes across the life
span and with aging. The main challenge with measuring subjective
well-being is the different conclusions that can be drawn depending on
the numbers of factors that are accounted for and then controlled for in
the analysis (Buffet et al., 2013). When considered for the workforce or
workplace policy, the question arises, should well-being at work be sepa-
rated from well-being generally? Moreover, if well-being is included in
policy, how do countries and organizations move from policy to practice?
(Buffet et al., 2013).
In discussions of subjective well-being in relation to policy, the focus
is often on the measurement of experienced well-being. The unique pol-
icy value of experienced well-being measures may not be in discovering
how clearly quantifiable factors (such as income) relate to aggregate-level
emotional states, but rather in uncovering relationships that would oth-
erwise not be acted upon (National Research Council, 2013). For example,
levels of activity or time use in domains such as commuting or exercise
may have an impact on well-being in ways that are not easily captured by
objective measures. Subjective well-being measures seem most relevant
and useful for policies that involve assessment of costs and benefits when
there are not easily quantifiable elements involved— for instance, govern-
ment consideration of spending to redirect an airport flight path to reduce
noise pollution, funding alternative medical care treatments when more
is at stake than maximizing life expectancy, or selecting between alter-
native recreational and other uses of environmental resources (National
Research Council, 2013).
Thus far, evidence about interactions between experienced well-being
and other indicators is inconclusive. For example, on the relationship
between income and experienced well-being, Deaton and Stone noted
that, at least cross-nationally, the relationship between aggregate posi-
tive emotions (here, meaning day-to-day experienced well-being) and per
capita gross domestic product is unclear (Deaton and Gallus, 2013).
Some authors have suggested that an important consideration in
using subjective well-being as a national aggregate indicator of well-
being is that it may then easily become manipulated in the reporting of
well-being (Frey, 2013). Thus, it is suggested that there may be an inher-
ent limitation in selecting subjective well-being as a target of policy in
that its measurement may become unreliable or biased. Ultimately, sub-
jective well-being has not been recommended as a singular indicator
252 Work design: A systematic approach

of social well-being but rather as an additional indictor that can cap-

ture a range of factors that are difficult to quantify, which may have an
impact on well-being (National Research Council, 2013). Thus, a subjec-
tive assessment of well-being should serve as a supplement to other key
social statistics.

Composite well-being
Composite indicators of well-being combine objective and subjective indi-
cators of well-being into a single measure or measures. The underlying
premise of composite well-being is that both objective and subjective well-
being are important, complementary, and needed in public policy devel-
opment, implementation, and assessment. There are various examples of
composite well-being. The Gallup– Healthways Index is a composite mea-
sure composed of five domains: life evaluation, emotional health, work
environment, physical health, and basic access (Harter et al., 2003; Rath
et al., 2010). Some of the domains are subjective, some are objective. More
specific for work, the Work Ability Index (WAI) developed in the 1980s in
Finland has been widely assessed and can be seen as a composite indica-
tor of well-being. Its validity has been determined and it has been evalu-
ated in numerous populations.
Workability indicates how well a worker is in the present and is likely
to be in the near future, and how able he or she is to do his or her work
with respect to work demands, health, and mental resources (Ilmarinen
et al., 1991). Use of the WAI in the Netherlands is an example of using com-
posite well-being in policy. The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs estab-
lished in 2008 a program (Implementation of WAI in the Netherlands) to
promote, understand, and use workability (ESF Age Network, 2015).
A database of the use of the WAI and related job training, job designs,
health, and career interventions to improve WAI is used to benchmark
among sectors and is then used by policymakers to identify where more
intervention is needed. Composite indicators of well-being in general
are subject to the impact of the selection of indicators, high correlation
between components, computational focus, and component weighting
(Otoiu et al., 2014).
A variant of the composite view of well-being is the simultaneous
measurement of multiple aspects or domains of well-being (Smith and
Clay, 2010). For example, a program designed to improve well-being in
a retail workforce resulted in improvement of multiple domains of well-
being measured independently as improved productivity and increased
overall profitability (Rajaratnam et al., 2014). In another study, Smith and
Clay showed that plotting at least one subjective and one objective mea-
sure of well-being can be used to compare activities at multiple scales and
across nations, time, and cultures (Smith and Clay, 2010).
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 253

Definitional clarity and measurement

There has been a marked tendency to think of well-being as a synonym
for health or for mental health. However, broader definitions have been
widely used. In addition to objective, subjective, and composite well-being
definitions, well-being has been examined as either a risk factor for physi-
cal and mental health outcomes, or as an outcome impacted by personal,
occupational, or environmental risk factors, or both at the same time. The
definitions and resultant policy pronouncements involving well-being
involve very diverse conceptualizations in terms of scale, scope, location,
and responsibility (Cronin de Chavez et al., 2005; Fleuret and Atkinson,
2007; Hodson, 1999; Boehm et al., 2011; Rath et al., 2014). Although a single
definition of well-being may not be needed, there is need for clarity and
specification of the ones used to drive policy, as a component of policy,
or to evaluate policy (Adler, 2013; Buffet et al., 2013; Allin, 2014). There
have been different focal formulations of well-being such as well-being at
work, well-being of workers, employee well-being, workforce well-being,
workplace well-being, and well-being through work. In some cases, the
difference in focus may be merely semantics. However, the focus of well-
being may influence determinants, measures, variable selections, inter-
ventions, and ultimately regulation and guidance. For “ well-being” to be
a useful concept in public policy, it has to be defined and operationalized
so that its social and economic determinants can be identified and inter-
ventions can be developed so that inducements to “ ill-being” in the activi-
ties and relations in which people participate can be addressed (Neubauer
and Pratt, 1981).
Various tools, instruments, and approaches (e.g., questionnaires, data-
bases, and economic and vital statistics) have been used to measure well-
being. The type of measurement may depend on the type of well-being
(i.e., objective, subjective, composite) and level of consideration (i.e., indi-
vidual worker, enterprise, or national level). Warr, 2012 identified eight
elements that should be addressed in measurement of well-being:

1. Whether it should be seen from a psychological, physiological, or

social perspective
2. Whether it should be viewed as a state (time specific) or a trait (more
enduring)
3. Its scope (i.e., type of setting or range)
4. Whether to focus on the positive or negative aspects of well-being or
a combination of both
5. Viewing them as indicators of affective well-being and cognitive:
Affective syndromes (i.e., considering feelings only or including
perceptions and recollections)
6. What to assess when one is measuring affective well-being
254 Work design: A systematic approach

7. What to assess when one is measuring syndrome well-being

8. Examining ambivalence, which includes the temporal aspects, at
one point in time or across time (Buffet et al., 2013)

Determinants of well-being
The literature on determinants of well-being of the workforce as an out-
come attributable to work-related factors is extensive and diverse (Danna
and Griffin, 1999; Prochaska et al., 2011; Karanika-Murray and Weyman,
2013; Hodson, 1999; Warr, 1999; Buffet et al., 2013). A large number of fac-
tors have been investigated and implicated (Danna and Griffin, 1999;
Karanika-Murray and Weyman, 2013; Mellor and Webster, 2013; Rounds
et al., 1987; Karasek, 1979; Karasek, 1992; Grebner et al., 2005; Johnson and
Hall, 1988; Dhondt et al., 2014; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Siegrist, 1996).
Chief among these are workplace management, employee job control,
psychological job demands, work organization, effort and reward, per-
son– environment fit, occupational safety and health, management of ill
health, and work–life balance.
Using a longitudinal design and external rating of job conditions,
Grebner et al. observed that job control (i.e., feelings of control over one’ s
work) correlated with well-being on the job, and job stressors correlated
with lower well-being (Grebner et al., 2005). Hodson identified the main
structural determinants of worker well-being through a quantitative
analysis of ethnographic accounts of 108 book-length descriptions of con-
temporary workplaces and occupations (Hodson, 1999, 2001). Narrative
accounts were numerically coded and analyzed through a multivariate
analysis (Hodson, 1999, 2001). The research determined that the strongest
determinants of worker well-being were mismanagement, worker resis-
tance (any individual or small group act to mitigate claims by management
on employees or to advance employees’ claims against management), and
citizenship (positive actions on the part of employees to improve produc-
tivity and cohesion beyond organization requirements) (Hodson, 1999,
2001). A large amount of literature has quantified job demands and con-
trol as they pertain to workers’ well-being defined by job stress (Boehm
et al., 2011; Karasek, 1979, 1992; Grebner et al., 2005; Johnson and Hall,
1988; Dhondt et al., 2014; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Siegrist, 1996).
Well-being of workers has also been assessed by using the
effort– reward imbalance model, which addresses the effort workers put
into their jobs and the rewards they get. When the rewards comport with
the efforts, well-being is increased (Siegrist, 1996). In 1979, Karasek sug-
gested that jobs be redesigned to include well-being as a goal (Karasek,
1979). The relationship of well-being in terms of health has been assessed
with regard to job insecurity, work hours, control at work, and managerial
style (Sparks, 2001; Allin, 2014; Warr, 2012; Rounds et al., 1987). Well-being
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 255

at work has also been assessed in terms of factors such as work–life bal-
ance, wages, genes, personality, dignity, and opportunity (Noor, 2013;
Karanika-Murray and Weyman, 2013; Hodson, 1999, 2001; Warr, 1999;
Bockerman et al., 2011; Clark, 1996; Blanchflower and Oswald, 2004; Frey
and Stutzer, 2002; Diener et al., 2003).
Another approach used in vocational psychology and job counseling
to assess determinants of well-being is the use of “ person– environment”
fit models. These models make the simple prediction that the quality of
outcomes directly reflects the degree to which the individual and the
environment satisfy the other’ s needs. The Theory of Work Adjustment
has detailed a list of 20 needs common, at varying degrees, to most indi-
viduals and most workplaces (Dawis and Lofquist, 1984; Blustein, 2006).
It also outlines the mechanics and dynamics of this interaction between
person and environment to make predictions about outcomes and it is
one of the few models that give equal weight to satisfaction of the worker
and the workplace (most approaches emphasize one at the expense of the
other— or even ignore one entirely).
In yet another approach, macroergonomics evolved to expand on
the traditional ergonomics of workstations and tool design, workspace
arrangements, and physical environments (Punnett et al., 2013; Hendrick
and Kleiner, 2005). Macroergonomics addresses the work organization,
organizational structures, policies, climate, and culture as upstream con-
tributors to both physical and mental health. This approach helps to trans-
late concepts of well-being to specific job sites (Blustein, 2006; Punnett et
al., 2013). Ultimately, if the well-being of the workforce is to be achieved
and maintained, the policies and guidance need to be practical and feasi-
ble at the job level (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
2010). The well-being of the workforce is dependent not only on well-being
in the workplace, but also on the nonwork determinants of well-being.
These determinants include personal risk factors (e.g., genetics, lifestyle)
as well as social, economic, political, and cultural factors.
The challenge in accounting for these may not be to use every factor
but to select factors that are surrogates for or represent constellations of
related determinants.

Responsibility for well-being

Well-being is a summative characteristic of a worker or workforce and it
can also be tied to place, such as to the attributes of the workplace (Fleuret
and Atkinson, 2007; Schulte and Vainio, 2010; Ryan and Deci, 2001). In
part, achieving increased well-being or a desired level of well-being of the
worker and the workforce is inherent in the responsibility of the employ-
ers to provide safe and healthful work. However, because well-being is a
summative concept that includes threats and promoters of it, as well as
256 Work design: A systematic approach

nonwork factors, the worker (employee) has a responsibility, too. Clearly,

this overlapping responsibility is a slippery slope that could lead to blam-
ing the worker for decreased well-being. Thus, it may be necessary to dis-
tinguish work-related from non-work-related sources of well-being and to
identify the apportionment of responsibility. This is a new and challeng-
ing endeavor. The standard practice in occupational safety and health is
that the employer is responsible for a safe and healthy workplace and the
employee is responsible for following appropriate rules and practices that
the employer establishes to achieve a safe and healthy workplace.
If a higher-level conceptualization of well-being is pursued, which
subsumes health, is aspirational, and includes reaching human potential,
then workers surely must actively engage in the process. How the roles of
employer versus employee will be distinguished, and what to do about
areas of overlap, are critical questions that need to be addressed. In addi-
tion, although well-being at work may be primarily an employer’ s respon-
sibility, well-being of the worker or workforce is also the responsibility (or
at least in the purview) of others in society (e.g., governments, insurance
companies, unions, faith-based and nonprofit organizations) or may be
affected by nonwork domains. Clearly, the well-being of the workforce
extends beyond the workplace, and public policy should consider social,
economic, and political contexts.

Issues for including well-being in public policy

Two critical policy considerations address the incorporation of well-being
for workers in public policy issues. First is the question of how well-being
will be used, and second is what actions should be taken to reduce threats
to well-being and increase promotion of it. The initial need is to consider
the question of how the concept will be used. Will well-being be an end
(dependent variable), a means to an end (independent variable), or an
overarching philosophy? The dominant observation of this chapter is that
well-being in policy has been used as an overarching philosophy. The
1998 Belgian Legislation on the policy of well-being of workers at work is
such an example. It pertains to

1. Work safety
2. Health protection of the worker at work
3. Psychosocial stress caused by work including violence, bullying,
and sexual harassment
4. Ergonomics
5. Occupational hygiene
6. Establishment of the workplace, undertaking measures relating to
the natural environment in respect to their influence on points 1
through 6 (Belgian Legislation, 2015; Anttonen and Rä sä nen, 2008).
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 257

For the most part, this decree mandates what is considered as the
current practice of occupational safety and health. This example does not
capture some components of well-being such as self-fulfillment, engage-
ment, flourishing, and opportunity often found in many definitions. Even
if it did, this use as an overarching philosophy may serve to drive policy
but does not necessarily identify or address determinants or measures
of whether well-being is achieved. If well-being is considered as a policy
objective, then its presence or degree needs to be measurable. Are there
attributes of well-being that could be defined and ultimately measured?
Numerous instruments for measuring well-being in general and some for
well-being in the workplace have been developed (Warr, 1987; Harter et al.,
2003; Prochaska et al., 2011; National Research Council, 2013; Ilmarinen
et al., 1991; Anttonen and Rä sä nen, 2008; European Working Conditions
Observatory, 2008). Sometimes the measurements are surrogates or com-
ponents of well-being (such as longer careers, health, or productivity);
other times they involve the capacity to attain well-being (such as income,
job control, and autonomy) (Sen, 1993; Diaz-Serrano and Cabral Vieira,
2005; Anttonen, 2009; Michaelson et al., 2009; Pot et al., 1994; Osberg, 2004).
In terms of work, well-being could be described in terms of the worker
overall, at work and outside work. It can be considered in terms of the work-
force as a whole, by sector, by enterprise, and by geographic designation.
The consideration of well-being at work could be addressed in public pol-
icy through performance or specification approaches. The “performance”
approach would stipulate an end state, possibly a state of well-being demon-
strated by positive indicators (e.g., worker engagement, decreased absentee-
ism, increased productivity, decreased bullying, or harassment); however,
the means to that end would not be specified. By contrast, in a “specifica-
tion” approach, the means to achieve an end would be specified.

Actions to reduce threats to, and increase promotion of, well-being

The second critical policy question is what actions should be taken to
reduce threats to well-being of workers and increase promotion of it. This
will in part need to be addressed in terms of where regulatory authority
circumscribes the actions that must be taken to protect workers and pre-
vent workplace disease, injury, and deaths. Therefore, in the United States,
the focus would be on the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Mine
Safety and Health Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and other legisla-
tion that has worker safety and health provisions.
The definition of health in work-related legislation has generally
been narrowly originated to be the absence of disease. If, however, a
broader definition of health, such as the one promoted by World Health
Organization (WHO) (WHO, 1948) is used, well-being is a central com-
ponent. The WHO definition is “ Health is a state of complete physical,
258 Work design: A systematic approach

mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or
infirmity” (WHO. 1948, p. 1). As a consequence, using this definition of
health alters the interpretation of legislation dealing with workers’ health.
However, one of the unintended interpretations of the WHO definition is
that, in the era of chronic disease, a goal of complete well-being could lead
to the “ medicalization of society” where many people would be consid-
ered unhealthy most of the time because they lack complete well-being.
If the WHO definition is reformulated to a more dynamic view, “ based
on the resilience or capacity to cope and maintain one’ s integrity, equilib-
rium and sense of well-being,” it would better be a focus for public policy
(Huber et al. 2011, p. 2).
In addition, in some of the current legislation, there is the implication
to go beyond health and address broader issues of well-being.
For example, in the United States, the 1970 Occupational Safety and
Health Act (Pub. L. No. 91– 596, 84 STAT. 1590, December 29, 1970) also
mandates the preservation of human resources, although interpreting
this statement broadly to include “ well-being” was probably not the origi-
nal legislative intention; its inclusion, however, is consistent with consid-
ering a range of factors influencing workers’ well-being. Although this
extant legislation could be sufficient, it may be that additional legislation
or consensus standards are needed that will identify responsibilities for
achieving or maintaining workforce well-being.

Well-being as a driver of public policy

In addition to being included in public policies, well-being assessments
may be used to affect or drive public policy (Adler, 2013; Allin, 2014;
Atkinson et al., 2011). They may serve as part of a feedback loop on existing
conditions or policies to define success, failure, or the need for modifica-
tion of them (Allin, 2014; Huppert et al. 2009). Because worker well-being
is a multifactorial concept, it may be important to understand which
aspect of well-being is affected by specific policies or conditions (Ng and
Fisher, 2013; Rajaratnam et al., 2014; Allin, 2014). For example, one of the
best surveys related to well-being of workers is the European Working
Conditions Survey, which was first conducted in 1990 and periodically
repeated in 16 countries (European Working Conditions Observatory,
2008). This household survey addresses a broad range of themes, which
taken together can be seen as describing well-being in a broad sense of the
term. Many of the individual themes of the survey involve various com-
ponents of well-being and are strong predictors of well-being (European
Working Conditions Observatory, 2008; Diaz-Serrano and Cabral Vieira,
2005). These themes include employment status, working time duration,
safety, work organization, work–life balance, worker participation, earn-
ings, and financial security, as well as work and health. The results of
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 259

this survey are periodically compared for 16 European Nations. Use of the
survey in the United States would be a useful way to identify a baseline
on well-being that could serve to drive public policies as well as serve as
a comparison over time. Although this survey is a useful tool, it is subjec-
tive and only addresses well-being from the worker perspective. There is
also need for tools to assess well-being from the societal perspective.
Well-being can also be used to screen public policies. Screening can
assess whether a policy will have an effect on workforce well-being or its
drivers (Allin, 2014). It is also worth reflecting on at what stage in policy
development and appraisal it is best to consider well-being. Allin iden-
tified stages of a broad policy appraisal cycle and incorporated a well-
being perspective (Allin, 2014). Figure 11.2 traces the steps for developing,
implementing, and evaluating policy. Well-being can be considered at
each step in various ways.

Examples of the use of well-being

in public policy or guidance
Various efforts illustrate application of the well-being concept in poli-
cies, guidance, and research (Table 11.1). The WHO document “ Healthy
workplaces: A model for action: For employers, workers, policy-makers,
and practitioners” uses the concept of well-being as a foundation (Burton,
2010). Building on the WHO definition of health (WHO, 1948), the docu-
ment defines a healthy workplace as one in which workers and managers
collaborate to use a continual improvement process (based on the work
of Deming [Deming, 2008]) to protect the health, safety, and well-being
of all workers and the sustainability of the workplace. Four areas identi-
fied for actions that contribute to a healthy workplace include the physical
work environment, the psychosocial work environment, personal health
resources in the workplace, and enterprise community involvement.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Total
Worker Health program integrates occupational safety and health protec-
tion with workplace policies, programs, and practices that promote health
and prevent disease to advance worker safety, health, and well-being
(Schill and Chosewood, 2013; Howard, 2013). It thus explicitly focuses on
both the workplace and the worker as well as on the dynamics of employ-
ment. There is a growing body of support for prevention strategies to com-
bine health protection and health promotion in the workplace (National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2010; Schill and Chosewood,
2013; Howard, 2013; Hammer and Sauter, 2013). The Total Worker Health
program is an expanded view of human capital, identifying what affects
a worker as a whole rather than distinguishing between “ occupational”
and “ nonoccupational realms” (Howard, 2013; Hammer and Sauter,
 Well-being analyzed
Well-being Well-being Well-being
260

related to Well-being drivers

considered in audit considered in considered in policy
issue/problem/ tested
and inspection adapting policy consultation
situation/segment

Define Justify
Audit Adapt Consult
issue action

Well-being
implemented/ Well-being
Define outcomes/ considered as an
operationalized by Rationale success measures
workers’/employers’ objective/valued
involvement through outcome
well-being calculators,
tools, maps, and surveys Engage
stakeholders
Feedback Objectives

Well-being evaluated: Develop Well-being generates

Policy new or modified
data disseminated for strategies
Disseminate
others to analyze appraisal cycle policy options

Appraisal of
Evaluation
strategies/
approaches Appraise
Well-being considered
Well-being
Implementation/ in policy appraisal—
considered in Evaluate
monitoring monetized and
evaluation
nonmonetized aspects

Monitor Provide resources Implement

Well-being Well-being outcomes Well-being policy Well-being assessed

monitoring and supported by designed and for potential
measurement financial investment implemented impact(s)

Figure 11.2    Worker/workforce well-being and the policy appraisal cycle. (Adapted from Allin P, Work and Wellbeing: A Complete
Work design: A systematic approach

Reference Guide , West Sussex, UK, John Wiley, 2014.)

 Table 11.1    Example of well-being in research, guidance, and regulation

References Metrics or
Chapter eleven:

(Year) Use Conception or definition of well-being Focus or methods indications

Research Relationship “ We see well-being as a broad category that Meta-analysis of 36 Employee
Harter et al. to business encompasses a number of workplace factors. companies engagement-
(2003) outcomes Within the overall category of well-being we involving 198,514 linked business
discuss a hypothesized model that employee respondents outcomes
engagement (a combination of cognitive and
emotional antecedent variables in the workplace)
generates higher frequency of positive affect (job
satisfaction, commitment, joy, fulfillment, interest,
caring). Positive affect then relates to the efficient
application of work, employee retention, creativity,
and ultimately business outcomes.” (p.2–3)
Chida and Relationship “ Positive psychological well-being encompasses Systematic review of 35 studies,
Considerations for worker well-being

Steptoe to mortality positive affect and related trait-like constructs or prospective cohort hazard
(2008) dispositions, such as optimism… . Positive affect studies to ratio = 0.82; 95%
can be defined as a state of pleasurable determine link confidence
engagement with the environment eliciting between well-being interval = 0.76,
feelings, such as happiness, joy, excitement, and mortality 0.89
enthusiasm, and contentment.” (p.741)
(Continued)
261
 Table 11.1    (Continued) Example of well-being in research, guidance, and regulation
262

References Metrics or
(Year) Use Conception or definition of well-being Focus or methods indications
Huppert et al. European “ Well-being is a complex construct.” (p.303) Well-being module 54 items, divided
(2009) Social It is “ people’ s perceived quality of life, which we and questionnaire into 2 sections,
Survey refer to as their ‘ well-being.’ ” (p.302) corresponding
to personal and
interpersonal
dimensions of
well-being; each
of these is
further
subdivided into
feeling (being)
and functioning
(doing)
Guidance or Well-being in Identifying best Key performance
practice, the practices related to indicators
Delwart et workplace well-being in the
al. (2011) guide workplace
Schill and Guidance for “ Total Worker Health™ is a strategy integrating Guidance on how to Various score
Choosewood Total Worker occupational safety and health protection with integrate health cards
(2013) Health health promotion to prevent worker injury and protection and
illness and to advance health and well-being.” (p.58) promotion
“ Promoting optimal well-being is a multifaceted
endeavor that includes employee engagement and
support for the development of healthier
behaviors, such as improved nutrition, tobacco
use/cessation, increase physical activity, and
Work design: A systematic approach

improved work/life balance.” (p.59)

(Continued)
 Table 11.1    (Continued) Example of well-being in research, guidance, and regulation
References Metrics or
(Year) Use Conception or definition of well-being Focus or methods indications
Canadian Mental Psychological health and safety in the workplace. Developing an Integrated
Standard well-being action plan for approach
Chapter eleven:

Association guidelines implementing the

(2013) mental health and
well-being strategy
Burton (2010) WHO model “ WHO’ s definition of health is: ‘ A state of complete Framework for Continuous
for healthy physical, mental and social well-being and not health protection improvement
workplaces merely the absence of disease.’ In line with this, and promotion method
the definition of a healthy workplace … is as
follows: A healthy workplace is one in which
workers and managers collaborate to use a
continual improvement process to protect and
promote the health, safety, and well-being of all
workers and the sustainability of the
workplace.” (p.90)
Regulation or WEBA Operational well-being in terms of organization of How to measure 3 value levels for
Considerations for worker well-being

policy, Pot et (conditions work and ergonomics. individual 7 questions

al. (1994) of well-being well-being
at work
policy)
East Riding of Psychological The mental health as well as the physical health, Stress assessment Likert-like
Yorkshire well-being at safety, and welfare of employees. (relating to work scoring; risk
Council work policy pressures) tool to scoring
(2004) develop action plan
(Continued)
263
 264

Table 11.1    (Continued) Example of well-being in research, guidance, and regulation

References Metrics or
(Year) Use Conception or definition of well-being Focus or methods indications
Ministry of Well-being at “ Health, safety and well-being are important Policies to specify a Extend work 3
Social Affairs work common values, which are put into practice in ministerial strategy years
and Health policies every workplace and for every employee. The Reduce
(2011) activities of a workplace are guided by a common workplace
idea of good work and a good workplace. Good accidents 25%;
work means a fair treatment of employees, reduce psychic
adoption of common values as well as mutual strain 20%;
trust, genuine cooperation and equality in the reduce physical
workplace. A good workplace is productive and strain 20%
profitable.” (p.4)
“ From the perspective of the work environment, a
good workplace is a healthy, safe and pleasant
place. Good management and leadership,
meaningful and interesting tasks, and a successful
reconciliation of work and private life are also
characteristics of a good workplace.” (p.4)
Note : WEBA  =  conditions of well-being at work; WHO  =  World Health Organization.
Work design: A systematic approach
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 265

2013). The program calls for a comprehensive approach to worker safety,

health, and well-being. Guidelines and frameworks are provided to imple-
ment policies and programs that integrate occupational safety and health
protection with efforts to promote health and prevent disease. In another
effort, the recent Canadian consensus standard on mental health in workers
illustrates a step in the direction of targeting psychological well-being as
an outcome, and the means to achieve it (Canadian Standards Association,
Bureau de normalization du Quebec, 2013). The stated purpose of this volun-
tary standard is to provide a systematic approach for creation of workplaces
that actively protect the psychological health and promote the psychologi-
cal well-being of workers. “ Psychological well-being” is characterized by
a state in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope
with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is
able to make a contribution to his or her community (Canadian Standards
Association, Bureau de normalization du Quebec, 2013). To achieve this
purpose, the standard details requirements for development, implementa-
tion, evaluation, and management of a workplace psychological health and
safety management system (PHSMS). The standard enumerates 13 work-
place factors that affect psychological health and safety and uses these
factors to guide the conceptualization of a PHSMS. Risk management, cost-
effectiveness, recruitment and retention, and organizational excellence
and sustainability are included in the business case rationale for a com-
prehensive and effective PHSMS. In addition to an outcome of improved
well-being, benefits for workers from a PHSMS include improved job satis-
faction, self-esteem, and job fulfillment (Canadian Standards Association,
Bureau de normalization du Quebec, 2013). Additional examples regarding
the use of the term “ well-being” can be found in a number of European
policies (Anttonen and Rä sä nen, 2008). In the Netherlands, guidance was
issued in 1989 that called for well-being in the workplace. This legislation
operationalized well-being in two categories: organization of work and
ergonomics. It also required the training of a “ new” type of professional at
the master’ s degree level with expertise in organization of work (Pot et al.,
1994). However, after a few years, the legislation was challenged because
of difficulty in enforcing the subjective concept of well-being, and nulli-
fied by the courts. During that period, an instrument to assess job content,
known as the WEBA instrument (well-being at work), was developed to
assess stress, risks, and job skill learning opportunities. This instrument is
based on the Karesek (Karasek, 1979) demand– control theory and innova-
tion guidance (Pot et al., 1994).
A broader illustration is the Finnish policy “ Work Environment and
Well-Being at Work Until 2020,” which identifies attainment of well-being
through lengthened working life, decreased accidents and occupational
diseases, and reduced physical and psychic strain (Policies for the work
environment and well-being, 2011).
266 Work design: A systematic approach

The Finnish policy of well-being at work aims to encourage workers

to have longer work careers:

This means improving employees’ abilities, will,

and opportunities to work. Work must be attrac-
tive and it must promote employees’ health, work
ability, and functional capacity. Good and healthy
work environments support sustainable develop-
ment and employees’ well-being and improve the
productivity of enterprises and the society. (Policies
for the work environment and well-being, 2011, p. 5)

This chapter focuses on public policy related to well-being and

the application of that policy to workers and the workplace and for the
workforce overall. As shown in Figure 11.3, there are work and nonwork
threats to, and promoters of, well-being. Preventing workplace hazards
and promoting workers’ well-being in that context necessitates policies
that cross work– nonwork boundaries. This is exemplified in the WHO
“ healthy workplaces model” (Burton, 2010) and in the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health Total Worker Health program (Schill
and Chosewood, 2013). Although both acknowledge the nonwork influ-
ences, they primarily illustrate how to address them in the workplace.

Well-being of
the population
P Workplace well-being
r
Work
threats e Well-being of
v the workplace
Non-work e
threats
n
t
i
o
n

P r o m o t i o n

Work- Non-work-
related related

Figure 11.3    Conceptual view of the possible relationship between work and
nonwork threats to, and promoters of, well-being. Note: Dashed lines show the
interaction factors.
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 267

Clearly, as has been illustrated in the aftermath of the effort to enact

“ well-being” legislation in the Netherlands, ensuring well-being in the
workplace is difficult to mandate because of various issues related to mea-
surement, responsibility, motivation, and cost (Pot et al., 1994). Nonetheless,
there are examples of companies worldwide that have promoted holistic
well-being approaches (Dewe and Kompier, 2008; Smith and Clay, 2010;
Anttonen, 2009; Delwart et al., 2011; Hammer and Sauter, 2013).
The strong link of well-being to productivity and health is a moti-
vating factor for a business strategy that includes well-being consider-
ations (Rissa and Kaustia, 2007; Harter et al., 2003; Prochaska et al., 2011;
Delwart et al., 2011; Hammer and Sauter, 2013; Baptiste, 2008; Loeppke et
al., 2009). The key, however, is to integrate health protection and health
promotion in interventions in the workplace (Schill and Chosewood,
2013). Although the focus has initially been on physical health, the
greater impact may be on mental and social health and well-being over-
all (Loeppke et al., 2009; Beddington et al., 2008; Black, 2008; Juniper et
al., 2009; Harter et al., 2003). Employers have found that it is beneficial to
go beyond a physical health focus to affect productivity because recruit-
ment, retention, and engagement of employees include consideration of
work–life balance, community involvement, and employee development
(Anttonen and Rä sä nen, 2008; Beddington et al., 2008; Juniper et al., 2009;
Harter et al., 2003).
The implementation of programs for well-being at work has been
described in various countries and for various sizes of companies
(Prochaska et al., 2011; Anttonen and Rä sä nen, 2008; Beddington et al.,
2008; Black, 2008; Juniper et al., 2009). Though generally not explicit about
the definition of well-being, the programs involve raising awareness in
a company, creating a culture and environment that will promote prac-
tice for well-being, and using a means to measure and consider changes
in well-being or its components and determinants. One necessary aspect
that is not often highlighted in implementing well-being policies is the
need for worker participation (Punnett et al., 2013). Worker input on poli-
cies and processes that affect them is critical for the effectiveness of those
efforts.
From a business perspective, implementation of well-being programs
should be considered as an investment rather than a cost (Howard, 2013;
Juniper, 2012). However, as Cherniack notes,

The concept of return on investment for a workplace

intervention is incongruous with the more usual
approach in health research of comparative effec-
tiveness, where interventions are compared between
nonamortized outcomes or comparable outcomes are
assessed by program costs. (Cherniack, 2013, p. 44)
268 Work design: A systematic approach

Nonetheless, the business value of well-being programs is criti-

cal information (Harter et al., 2003; Prochaska et al., 2011; Gandy et al.,
2014; Baptiste, 2008; Loeppke et al., 2009). To this end, efforts to develop
and implement well-being policies should promote the business value
of such policies along with the philosophical and humanitarian aspects
(Prochaska et al., 2011; Gandy et al., 2014; Baptiste, 2008; Black, 2008).
Well-being at work has implications not only for the worker and the com-
pany but also for the workforce as a whole, for the population, and for
the national economy (Schulte and Vainio, 2010; Prochaska et al., 2011;
Beddington et al., 2008; Black, 2008; Robertson and Cooper, 2011).
Restricting consideration of well-being to the workplace does not cap-
ture the full importance and meaning of work in human life. Budd and
Spencer have advocated that

[a] more complete approach to worker well-being

needs to go beyond job quality to consider workers
as fully-functioning citizens who derive and experi-
ence both public and private benefits and costs from
working. (Budd and Spencer, 2014, p. 3)

Too often worker well-being is considered at the level of worker

health, job quality, and satisfaction. However, interviews with workers
about their perceived well-being found that many emphasized specific
job characteristics, and many also focused on the extent to which work
enabled them to live in their chosen community and attain or maintain
their preferred lifestyle (Budd and Spencer, 2014; Cooke et al., 2013). The
extent to which this sentiment is generalizable to a broad range of work-
ers is not known, but it is clear that job quality and worker well-being has
a socioeconomic context that should be considered in the development
of public policy and implementation of well-being programs (Budd and
Spencer, 2014; Rath et al., 2010; Blanchflower, 2004).

Research and operationalization needs

Although there is a foundational literature on the relationship between
worker well-being and enterprise productivity (Rissa and Kaustia, 2007;
Harter et al., 2003; Prochaska et al., 2011; Loeppke et al., 2009; Juniper et
al., 2009; Harter et al., 2003; Robertson and Cooper, 2011), the link has yet
to be analyzed systematically and bears further investigation (Danna
and Griffin, 1999). In addition, the relationship between workforce well-
being and population well-being needs to be further elaborated to pro-
vide the impetus for the development of policies and practices to support
programs that enhance well-being (Schulte and Vainio, 2010). Workforce
well-being historically has not always been viewed as central to national
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 269

welfare (Schulte and Vainio, 2010; Budd and Spencer, 2014). This is despite
the fact that the workforce makes up the largest group in the population
(when compared with the prework and postwork groups). There is also
need for research on the creation of good jobs. A large number of “ good”
jobs and the ability of the workforce to access them, move between them,
and otherwise thrive is critical to the well-being of the entire population
(Osterman and Shulman, 2011; Grawitch et al., 2006; Clifton, 2011).
There is also a need for a strategy for conducting research to fill gaps
in the evidence base for what works and does not work in achieving or
maintaining well-being. These efforts will hinge on clarifying the con-
stituent factors that contribute to well-being, as well as on identifying
promising interventions to address or enhance well-being. Many of the
challenges related to conceptualizing and operationalizing well-being
may prove intractable, including addressing issues linked to distribution
of opportunity and income, lack of job control, organization of work, and
potential conflicts caused when or if guidance for promoting worker well-
being is perceived as interfering with employers’ rights to manage their
workplaces (Hansen and Starheim, 2011). Nonetheless, as described earlier
in this chapter, the Canadian mental health standard shows that many of
these barriers are not insurmountable (Canadian Standards Association,
Bureau de normalization du Quebec, 2013). An important focus of research
is how to address these seemingly intractable challenges linked to promot-
ing well-being. It may be desirable to include well-being in public policy,
but several challenges exist to achieving this end. Empirical research and
analysis require the development of standard definitions, operationalized
variables that can be measured, and an understanding of the implications
of using such definitions and metrics (Adler, 2011; Fleuret and Atkinson,
2007; Seligman, 2011; Mueller, 2003; Ilies et al., 2007). Hypothesis testing
of the determinants and impacts of well-being, based on the operational-
ization of definitions and associated metrics, moves the researcher from
the abstract to the empirical level, where variables— rather than concepts
or definitions— are the focus (Mueller, 2003). If variables that describe
aspects of well-being can be measured and agreed upon, this might allow
the determination of targets for intervention or improvement. Analysis of
the determinants and impacts of well-being for public policy need to be
multilevel because well-being is affected by political, economic, and social
factors (Ng and Fisher, 2013; Xing and Chu, 2011; Allin, 2014; Siegrist, 1996;
Ilies et al., 2007).
One of the drivers of public policy aimed at occupational safety
and health is quantitative risk assessment (National Research Council,
2009). Quantitative risk assessment is statistical modeling of hazard
exposure– response data to predict risks (usually) at lower levels of expo-
sure. One question is whether approaches from classic quantitative risk
assessment are useful in assessing well-being in the occupational setting
270 Work design: A systematic approach

as a basis for policy. To apply risk assessment methods to well-being, an

“ exposure– response” analog would be needed. For example, the expo-
sures could be threats to well-being and the response the state of well-
being influenced by those threats, or exposures could be a certain type
of well-being and the response could be markers of health. A number of
issues arise in the conceptualization of an exposure– response relation-
ship related to well-being. First, threats to well-being can come from
various sources related to work and external to it. Identifying them and
combining them into an exposure variable with an appropriate, tractable
metric will be difficult. If the focus is for employer and worker or work-
force guidance, it is likely that the threats pertaining to the workplace will
be most relevant, but external nonwork threats will also be important,
and the two may interact (Figure 11.3). Capturing that interaction will be
difficult and complicated but it is critical if well-being is to be included in
risk assessment. Second, there are factors that promote well-being, such
as work, having a job, and adequate income (Black, 2008; Waddell and
Burton, 2006; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2013). A job that is satisfying is even
more so associated with well-being (Grawitch et al., 2006; Broom et al.,
2006). Third, identifying and operationalizing the promoters of or threats
to well-being will be a challenge.
If this can be accomplished, then perhaps exposure– response relation-
ships relevant to well-being can be identified and quantified. It may then
be appropriate to identify on an “ exposure– response curve” an (adverse)
change in the “ amount” of well-being, or other outcome affected by well-
being, that may be considered to be of importance in a given context. This
may then allow the derivation of a level of a relevant exposure associ-
ated with the defined change in outcome, consistent with the application
of the quantitative risk assessment paradigm. If exposures (positive and
negative) could be assessed, then desirable targets could be specified.
Ultimately, the need will be to determine a level of risk for either decreased
well-being or outcomes impacted by well-being in the workplace, the
workforce, and for individual workers to define targets for intervention
and prevention strategies. If a risk assessment approach is appropriate to
examine well-being for the development of public policy, one underlying
question is whether it is feasible to develop an exposure– response analog
for well-being. Various aspects of well-being would need to be taken into
consideration. These include the fact that well-being has both subjective
and objective attributes. How do you measure these across various work
settings and conditions? (Spector et al., 2002; Trimble, 2010) How do you
adjust for subjective differences? (Diener, 2013) In addition, well-being is
not a static condition; it is an evolving one that changes with time and
other factors (Fleuret et al., 2007; Sointu, 2005). Although the focus thus
far has been on well-being as the target of policy, it may be that well-being
also should be seen as a means to achieve policy (Atkinson, 2012). If the
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 271

latter view is the case, does this change any of the definitional and variable
specification issues raised thus far? For example, the issue of well-being
as a changing condition might be the rationale for identifying trends in
workforce well-being as outcomes of policies or interventions. As a con-
sequence, leading indicators of well-being outcomes might be sought and
used as targets for guidance or regulation. If well-being is to be incor-
porated in quantitative risk assessments, it would need to be evaluated
for whether it meets the basic quantitative risk assessment criteria. These
include whether the hazards (threats) to well-being can be defined and
measured; the well-being can be defined and measured when it is func-
tioning as a factor that has an impact on health outcomes; the well-being
as an outcome or response of exposure to these hazards (threats) can be
defined and measured; the exposure– response models are appropriate for
measuring well-being and whether these need to be quantitative, qualita-
tive, or a combination thereof; the risk can be characterized and if it is
possible to account for aspects such as uncertainty and sensitive popula-
tions; and the risk characteristics of threats to well-being can be used to
drive risk-management strategies. It may be that the exposure– response
paradigm is not the appropriate way to think about and assess well-being.
Qualitative approaches may be more relevant. For example, the European
Union Well-Being at Work project promoted an approach developed by
the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, which described the man-
agement changes needed to achieve well-being at work and provided a
self-evaluation matrix with six categories of activities that businesses can
use to evaluate their performance (Anttonen and Rä sä nen, 2008; Anttonen
and Vainio, 2010). Or perhaps a combined quantitative and qualitative
approach is the most appropriate for determining, addressing, or measur-
ing the well-being of worker populations.

Going forward
The ultimate policy issue is whether it is a good idea to incorporate well-
being as a focus for occupational risk assessments and guidance. The
benefits of operationalizing well-being need further investigation, as do
the unintended consequences. There are various policy issues that might
come into play. Some of these have been described, including “ blam-
ing the worker” for lack of well-being in the workplace and diluting
the responsibility of employers. The means of achieving well-being in
the workplace are generally the responsibility of the employer, but true
well-being requires that workers have autonomy and a role in determin-
ing the organization and conditions of work, have a living wage, and
have an opportunity to share in the success of the organization. Clearly,
these will be viewed by some as controversial issues, but they stem from
what has been averred as inherent rights, even if they are not universally
272 Work design: A systematic approach

recognized (Osterman and Shulman, 2011; Bauer, 2010; Budd and Spencer,
2014; Hodson, 2001; Fisk, 2007; UN General Assembly, 1948).
Eventually, consideration of well-being has to address ethical issues
because various definitions of well-being could involve questions such as
fair distribution of opportunity and realization of self-determination. It
is understandable that there are political differences that arise over these
issues. To help bridge some of these differences, there is need to expand
the knowledge base described in this chapter for such aspects as the busi-
ness case for promoting well-being at work, the link between workforce
well-being and population well-being, and the need to address the range
of determinants of well-being. The challenge in making workforce well-
being a focus of public health and ultimately societal expectation is that it
requires multiple disciplines and stakeholder groups to interact, commu-
nicate, and ultimately work together. This is not easy to achieve. In fact, it
is quite difficult.
There is need for development of a strategy for cross-discipline and
cross-stakeholder group multiway communication on this issue. The spe-
cialty discipline of occupational safety and health may be an appropriate
initiator of these communications because its focus is solidly rooted in
workforce safety, health, and, by extension, well-being. Other disciplines
such as occupational health psychology, health promotion, industrial and
organizational psychology, ergonomics, economics, sociology, geography,
medicine, law, nursing, and public health also should be involved in the
effort to examine well-being guidance and policies. The focus on worker
and workforce well-being is of critical national importance because of the
role and significance of work to national life (Schulte and Vainio, 2010;
Loeppke et al., 2009; Black, 2008; Anttonen and Vainio, 2010). The growing
incidence of mental disorders, stress-related outcomes, and chronic dis-
eases in the population and the organizational features of work related to
safety and health outcomes require attention to their linkage to well-being.
With dependency ratios becoming dangerously close to unsustain-
able levels and rising health care burdens, there is need for a more com-
prehensive view of what factors deleteriously affect the workforce and
what can be done about it. Considering and operationalizing the concept
of well-being is an important next step.

About the authors

Paul A. Schulte, Rebecca J. Guerin, Anasua Bhattacharya, Thomas
R. Cunningham, Sudha P. Pandalai, Donald Eggerth, and Carol M.
Stephenson are with the Education and Information Division, the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH.
Anita L. Schill is with the Office of the Director, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, DC.
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 273

Correspondence should be sent to Paul A. Schulte, PhD, the National

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1150 Tusculum Ave, MS-C14,
Cincinnati, OH 45226 (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered
at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the “ Reprints” link. This article was
accepted January 30, 2015.
Note : The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Contributors
P. A. Schulte originated the document, developed the first draft, and
revised subsequent drafts. R. J. Guerin reviewed definitions of well-being,
contributed to writing the article, and edited various drafts. A. L. Schill,
A. Bhattacharya, S. P. Pandalai, T. R. Cunningham, D. Eggerth, and C.M.
Stephenson contributed to writing and editing the article.

Acknowledgments
We thank the following individuals for comments on earlier versions
of this article: Frank Pot, Knut Ringen, Gregory Wagner, and Laura
Punnett. We also acknowledge the efforts of Brenda Proffitt, Elizabeth
Zofkie, and Devin Baker regarding logistical support in preparation of
this article.

Human participant protection

No institutional review board approval was needed because the focus
was literature based.

References
Adler M. Well-Being and Equity: A Framework for Policy Analysis . New York: Oxford
University Press; 2011.
Adler MD. Happiness surveys and public policy: What’ s the use? Duke Law J .
2013;62(8):1509– 1601.
Agrawal S, Harter JK. Well-Being Meta-analysis: A Worldwide Study of the Relationship
between the Five Elements of Wellbeing and Life Evaluation, Daily Expenses,
Health, and Giving. Washington, DC: Gallup; 2001.
Allin P. Measuring well-being in modern societies. In: Chen PY, Cooper CL, eds. Work
and Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley; 2014.
Antonovsky A. The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion.
Health Promot Int . 1996;11(1):11– 18.
Anttonen H, Rä sä nen T. EU and Well-Being at Work Policy: Well-Being at Work in
Partner Countries. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Institute of Occupational
Health; 2008.
274 Work design: A systematic approach

Anttonen H, Vainio H. Towards better work and well-being an overview. J Occup

Environ Med . 2010;52 (12):1245– 1248.
Anttonen HT. Well-Being at Work: New Innovations and Good Practices. Helsinki,
Finland: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2009:32.
Atkinson S, Fuller S, Painter J. Well-Being and Place . Surrey, UK: Ashgate; 2012.
Atkinson S, Joyce Kerry E. The place and practices of wellbeing in local gover-
nance. Environ Plann C Gov Policy . 2011;29:133– 168.
Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands– resources model: State of the art.
J Manag Psychol . 2007;22(3):309– 328.
Baptiste NR. Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and per-
formance: A new dimension for HRM. Manage Decis . 2008;46(1– 2):284– 309.
Bauer GF. Determinants of workplace health: Salutogenic perspective on work,
organization, and organizational change. Slide presentation at: Exploring
the SOC determinants for health, 3rd International Research Seminar on
Salutogenesis and the 3rd Meeting of the International Union for Health
Promotion and Education Global Working Group on Salutogenesis; July 11,
2010; Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www. salutogenesis.hv.se/
files/bauer_g._genf.salutogen.wh.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2015.
Beddington J, Cooper CL, Field J, et al. The mental wealth of nations. Nature .
2008;455(7216):1057– 1060.
Belgian Legislation. Act of August 4, 1996 on well-being of workers in the per-
formance of their work. Available at: http://www.beswic.be/fr/legislation/
the-belgian-legislation/front-page. Accessed March 6, 2015.
Black C. Working for a Healthier Tomorrow . London: The Stationary Office; 2008.
Blanchflower DG, Oswald AJ. Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. J Public
Econ . 2004;88(7– 8):1359– 1386.
Blustein D. The Psychology of Working. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006.
Bockerman P, Ilmakunnas P, Johansson E. Job security and employee well-
being: Evidence from matched survey and register data. Labour Econ . 2011;
18(4):547– 554.
Boehm JK, Peterson C, Kivimaki M, Kubzansky L. A prospective study of posi-
tive psychological well-being and coronary heart disease. Health Psychol .
2011;30(3):259– 267.
Bronsteen J, Buccafusco CJ, Masur JS. Well-Being and Public Policy. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Coase– Sandor Institute for Law and Economics; 2014.
Research paper 707.
Broom DH, D’ Souza RM, Strazdins L, Butterworth P, Parslow R, Rodgers B. The
lesser evil: Bad jobs or unemployment? A survey of mid-aged Australians.
Soc Sci Med . 2006;63(3):575– 586.
Budd JW, Spencer DA. Worker well-being and the importance of work: Bridging
the gap. Euro J Indust Rel . 2014:1– 16.
Buffet MA, Gervais RL, Liddle M, Eechelaert L. Well-Being at Work: Creating a
Positive Work Environment . Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety and
Health at Work; 2013.
Burton J. Healthy Workplaces: A Model for Action: For Employers, Workers, Policy-
Makers, and Practitioners. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;
2010.
Bustillos AS, Ortiz Trigoso O. Access to health programs at the workplace and the
reduction of work presenteeism: A population-based cross-sectional study.
J Occup Environ Med . 2013;55(11):1318– 1322.
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 275

Canadian Standards Association, Bureau de normalization du Quebec.

Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace: Prevention , Promotion , and
Guidance to Staged Implementation . Toronto, ON: Mental Health Commission
of Canada, National Standard of Canada; 2013.
Cherniack M. Integrated health programs, health outcomes, and return on invest-
ment: Measuring workplace health promotion and integrated program
effectiveness. J Occup Environ Med . 2013;55(12 suppl):S38– S45.
Chida Y, Steptoe A. Positive psychological well-being and mortality: A quan-
titative review of prospective observational studies. Psychosom Med .
2008;70(7):741– 756.
Church TS, Thomas DM, Tudor-Locke C, et al. Trends over five decades in US
occupation-related physical activity and their associations with obesity.
PLoS ONE . 2011;6(5):e19657.
Cierpich H, Styles L, Harrison R, et al. Work-related injury deaths among
Hispanics: United States, 1992– 2006 (Reprinted from MMWR, Vol. 57,
pp. 597– 600, 2008). JAMA . 2008;300(21):2479– 2480.
Clark AE. Job satisfaction in Britain. Br J Ind Relat . 1996;34(2):189– 217.
Clifton J. The Coming Jobs War . New York: Gallup Press; 2011.
Cohen GA. Equality of what? On welfare, goods and capabilities. In: Nussbaum
M, Sen AK, eds. The Quality of Life . Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 1993.
Cooke GB, Donaghey J, Zeytinoglu IU. The nuanced nature of work qual-
ity: Evidence from rural Newfoundland and Ireland. Hum Relat .
2013;66(4):503– 527.
Costa G, Goedhard WJ, Ilmarinen J. Assessment and Promotion of Work Ability,
Health and Well-Being of Ageing Workers . Amsterdam, the Netherlands:
Elsevier; 2005.
Cronin de Chavez A, Backett-Milburn K, Parry O, Platt S. Understanding and
researching wellbeing: Its usage in different disciplines and potential for
health research and health promotion. Health Educ J . 2005;64(1):70– 87.
Cummings KJ, Kreiss K. Contingent workers and contingent health: Risks of a
modern economy. JAMA . 2008;299(4):448– 450.
Danna K, Griffin RW. Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and syn-
thesis of the literature. J Manage . 1999;25(3):357– 384.
Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment: An Individual-
Differences Model and Its Applications . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press; 1984.
de Perio MA, Wiegand DM, Brueck SE. Influenza-like illness and presenteeism
among school employees. Am J Infect Control . 2014;42(4):450– 452.
Deaton A, Stone AA. Two happiness puzzles. Am Econ Rev . 2013;103(3):591– 597.
Delwart V, Van Eck T, Vandehende A, Berruga B. Wellbeing in the Workplace: A Guide
with Best Practices and Tips for Implementing a Successful Wellbeing Strategy at
Work . Brussels, Belgium: CSR Europe; 2011. Available at: http://www.csreu-
rope.org/sites/default/files/wellbeingguide2_0.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2015.
Deming WE. Out of the Crisis 2000. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced
Manufacturing Study; 2008.
DeVol R, Bedroussian A, Charuworn A, et al. An Unhealthy America: The Economic
Burden of Chronic Disease. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute; 2007.
Dewe P, Kompier M. Foresight mental capital and wellbeing project. In: Dewe P,
Kompier M, eds. Wellbeing and Work: Future Challenges . London: Government
Office for Science; 2008.
276 Work design: A systematic approach

Dhondt S, Pot F, Kraan K. The importance of organizational level decision lati-

tude for well-being and organizational commitment. Team Perform Manage .
2014;20:307– 327.
Diaz-Serrano L, Cabral Vieira J. Low-Pay, Higher Pay and Job Satisfaction within the
European Union Empirical Evidence from Fourteen Countries . Bonn, Germany:
Institute for the Study of Labor; 2005. IZA Discussion Papers no. 1550.
Diener E. The remarkable changes in the science of subjective well-being. Perspect
Psychol Sci . 2013;8(6):663– 666.
Diener E, Chan MY. Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes
to health and longevity. Appl Psychol . 2011;3(1):1– 43.
Diener E, Oishi S, Lucas RE. Personality, culture, and subjective well-
being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annu Rev Psychol .
2003;54:403– 425.
Dolan P, White MP. How can measures of subjective well-being be used to inform
public policy? Perspect Psychol Sci . 2007;2(1):71– 85.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council. Well-being at work code of practice. 2004. Available
at: http://www.eriding.net/resources/educators/well-being/070316_rmciver_
edu_ssu27_code_of_practice.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2015.
Easterlin RA. Does economic growth improve the human lot? In: David PA,
Reeder MW, eds. Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor
of Moses Abramovitz . New York: Academic Press; 1974:89– 125.
ESF Age Network. Work Ability Index: A programme from the Netherlands.
Available at: http://www.careerandage.eu/prevsite/sites/esfage/files/
resources/Work-Ability-Index_1.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015.
European Working Conditions Observatory. Well-Being at Work: Innovation and
Good Practice . Dublin, Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions; 2008.
Fisk M. Human rights and living wages. In: Butler C, ed. Guantanamo Bay and the
Judicial-Moral Treatment of the Other. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University
Press; 2007:146– 160.
Fleuret S, Atkinson S. Wellbeing, health and geography: A critical review and
research agenda. NZ Geog . 2007;63(2):106– 118.
Flynn MA. Safety and the diverse workforce. Prof Saf . 2014;59:52– 57.
Frey BS, Gallus J. Subjective well-being and policy. Topoi . 2013;32(2):207– 212.
Frey BS, Stutzer A. Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect
Human Well-Being . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2002.
Gandy WM, Coberley C, Pope JE,Wells A, Rula EY. Comparing the contributions
of well-being and disease status to employee productivity. J Occup Environ
Med . 2014;56(3):252– 257.
Gaspart F. Objective measures of well-being and the cooperative production prob-
lem. Soc Choice Welfare . 1997;15(1):95– 112.
Grawitch MJ, Gottschalk M, Munz DC. The path to a healthy workplace: A criti-
cal review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and
organizational improvements. Consult Psychol J Pract Res . 2006; 58(3):129– 147.
Grebner S, Semmer NK, Elfering A. Working conditions and three types of well-
being: A longitudinal study with self-report and rating data. J Occup Health
Psychol . 2005;10(1):31.
Guillemin M. Lesser Known Aspects of Occupational Health [in French]. Paris, France:
L’ Harmattan; 2011.
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 277

Hammer LB, Sauter S. Total worker health and work-life stress. J Occup Environ
Med . 2013;55(12 suppl):S25– S29.
Hansen AM, Starheim L. Working environment authority interventions to pro-
mote well-being at work. Paper presented at: 29th International Labour
Process Conference; April 5– 7, 2011; Leeds, UK.
Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Keyes CL. Well-being in the workplace and its relationship
to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In: Keyes CL, Haidt J,
eds. Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived . Washington, DC:
American Psychology Association; 2003:205– 224.
Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Killham EA. Employee Engagement, Satisfaction, and Business-
Unit-Level Outcomes: A Meta-analysis. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization;
2003.
Hassan E, Austin C, Celia C, et al. Health and Well-Being at Work in the United
Kingdom . Cambridge, UK: Rand Europe; 2009.
Hemp P. Presenteeism: At work— but out of it. Harv Bus Rev . 2004;82(10):49– 58.
Hendrick HW, Kleiner B. Macroergonomics: Theory, Methods, and Applications .
Mahwah, NJ: CRC Press; 2005.
Hodson R. Analyzing Documentary Accounts (Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999.
Hodson R. Dignity at Work . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
Holzer HJ, Nightingale DS. Reshaping the American Workforce in a Changing
Economy . Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 2007.
Howard J. Seven challenges for the future of occupational safety and health.
J Occup Environ Hyg . 2010;7(4):D11– D18.
Howard J. Worker health  =  economic health. In: 27th National Conference on Health,
Productivity, and Human Capital . Washington, DC: National Business Group
on Health; 2013.
Howell RT, Kern ML, Lyubomirsky S. Health benefits: Meta-analytically deter-
mining the impact of well-being on objective health outcomes. Health Psychol
Rev . 2007;1(1):83– 136.
Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, et al. How should we define health? BMJ .
2011;343:d4163.
Huppert FA. Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and conse-
quences. Appl Psychol . 2009;1(2):137– 164.
Huppert FA, Marks N, Clark A, et al. Measuring well-being across Europe:
Description of the ESS wellbeing module and preliminary findings. Soc
Indic Res . 2009;91(3):301– 315.
Ilies R, Schwind KM, Heller D. Employee well-being: A multilevel model linking
work and nonwork domains. Eur J Work Organ Psychol . 2007;16(3):326– 341.
Ilmarinen J, Tuomi K, Eskelinen L, Nygå rd C-H, Huuhtanen P, Klockars M.
Summary and recommendations of a project involving cross-sectional and
follow-up studies on the aging worker in Finnish municipal occupations
(1981– 1985). Scand J Work Environ Health . 1991;16(suppl 1):135– 141.
Johns G. Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda. J Organ
Behav . 2010;31(4):519– 542.
Johnson JV, Hall EM. Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular-
disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working
population. Am J Public Health . 1988;78(10):1336– 1342.
Juniper B. Paying the price for well-being. Occup Health (Lond). 2012;2012:25– 26.
278 Work design: A systematic approach

Juniper B, White N, Bellamy P. Assessing employee wellbeing: Is there another

way? Int J Workplace Health Manag . 2009;2(3):220– 230.
Kahneman D. Objective happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N,
eds. Well-Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology . New York: Russell Sage
Foundation; 2003:3– 25.
Karanika-Murray M, Weyman AK. Optimising workplace interventions for
health and well-being: A commentary on the limitations of the public health
perspective within the workplace health arena. Int J Workplace Health Manag .
2013;6(2):104– 117.
Karasek R. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life .
New York: Basic Books; 1992.
Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications
for job redesign. Adm Sci Q . 1979;24(2):285– 308.
Kitt M, Howard J. The face of occupational safety and health: 2020 and beyond.
Public Health Rep . 2013;128 (3):138– 139.
Kochan T, Finegold D, Osterman P. Who can fix the “ middle-skills” gap? Harv Bus
Rev . 2012;90:83– 90.
Kompier MA. New systems of work organization and workers’ health. Scand J
Work Environ Health . 2006;32(6):421– 430.
Linley PA, Maltby J, Wood AM, Osborne G, Hurling R. Measuring happiness:
The higher order factor structure of subjective and psychological well-being
measures. Pers Individ Dif . 2009;47(8):878– 884.
Loeppke R, Taitel M, Haufle V, Parry T, Kessler RC, Jinnett K. Health and produc-
tivity as a business strategy: A multiemployer study. J Occup Environ Med .
2009;51(4):411– 428.
Mellor N, Webster J. Enablers and challenges in implementing a comprehensive
workplace health and well-being approach. Int J Workplace Health Manag .
2013;6:129– 142.
Michaelson J, Abdallah S, Steuer N, et al. National Accounts of Well-Being: Bringing
Real Wealth onto the Balance Sheet . London: New Economics Foundation;
2009.
Mueller CW. Conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement. In: Lewis-
Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF, eds. Encyclopedia of Social Science Research
Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Essential elements of
effective workplace programs and policies for improving worker health and
wellbeing. Publication no. 2010– 140, Washington, DC: NIOSH; 2010.
National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment .
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.
National Research Council. Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffer-
ing, and other dimensions of experience. In: Stone AA, Machie E, eds. Paper
on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy Framework. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press; 2013.
Neubauer D, Pratt R. The 2nd public-health revolution: A critical-appraisal. J
Health Polit Policy Law . 1981;6(2):205– 228.
Ng ECW, Fisher AT. Understanding well-being in multi-levels: A review. Health
Cult Sc . 2013;5(1):308– 323.
Noor NM. Work- and family-related variables, work– family conflict and
women’ s well-being; Some observations. Community Work Fam .
2003;6(3):297– 319.
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 279

Osberg L. The relevance of objective indicators of well-being for public policy. In:
CSLS Session on Well-Being at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Economics
Association . Toronto, Ontario: Ryerson University; 2004:2– 4.
Osterman P, Shulman B. Good Jobs America . New York: Russell Sage Foundation;
2011.
Otoiu A, Titan E, Dumitrescu R. Are the variables used in building composite
indicators of well-being relevant? Validating composite indexes of well-
being. Ecol Indic . 2014;46:575– 585.
Pandalai SP, Schulte PA, Miller DB. Conceptual heuristic models of the interrela-
tionships between obesity and the occupational environment. Scand J Work
Environ Health . 2013;39(3):221– 232.
Passel JS, Cohn DV. US Population Projections: 2005– 2050 . Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center; 2008.
Pot FD, Peeters MHH, Vaas F, Dhondt S. Assessment of stress risks and learn-
ing opportunities in the work organization. Euro Work and Organ Psychol .
1994;4(1):21– 37.
Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychol Bull .
2005;131(6):925– 971.
Prochaska JO, Evers KE, Johnson JL, et al. The well-being assessment for produc-
tivity: A well-being approach to presenteeism. J Occup Environ Med . 2011;
53(7):735– 742.
Punnett L, Warren N, Henning R, Nobrega S, Cherniack M, CPH-NEW Research
Team. Participatory ergonomics as a model for integrated programs to pre-
vent chronic disease. J Occup Environ Med . 2013;55(12 suppl):S19– S24.
Rajaratnam AS, Sears LE, Shi Y, Coberley CR, Pope JE. Well-being, health,
and productivity improvement after an employee well-being interven-
tion in large retail distribution centers. J Occup Environ Med . 2014;56
(12):1291– 1296.
Rath T, Harter J, Harter JK. Wellbeing: The Five Essential Elements . New York: Gallup
Press; 2010.
Rawls J. A Theory of Justice . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2009.
Ringen S. Households, goods, and well-being. Rev Income Wealth . 1996;4:421– 431.
Rissa K, Kaustia T. Well-Being Creates Productivity: The Druvan Model . Iisalmi,
Finland: Centre for Occupational Safety and the Finnish Work Environment
Fund; 2007.
Robertson I, Cooper CL. Well-Being: Productivity and Happiness at Work . New York:
Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
Rounds JB, Dawis RV, Lofquist LH. Measurement of person environment fit and
prediction of satisfaction in the theory of work adjustment. J Vocat Behav .
1987;31 (3):297– 318.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu Rev Psychol . 2001;52:141– 166.
Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice
of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom . 2014;83(1):10– 28.
Schill AL, Chosewood LC. The NIOSH total worker health program: An over-
view. J Occup Environ Med . 2013;55(12 suppl):S8– S11.
Schulte P, Vainio H. Well-being at work: Overview and perspective. Scand J Work
Environ Health . 2010; 36(5):422– 429.
Schulte PA. Emerging issues in occupational safety and health. Int J Occup Environ
Health . 2006;12(3):273– 277.
280 Work design: A systematic approach

Schulte PA, Pandalai S, Wulsin V, Chun H. Interaction of occupational and per-

sonal risk factors in workforce health and safety. Am J Public Health . 2012;102
(3):434– 448.
Seligman MEP. Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-
Being. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2011.
Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum M, Sen AK, eds. The Quality of
Life . Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 1993:30– 54.
Sen A. Development as Freedom . New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
Shrestha LB. Age Dependency Ratios and Social Security Solvency. Washington, DC:
CRS Report for Congress; 2006.
Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup
Health Psychol . 1996;1(1):27– 41.
Smith CL, Clay PM. Measuring subjective and objective well-being: Analyses
from five marine commercial fisheries. Hum Organ . 2010;69(2):158– 168.
Sointu E. The rise of an ideal: Tracing changing discourses of wellbeing. Sociol
Rev . 2005;53(2):255– 274.
Sparks K, Faragher B, Cooper CL. Well-being and occupational health in the 21st
century workplace. J Occup Organ Psychol . 2001;74(4):489– 509.
Spector PE, Cooper CL, Sanchez JI, et al. Locus of control and well-being at work:
How generalizable are Western findings? Acad Manage J . 2002;45(2):453– 466.
Steptoe A, Wardle J, Marmot M. Positive affect and health-related neuroendo-
crine, cardiovascular, and inflammatory processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA .
2005;102(18):6508– 6512.
Stevenson B, Wolfers J. Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of
Satiation? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2013.
Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress. 2009. Available at: http://www.
stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf. Accessed March 6,
2015.
Stone KV. From Widgets to Digits: Employment Regulation for the Changing Workplace .
New York: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
Tehrani N, Humpage S, Willmott B, Haslam I. What’ s Happening with Well-Being
at Work? London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; 2007.
Trimble JE. Cultural measurement equivalence. In: Clauss-Ehlers C, ed.
Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology . New York: Springer;
2010:316– 318.
UN General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10,
1948: 217 A (III). Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.
html. Accessed January 26, 2015.
Vainio H. Salutogenesis to complement pathogenesis: A necessary paradigm shift
for well-being at work. Slide presentation at: 30th International Congress on
Occupational Health; March 18– 23, 2012; Cancun, Mexico.
Waddell G, Burton AK. Is Work Good for Your Health and Well-Being? London: The
Stationery Office; 2006.
Warr P. Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health . New York: Oxford University
Press; 1987.
Warr P. The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental-health.
J Occup Psychol . 1990;63(3):193– 210.
Chapter eleven: Considerations for worker well-being 281

Warr P. Well-being and the workplace. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N,

eds. Well-Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology . New York: Russell Sage
Foundation; 1999:392– 412.
Warr P. How to think about and measure psychological well-being. In: Sinclair RR,
Wang M, Tetrick L, eds. Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology:
Measurement Design and Data Analysis . New York: Routledge Academics;
2012:76– 90.
Waterstone ME. Returning veterans and disability law. Notre Dame Law Rev .
2010;85:1081– 1132.
WHO. WHO definition of health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization; 1948. Available at: http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/
print.html. Accessed March 6, 2015.
Xing Z, Chu L. Research on constructing composite indicator of objective well-
being from China mainland. In: Proceedings of the 58th World Statistical
Congress . Dublin, Ireland: International Statistical Institute; 2011:3081– 3097.
Appendix A: Glossary of
work performance terms
Acceptance  The decision that an item, process, or service conforms to
specified characteristics defined in codes, standards, or other
requirement documents.
Accountability  Responsibility for an activity, accompanied by rewards
and recognition for good performance and adverse consequences
for performance that is unreasonably poor.
Activity  Actions taken by a program or an organization to achieve its
objectives.
Assessment  An all-inclusive term used to denote the act of determining,
through a review of objective evidence and witnessing the per-
formance of activities, whether items, processes, or services meet
specified requirements. Assessments are conducted through the
implementation of the following actions: audits, performance
evaluations, management system reviews, peer reviews, or sur-
veillances, which are planned and documented by trained and
qualified personnel.
Assessment/verification  The act of reviewing, inspecting, testing, check-
ing, conducting surveillances, auditing, or otherwise determin-
ing and documenting whether items, processes, or services meet
specified requirements. The US Department of Energy (DOE)
order 5700.6C uses the terms assessment and verification synony-
mously. This order defines these terms by who is performing the
work; assessments are performed by or for senior management,
and verifications are performed by the line organization.
Audit  A planned and documented activity performed to determine by
investigation, examination, or evaluation of objective evidence
the adequacy of and compliance with established procedures,
instructions, drawings, and other applicable documents and the
effectiveness of implementation. Audits should not be confused

283
284 Appendix A

with surveillances or inspection activities performed for the sole

purpose of process control or product acceptance.
  Also, a systematic check to determine the quality of operation
of some function or activity. Audits may be of two basic types: (1)
performance audits in which quantitative data are independently
obtained for comparison with routinely obtained data in a mea-
surement system, or (2) system audits of a qualitative nature that
consist of an on-site review of a laboratory’ s quality system and
physical facilities for sampling, calibration, and measurement.
Baseline  The current level of performance at which an organization, pro-
cess, or function is operating.
Benchmarking  To measure an organization’ s products or services
against the best existing products or services of the same type;
the benchmark defines the 100% mark on the measurement scale.
  Also, the process of comparing and measuring an organiza-
tion’ s own performance in a particular process with the perfor-
mance of organizations judged to be the best of a comparable
industry.
Bottom up  Starting with input from the people who actually do the work
and consolidating that input through successively higher levels
of management.
C-chart  Also referred to as a count chart , this is used in dealing with
counts of a given event over consecutive periods of time. Many of
the initial DOE performance indicators involve counts of events
for consecutive calendar year quarters, making C-chart analysis
of these indicators appropriate.
Cascaded down  Starting with a top-level management, communicated
to successively lower levels of management and employees.
Characteristics  Any property or attribute of an item, process, or service
that is distinct, describable, and measurable.
Common causes of variation  Indicated by statistical techniques, but the
causes themselves need more detailed analysis to be fully identi-
fied. Common causes of variation are usually the responsibility of
management to correct, although other people directly connected
with the process are sometimes in a better position to identify the
causes and pass them on to management for correction.
Continuous improvement  The undying betterment of a process based
on the constant measurement and analysis of results produced
by the process and the use of that analysis to modify the process.
  Also, where performance gains are maintained and the early
identification of deteriorating environmental, safety, and health
conditions is accomplished.
Control charts  The two main uses for these charts are to monitor whether
the system is stable and under control (to warn of changes) and to
Appendix A 285

substantiate results from changes introduced into the system (to

confirm positive results).
Control lines/limits  The limit lines drawn on charts to provide guides
for the evaluation of performance indicate the dispersion of data
on a statistical basis and indicate whether an abnormal situation
(e.g., the process is not in control or special causes are adversely
influencing a process in control) has occurred.
  Also, two control limits are the statistical mean (average) plus
three times the standard deviation and the statistical mean minus
three times the standard deviation.
Corrective action  Measures taken to rectify conditions adverse to qual-
ity and, where necessary, to preclude repetition.
Criteria  The rules or tests against which the quality of performance can
be measured. They are most effective when expressed quantita-
tively. Fundamental criteria are contained in policies and objec-
tives, as well as codes, standards, regulations, and recognized
professional practices.
Data  Factual information, regardless of media and format, used as a
basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation.
Data reduction    Any and all processes that change either the form of
expression, the quantity of data values, or the numbers of data
items.
Data validation  The systematic effort to review data in order to ensure
acceptable data quality. A systematic process for reviewing a
body of data against a set of criteria to provide assurance that
the data are adequate for their intended use. A systematic review
process conducted to confirm the degree of truth in an analytical
measurement.
Distribution charts  Data are divided into categories of interest (e.g., root
causes or reporting elements). It is then graphed as a stacked bar
chart to compare the relative contribution of each category with
the total.
Distribution diagram  A block diagram showing data in order of their
contribution to the total. The horizontal axis of the distribution
diagram lists the most frequent item in the performance indica-
tor population on the left and progresses in descending order
to the least frequent item on the extreme right. The cumulative
total of the items is reflected above the block at each interval.
By structuring the data in this form, the distribution diagram
highlights the largest contributing items in each performance
indicator.
Goal    The result that a program or organization aims to accomplish.
  Also, a proposed statement of attainment/achievement, with
the implication of sustained effort and energy.
286 Appendix A

Guideline  A suggested practice that is not mandatory in programs

intended to comply with a standard. The words “ should” or
“ may” denote a guideline; the words “ shall” or “ must” denote
a requirement.
Item  An all-inclusive term used in place of the following: appurtenance,
sample, assembly, component, equipment, material, module, part,
structure, subassembly, subsystem, unit, documented concepts,
or data.
Lessons learned  A “ good work practice” or innovative approach that
is captured and shared to promote repeat application. A lesson
learned may also be an adverse work practice or experience that
is captured and shared to avoid recurrence.
Limit lines  Lines drawn on charts to provide guides for the evaluation
of performance.
Line manager  Includes all managers in the chain of command from the
first-line supervisors to the top manager.
Management  All individuals directly responsible and accountable for
planning, implementing, and assessing work activities.
Mean  The arithmetic average of a set of numbers.
Measurement  The quantitative parameter used to ascertain the degree
of performance.
Metric  Used synonymously with measurement .
Objective  A statement of the desired result to be achieved within a speci-
fied time.
Occurrence  An unusual or unplanned event having programmatic
significance such that it adversely affects or potentially affects the
performance, reliability, or safety of a facility.
Outliers  Data that fall outside the control lines.
Parameter  A quantity that describes a statistical population or any of a
set of physical properties whose values determine the character-
istics or behaviors of something.
Pareto analysis  Also known as distributing diagram . A type of analysis
that focuses attention on areas that have the most influence on the
total, facilitating the assignment of resources in order to prioritize
improvement efforts.
Performance based  Being associated with the outcome rather than the
process.
Performance goal  The target level of outcomes expressed as a tangible,
measurable objective against which actual achievements can be
compared.
Performance indicator(s)  A parameter useful for determining the degree
to which an organization has achieved its goals.
  Also, a quantifiable expression used to observe and track the
status of a process.
Appendix A 287

  Also, the operational information that is indicative of the

performance or condition of a facility, group of facilities, or site.
Performance measure(s)  Encompassing the quantitative basis by which
objectives are established and performance is assessed and
gauged. Includes performance objectives and criteria (POCs), perfor-
mance indicators, and any other means that evaluate the success
in achieving a specified goal.
  Also, the quantitative results used to gauge the degree to which
an organization has achieved its goals.
Performance objectives and criteria (POCs)  The quantifiable goals and
the basis by which the degree of success in achieving these goals
is established.
Periodicity  Data that show the same pattern of change over time,
frequently seen in cyclical data.
Quality  The degree to which a product or service meets customer
requirements and expectations.
Quality assurance  Actions that provide confidence that quality is
achieved.
Quality management  The management of a process to maximize cus-
tomer satisfaction at the lowest cost.
Root cause  The basic reasons for conditions adverse to quality that, if
corrected, will prevent occurrence or recurrence.
Root cause analysis  An analysis performed to determine the cause of
part, system, and component failures.
Runs  Series of data points above or below the central line. A run of 7
consecutive points or 10 out of 11 points indicates an abnormality.
Self-assessment  A systematic evaluation of an organization’ s perfor-
mance, with the objective of finding opportunities for improve-
ment and exceptional practices; normally performed by the
people involved in the activity, but may also be performed by oth-
ers within the organization with an arms-length relationship to
the work processes.
Situation analysis  The assessment of trends, strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats, giving a picture of the organization’ s
internal and external environment to determine the opportuni-
ties or obstacles to achieving organizational goals; performed in
preparation for strategic planning efforts.
Special causes of variation  Also known as assignable causes of variation . A
cause that is specific to a group of workers, a particular worker, a
specific machine, or a specific local condition. Examples are water
in a gasoline tank or poor spark plugs.
Stakeholder  Any group or individual who is affected by or who can
affect the future of an organization, customers, employees, sup-
pliers, owners, other agencies, Congress, and critics.
288 Appendix A

Standard deviation  A statistic used as a measure of the dispersion in

a distribution. The square root of the arithmetic average of the
squares of the deviations from the mean.
Strategic planning  A process for helping an organization envision what
it hopes to accomplish in the future, identify and understand
obstacles and opportunities that affect the organization’ s abil-
ity to achieve that vision, and set forth the plan of activities and
resource use that will best enable the achievement of the goals
and objectives.
Surveillance  The act of monitoring or observing a process or activity to
verify conformance to specified requirements.
Task  A well-defined unit of work with an identifiable beginning and end
that is a measurable component of the duties and responsibilities
of a specific job.
Top down  To start with the highest level of management in an organi-
zation and propagate through successively lower levels of the
organization.
Trend analysis  A statistical methodology used to detect net changes or
trends in levels over time. An analysis of parts, systems, compo-
nent surveillances, performance, and operating histories to deter-
mine such things as failure causes, operational effectiveness,
cost-effectiveness, and other attributes.
  Also, the continual rise or fall of data points. If seven data
points rise or fall continuously, an abnormality is considered to
exist.
U-chart  Also referred to as a rate chart . These deal with event counts
when the area of opportunity is not constant during each period.
The steps to follow for constructing a U-chart are the same as a
C-chart, except that the control limits are computed for each indi-
vidual time period since the number of standards varies.
Unit of measure  A defined amount of some quality feature that permits
the evaluation of that feature in numbers.
Validation  A determination that an improvement action is functioning
as designed and has eliminated the specific issue for which it was
designed. Also, to determine or test the truth or accuracy by com-
parison or reference.
Verification  The determination that an improvement action has been
implemented as designed.
  Also, the process of evaluating hardware, software, data, or
information to ensure compliance with stated requirements. The
act of reviewing, inspecting, testing, checking, auditing, or oth-
erwise determining and documenting whether items, processes,
services, or documents conform to specified requirements.
Appendix A 289

Vertical axis scaling  The following general criteria should be applied to

the depiction of trend data on control charts:

1. The scale should be set so that the chart can be quickly

understood.
2. Data together with the limit lines should span at least half of the
vertical axis.

Work  A process of performing a defined task or activity (e.g., research

and development, operations, maintenance and repair, adminis-
tration, software development and use).
X-chart  Involves the analysis of individual measured quantities for indi-
cations of process control or unusual variation. The standard
deviation for an X-chart (also referred to as an individual chart ) is
calculated using a moving range.
Appendix B: Basic work-related
formulas and conversion factors

Activity-planning formulas

ES: earliest starting time

EC: earliest completion time
LS: latest starting time
LC: latest completion time
t: activity duration
T: project duration
n : number of activities in the project network

Earliest start time for activity i

ES(i) = Max {EC(j)}

j ∈ P {i}

where P {i }  =  the set of immediate predecessors of activity i .

Earliest completion time of activity i

EC ( i ) = ES ( i ) + ti

Earliest completion time of a project

EC ( Project ) = EC ( n )

291
292 Appendix B

where n is the last node.

Latest completion time of a project

LC ( Project ) = EC ( Project )

if no external deadline is specified.

LC ( Project ) = Tp

if a desired deadline, Tp , is specified.

Latest completion time for activity i

LC(i) = Min{LS(j)}

j ∈ S{i}

where S {i }  =  the set of immediate successors to activity i .

Latest start time for activity i

LS (i) = LC ( i ) − ti

Total slack (TS)

TS ( i ) = LC ( i ) − EC ( i )

TS ( i ) = LS ( i ) − ES ( i )

Free slack (FS)

FS(i) = Min {ES( j)} − EC( i)}

j ∈ S( i)
Appendix B 293

Interfering slack (IS)

IS ( i ) = TS ( i ) − FS ( i )

Independent float (IF)

{
IF(i) = Max 0, ( Min ES j − Max LCk − ti ) }
j ∈ S{i} and k ∈ P{i}

Where ESj    =  the earliest starting time of a succeeding activity from the set
of successors of activity i , and LCk    =  the latest completion time of a preced-
ing activity from the set of predecessors of activity i .

Program evaluation and review technique (PERT) formulas

a + 4m + b
te =
6

(b − a ) 2
s2 =
36

where:
a    =  an optimistic time estimate
b    =  a pessimistic time estimate
m    =  the most likely time estimate
t e     =  the expected time
S 2    =  the variance of expected time

Critical path method (CPM) computation

α2 − β
λ= (100% )
α2 − α1
294 Appendix B

where:
α 1    =  the minimum total slack in the CPM network
α 2    =  the maximum total slack in the CPM network
β    =  the total slack for the path whose criticality is to be calculated

Task weight
The work content of a project is expressed in terms of days.

work-days for activity

Task weight =
total work-days for project

Expected percent completion

work-days for activity

Expected % completion =
work-days planned

Expected relative percent completion

Expected relative % completion = (expected % completion).(task weight)

Actual relative percent completion

Actual relative % completion = (actual % completion).(task weight)

Planned project percent completion

work-days completed on project

Planned project % completion =
total work-days planned

Project-tracking index

actual relative % completion

Project-tracking index = −1
expected relative % completion
Appendix B 295

Permutations

n!
P ( n, m ) = , ( n ≥ m)
(n − m)!

Combinations

n!
C ( n, m ) = , (n ≥ m)
m!(n − m)!

Failure rate

n−s
q = 1− p =
n

Mechanical advantage (MA)

The ratio of the force of resistance to the force of effort.

FR
MA =
FE

Mechanical advantage formula for levers

FR ⋅ LR = FE ⋅ LE

Mechanical advantage formula for axles

rE
MAwheel and axle =
rR

FR ⋅ rR ⋅ = FE ⋅ rE

where r R    =  the radius (m) of the resistance wheel and r E    =  the radius (m)
of effort wheel.
296 Appendix B

Mechanical advantage formula for pulleys

FR nT
MApulley = = =n
FE T

where T   =  the tension in each supporting strand and n   =  the number of

strands holding the resistance.

Mechanical advantage formula for inclined planes

FR l
MAinclined plane = =
FE h

where l   =  the length (m) of the plane and h   =  the height (m) of the plane.

Mechanical advantage formula for wedges

s
MA =
T

where s   =  the length of either slope and T   =  the thickness of the longer end.

Mechanical advantage formula for screws

FR U E
MAscrew = =
FE h

FR ⋅ h = FE ⋅ U E

where h   =  the pitch of the screw and U E    =  the circumference of the handle
of the screw.

Distance (S), speed (V), and time (t) formula

S = Vt
Appendix B 297

Newton’ s First Law of Motion

An object that is in motion continues in motion with the same velocity at
constant speed and in a straight line, and an object at rest continues at rest
unless an unbalanced (outside) force acts on it.

Newton’ s Second Law of Motion

The total force acting on an object equals the mass of the object times its
acceleration.

F = ma

where:
F   =  total force
m   =  mass
a   =  acceleration

Newton’ s Third Law of Motion

For every force applied by object A to object B (action), there is a force
exerted by object B on object A (the reaction) that has the same magnitude
but is opposite in direction.

FB = − FA

where F B   =  the force of action and F A   =  the force of reaction.

Momentum of force
Momentum can be defined as mass in motion. Momentum is a vector
quantity, for which direction is important.

p = mν

Conservation of momentum
In the absence of external forces, the total momentum of the system is
constant. If two objects of mass m 1 and mass m 2 , having velocity v 1 and
v 2 , collide and then separate with velocity ν1′ and ν′2 , the equation for the
conservation of momentum is
298 Appendix B

m1ν1 + m2 ν 2 = m1ν1 + m2 ν 2

Friction

Ff = µFn

where:
F f     =  the frictional force (N)
F n     =  the normal force (N)
µ    =  the coefficient of friction (µ   =  tan α )

Gravity
Gravity is a force that attracts bodies of matter toward each other. Gravity
is the attraction between any two objects that have mass.

m A mB
F=Γ
r2

where:
m A , m B     =  the mass of objects A and B
F    =  the magnitude of attractive force between objects A and B
r    =  the distance between objects A and B
Г    =  the gravitational constant (Г   =  6.67  ×   10−11 N m2 /kg2 )

Gravitational force

Re2 m
FG = g
( Re + h )
2

On the Earth’ s surface, h   =  0; therefore,

FG = mg

where:
F G     =  the force of gravity
R e     =  the radius of the Earth (R e    =  6.37  ×   106 m)
m    =  mass
g    =  acceleration due to gravity
g    =  9.81 (m/s2 ) or 32.2 (ft/s2 )
Appendix B 299

The acceleration of a falling body is independent of the mass of the

object. The weight F w on an object is actually the force of gravity on that
object.

Fw = mg

Centrifugal force

mν 2
Fc = = mω2 r
r

Centripetal force

mν 2
Fcp = − Fc =
r

where:
Fc    =  centrifugal force (N)
Fcp    =  centripetal force (N)
m    =  the mass of the body (kg)
v    =  the velocity of the body (m/s)
r    =  the radius of the curvature of the path of the body (m)
ω    =  angular velocity (s−1 )

Torque

T = F⋅I

where:
T    =  torque (N m or lb ft)
F    =  applied force (N or lb)
I    =  the length of the torque arm (m or ft)

Work
Work is the product of a force in the direction of the motion and the
displacement.
300 Appendix B

a. Work done by a constant force

W = Fs ⋅ s = F ⋅ s ⋅ cos α

where:
W    =  work (Nm  =  J)
F s     =  the component of force along the direction of movement (N)
s    =  the distance the system is displaced (m)

b. Work done by a variable force

If the force is not constant along the path of the object, then

sf sf

∫ ∫
W = Fs ( s ) ⋅ ds = F ( s ) cos α ⋅ ds
si si

where:
F s (s )   =  the component of the force function along the direction of
movement
F (s )   =  the function of the magnitude of the force vector along the dis-
placement curve
S i     =  the initial location of the body
S f     =  the final location of the body
α    =  the angle between the displacement and the force

Energy
Energy is defined as the ability to do work.

TMEi + Wext = TME f

where:
TME i     =  the initial amount of total mechanical energy (J)
W ext    =  the work done by external forces (J)
TME f     =  the final amount of total mechanical energy (J)

a. Kinetic energy
Kinetic energy is the energy due to motion.

1
Ek = mν 2
2
Appendix B 301

where m   =  mass of moving object (kg) and v   =  velocity of moving object

(m/s).
b. Potential energy
Potential energy is the stored energy of a body and is due to its
position.

Epg = m ⋅ g ⋅ h

where:
E pg     =  the gravitational potential energy (J)
m    =  the mass of the object (kg)
h    =  the height above reference level (m)
g    =  the acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 )

Conservation of energy
In any isolated system, energy can be transformed from one kind to
another, but the total amount of energy is constant (conserved).

E = Ek + Ep + Ee + … = constant

The conservation of mechanical energy

Ek + Ep = constant

Power
Power is the rate at which work is done or the rate at which energy is
transformed from one form to another.

W
P=
t

where:
P    =  power (W)
W    =  work (J)
t    =  time (s)

Since the expression for work is W   =  F · s , the expression for power can
be rewritten as
302 Appendix B

P = F⋅ν

where s   =  displacement (m) and v = speed (m/s).

Numbers and prefixes

Yotta (1024 ) 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
Zetta (1021 ) 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
Exa (1018 ) 1 000 000 000 000 000 000
Peta (1015 ) 1 000 000 000 000 000
Tera (1012 ) 1 000 000 000 000
Giga (109 ) 1 000 000 000
Mega (106 ) 1 000 000
Kilo (103 ): 1 000
Hecto (102 ) 100
Deca (101 ) 10
Deci (10−1 ) 0.1
Centi (10−2 ) 0.01
Milli (10−3 ) 0.001
Micro (10−6 ) 0.000 001
Nano (10−9 ) 0.000 000 001
Pico (10−12 ) 0.000 000 000 001
Femto (10−15 ) 0.000 000 000 000 001
Atto (10−18 ) 0.000 000 000 000 000 001
Zepto (10−21 ) 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001
Yacto (10−24 ) 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001
Stringo (10−35 ) 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 01

Constants

Speed of light 2.997925  ×   1010 cm/s

983.6  ×   106 ft/s
186,284 mi/s
Velocity of sound 340.3 m/s
1,116 ft/s
Gravity 9.80665 m/s2
(Acceleration) 32.174 ft/s2
386.089 in/s2
Appendix B 303

Area

Multiply By To obtain
Acres 43,560 Sq. feet
4,047 Sq. meters
4,840 Sq. yards
0.405 Hectare
Sq. centimeters 0.155 Sq. inches
Sq. feet 144 Sq. inches
0.09290 Sq. meters
0.1111 Sq. yards
Sq. inches 645.16 Sq. millimeters
Sq. kilometers 0.3861 Sq. miles
Sq. meters 10.764 Sq. feet
1.196 Sq. yards
Sq. miles 640 Acres
2.590 Sq. kilometers

Volume

Multiply By To obtain
Acre-feet 1233.5 Cubic meters
Cubic centimeters 0.06102 Cubic inches
Cubic feet 1728 Cubic inches
7.480 Gallons (US)
0.02832 Cubic meters
0.03704 Cubic yards
Liter 1.057 Liquid quarts
0.908 Dry quarts
61.024 Cubic inches
Gallons (US) 231 Cubic inches
3.7854 Liters
4 Quarts
0.833 British gallons
128 US fluid ounces
Quarts (US) 0.9463 Liters
304 Appendix B

Energy and heat power

Multiply By To obtain
BTU 1055.9 Joules
0.2520 Kilogram-calories
Watt-hours 3600 Joules
3.409 BTU
HP (electric) 746 Watts
BTU/second 1055.9 Watts
Watt-seconds 1.00 Joules

Mass

Multiply By To obtain
Carat 0.200 Cubic grams
Grams 0.03527 Ounces
Kilograms 2.2046 Pounds
Ounces 28.350 Grams
Pounds 16 Ounces
453.6 Grams
Stone (UK) 6.35 Kilograms
14 Pounds
Tons (net) 907.2 Kilograms
2000 Pounds
0.893 Gross tons
0.907 Metric tons
Tons (gross) 2240 Pounds
1.12 Net tons
1.016 Metric tons
Tonnes (metric) 2,204.623 Pounds
0.984 Gross pounds
1000 Kilograms

Temperature

Conversion formulas
Celsius to Kelvin K  =  C  +  273.15
Celsius to Fahrenheit F  =  (9/5)C  +  32
Fahrenheit to Celsius C  =  (5/9)(F  –   32)
Fahrenheit to Kelvin K  =  (5/9)(F  +  459.67)
Fahrenheit to Rankin R  =  F  +  459.67
Rankin to Kelvin K  =  (5/9)R
Appendix B 305

Velocity

Multiply By To obtain
Feet/minute 5.080 Millimeters/second
Feet/second 0.3048 Meters/second
Inches/second 0.0254 Meters/second
Kilometers/hour 0.6214 Miles/hour
Meters/second 3.2808 Feet/second
2.237 Miles/hour
Miles/hour 88.0 Feet/minute
0.44704 Meters/second
1.6093 Kilometers/hour
0.8684 Knots
Knots 1.151 Miles/hour

Pressure

Multiply By To obtain
Atmospheres 1.01325 Bars
33.90 Feet of water
29.92 Inches of mercury
760.0 Millimeters of mercury
Bar 75.01 Centimeters of mercury
14.50 Pounds/sq. inch
Dyne/sq. centimeter 0.1 Newtons/sq. meter
Newtons/sq. centimeter 1.450 Pounds/sq. inch
Pounds/sq. inch 0.06805 Atmospheres
2.036 Inches of mercury
27.708 Inches of water
68.948 Millibars
51.72 Millimeters of mercury
306 Appendix B

Distance

Multiply By To obtain
Angstrom 10−10 Meters
Feet 0.30480 Meters
12 Inches
Inches 25.40 Millimeters
0.02540 Meters
0.08333 Feet
Kilometers 3280.8 Feet
0.6214 Miles
1094 Yards
Meters 39.370 Inches
3.2808 Feet
1.094 Yards
Miles 5280 Feet
1.6093 Kilometers
0.8694 Nautical miles
Millimeters 0.03937 Inches
Nautical miles 6076 Feet
1.852 Kilometers
Yards 0.9144 Meters
3 Feet
36 Inches
Index
1970 Occupational Safety and Blink rate, 129
Health Act, 258 Body-of-knowledge methodology, 201– 203
1998 Belgian Legislation, 256 Brainstorming, 215– 216
Break-even analysis, 62
A Budgeting, and resource allocation, 63
Burgess’ s method, 73
A3 I Program, 144
ACTA, see Applied cognitive task analysis C
(ACTA)
Activity, 24 Capability, 19
Adaptive Control of Thought— Rational Causal-connection-based dividing
(ACT-R), 143– 144 process, 154
Administrative cooperation, 240 Check sheet, 101
AFIT, see Air Force Institute of Technology Cognitive ergonomics, 109– 117, 186– 187
(AFIT) applied cognitive task analysis, 114– 116
AHP, see Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) cognitive work analysis, 112– 114
AIM, see Automatic interaction Cognitive evaluation, in manufacturing,
measurement (AIM) 185– 188
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), Cognitive modeling, of human
34, 42 performance, 139– 147
Ambient vision, 128 Cognitive task analysis (CTA) techniques,
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), 33 110– 111, 112
Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA), Cognitive work analysis (CWA), 112– 114
114– 116, 190 Computer tools, 22
Army Research Laboratory (ARL), 145 Confusion matrix, 175– 176
Associative cooperation, 240 Context-free well-being, 250
Automatic interaction measurement (AIM), Continuous improvement, 86
160, 165, 167, 171– 172, 175 Control, 86
Automotive climate control system, 165, Control task analysis, 113
167, 170– 172 Cosine measure, 163
Average cost model, 52, 53 Cost conflicts, 242
Cost estimation, 228
Counted/attribute data, 101
B
Critical resource diagramming (CRD), 70–71
Badiru’ s rule, 21 CTA, see Cognitive task analysis (CTA)
Bandwagon effect, 216 techniques
Bias, 102 Cultural feasibility, 226
Bivariate model, 56 Customer demand, 65
Blink duration, 129 CWA, see Cognitive work analysis (CWA)

307
308 Index

D Executive-Process Interactive Control

(EPIC), 143
Data collection forms, 101 Exposure– response curve, 270, 271
Data collection system, 101– 102 Eye-tracking system, 130, 192
Data measurement, 82
Data sheet, 101
Decision-making process, 218 F
Decision model, 212– 213 Fast, inexpensive, simple, and tiny (FIST)
Decision problem, 216 model, 36
Decomposition-based dividing process, 154 FDP, see Function dividing process (FDP)
Defense enterprise improvement, 34– 35 Feedback loop, 87
DEJITM , see Design, evaluation, justification, Financial analysis, 228
and integration (DEJITM ) Financial feasibility, 226
Delphi method, 216– 217 Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 271
Department of Defense (DoD), 35, 36 FIST, see Fast, inexpensive, simple, and tiny
Dependency cooperation, 240 (FIST) model
Descriptive models, 213 Fixations, 129
Design, evaluation, justification, and Focal vision, 128
integration (DEJITM ), 3, 4, 7– 8, 33 Ford Motor Company, 156, 166
Designing training programs, 61 Forgetting, and work interruptions, 132
Design structure matrix (DSM), 157– 160, Functional cooperation, 240
166, 167, 172, 175 Functional interactions, 151– 177
Directory of Design Support Methods, 145 application, 165– 169
DoD, see Department of Defense (DoD) automotive climate control system’ s
Dodson, John D., 186 modules, 170– 172
DSM, see Design structure matrix (DSM) extracting functions, 170– 172
Dual-use integration, 26, 223 future work, 176– 177
Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs, 252 methodology, 160– 165
Dynamic resource integration, 26, 223 create database of modules, 160– 161
extracting functions based on topic
E modeling, 161– 163
quantifying, 163– 165
Economic feasibility, 226 related works, 153– 160
Effectiveness, 39– 40, 84 analysis through design structure
Effective workload, 123 matrix, 157– 160
Efficiency, 38– 39, 84 knowledge extraction via semantic
EIA 632, 154 analysis, 154– 156
End-of-life (EOL) product, 155 modeling in engineering design,
Engineering, and design, 228 153– 154
Enterprise-wide project management, 20 modularity based on, 156– 157
Environmental Safety and Occupational results, 172– 176
Health (ESOH) program, 34, 42 confusion matrix, 175– 176
EOL, see End-of-life (EOL) product paired T-test, 172– 175
EPIC, see Executive-Process Interactive Function dividing process (FDP), 154
Control (EPIC) Functions, restructuring of, 26, 223
Ergonomics, 109 Future Combat Systems, 11
ESOH, see Environmental Safety and
Occupational Health (ESOH)
program G
European Union Well-Being at Work Gallup– Healthways Index, 252
project, 271 GAO, see Government Accountability
European Working Conditions Survey, 258 Office (GAO)
Evolutionary approach, 7 GDP, see Gross domestic product (GDP)
Index 309

Goals— Operator, Methods, and Selection Incremental approach, 7

Rules (GOMS), 143 Industrial work measurement, 81
Government Accountability Office (GAO), Ineffective workload, 123
11, 35 Information, 212
Gross domestic product (GDP), 28– 29, 218 generation, 212
Group decision making, 214– 220 processing, 121– 122
brainstorming, 215– 216 Initial opinion poll, 217
Delphi method, 216– 217 Input– process– output relationship, 8– 9, 16
interviews, surveys, and Integrated systems implementation, 21– 22
questionnaires, 219– 220 Intelligence, Surveillance, and
multivoting, 220 Reconnaissance (ISR), 35
nominal group technique, 218– 219 International Council on Systems
Group selection, 216 Engineering (INCOSE), 12
International Ergonomic Association,
109, 110
H
Interpersonal cardinality, 250– 251
Hammersmith’ s project alert scale, 200 Interval scale, 83, 125, 126
Healthy workplaces model, 266 Iron triangle model, 14
HEP, see Human error probability (HEP) ISO/IEC 15288 standard, 154
Herzberg motivation concept, 229 ISR, see Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Hierarchical task analysis (HTA), 125, 126, Reconnaissance (ISR)
145– 147, 190 Iterative balloting, 217
HITL, see Human-in-the-loop (HITL)
simulation J
HOOTL, see Human-out-of-the-loop
(HOOTL) simulation Joint Strike Fighter, 11
HPM, see Human performance modeling Just-do-its, 38
(HPM)
HRED, see Human Research and K
Engineering Directorate (HRED)
HTA, see Hierarchical task analysis (HTA) Knowledge extraction, 154– 156
Human error probability (HEP), 131
Human indicators, 98
L
Human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation, 140,
141, 142, 188, 192 Labor analysis problems, 63
Human-out-of-the-loop (HOOTL) Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), 162, 165,
simulation, 140– 141 171, 172
Human Performance and Cognition Lateral cooperation, 240
Laboratory, 192 LC, see Learning curve (LC) analysis
Human performance modeling (HPM), LDA, see Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA)
139– 145 Learning curve (LC) analysis, for work
Human Research and Engineering design, 49– 75, 132– 133
Directorate (HRED), 144 applications of, 60– 63
Hygiene factors, 229 break-even analysis, 62
budgeting and resource
I allocation, 63
designing training programs, 61
Imposed cooperation, 240 labor estimating, 63
Improved Performance Research make-or-buy decisions, 62
Integration Tool (IMPRINT), 144, manpower scheduling, 62
188, 190– 191 manufacturing economic analysis,
INCOSE, see International Council on 61– 62
Systems Engineering (INCOSE) production planning, 62
310 Index

foundation for, 51– 52 information processing, 121– 122

multiple work rate analysis, 69– 71 performance, 130– 133
resource leveling, 72– 74 calculated measures, 130– 131
assessment of work gaps, 73– 74 learning, 132– 133
resource loading graph, 71– 72 unconscious cognition, 131
resource work rate, 66– 69 physiological measures, 129– 130
examples, 68– 69 subjective measures, 123– 129
takt time for work planning, 63– 65 National Aeronautics and Space
univariate, models, 52– 58 Administration task load index,
interruption of, 58 124– 126
log-linear, 52– 55 workload profile, 126– 129
multifactor, 56– 58 Micro Saint, 143
using takt time for, 65– 66 MIDAS, see Man– Machine Integration
in worker health care, 58– 60 Design and Analysis System
work measurement for, 50– 51 (MIDAS)
Legal cooperation, 240 MIDAS Task Loading Model (MIDAS-
Log-linear learning curve model, 52– 55 TLM), 144
Long-term memory, 122 Modules, 156
Motivators, 229
M-RAM, see Mental Resource Assessment
M
in Manufacturing (M-RAM)
Macroergonomics, 255 MRT, see Multiple resource theory (MRT)
Make-or-buy decisions, 62 MSV, see Manufacturing system value
Management assessment, 86 (MSV) model
Management by exception (MBE), 231 Multifactor learning curves, 56– 58
Management by objective (MBO), 231 Multiple resource theory (MRT), 122,
Management by project (MBP), 20 127– 129, 145, 188, 190
Management conflicts, 242– 243 Multitasking, 186
Managerial feasibility, 226 Multivoting, 220
Man– Machine Integration Design and Murphy’ s law, 21
Analysis System (MIDAS), 144 MWL, see Mental workload (MWL)
Manpower scheduling, 62 measures
Manufacturing, cognitive evaluation in
185– 188 N
Manufacturing economic analysis, 61– 62
Manufacturing interruption ratio, 58 NASA Ames Research Center, 144
Manufacturing progress function, 50 National Aeronautics and Space
Manufacturing system value (MSV) Administration task load index
model, 17 (NASA-TLX), 124– 126, 192
Martin, Lockheed, 38 National Institute for Occupational Safety
Maslow’ s theory, 27 and Health, 259, 266
Matrix organization structure, 231– 232 Natural language processing techniques, 170
MBE, see Management by exception (MBE) Navy Personnel Research and
MBO, see Management by objective (MBO) Development Center, 114
MBP, see Management by project (MBP) Need analysis, 227
Measured/variables data, 100 Nominal group technique, 218– 219
Mental Resource Assessment in Nominal scale, 82– 83
Manufacturing (M-RAM), 188,
192, 193
O
Mental workload (MWL) measures, for
work evaluation, 121– 133, 145, Once-through approach, 6
187, 188, 190– 191, 193 Operational efficiency, 39
Index 311

Optimization models, 213 scheduling, 235– 236

Ordinal scale, 83 selection, 198– 201
system, 23, 220
Project management, 197– 244
P
body-of-knowledge methodology,
Paired T-test, 172– 175 201– 203
Pairwise comparison, 125 components of knowledge areas,
Pareto-type distribution, 241 202– 203
Parkinson’ s law, 21 group decision making, 214– 220
Part-of-speech (POS) tagger algorithm, brainstorming, 215– 216
162, 165 Delphi method, 216– 217
Performance, 19 interviews, surveys, and
conflicts, 242 questionnaires, 219– 220
measurement system, 99 multivoting, 220
Personality conflicts, 243– 244 nominal group technique, 218– 219
Person– environment fit models, 255 motivating worker, 228– 244
Peter’ s principle, 21 activity scheduling, 236
PHSMS, see Psychological health and commitment, 241
safety management system communication, 238– 239
(PHSMS) cooperation, 239– 241
Physiological measures, 129– 130 coordination, 241– 242
PICK, see Possible, implement, challenge, and demotivating factors, 229– 230
and kill (PICK) chart management by exception, 231
PMBOK® , see Project Management Body of management by objective, 231
Knowledge (PMBOK® ) matrix organization structure, 231–232
PMI, see Project Management Institute partnering, 234
(PMI) resolving conflicts, 242– 244
Politically feasibility, 227 team building, 232– 234
POS, see Part-of-speech (POS) tagger team leadership, 234– 235
algorithm theory X principle, 229
Possible, implement, challenge, and kill theory Y principle, 229
(PICK) chart, 34, 36, 42 Triple C model, 236– 237
elements of, 38 work control, 236
quantitative measures of efficiency, review, 198– 201
38– 41 criteria for, 199
implementing, 46 Hammersmith’ s project alert
quantification methodology, 44– 46 scale, 200
Power conflicts, 243 hierarchy of work selection, 199– 200
Predictive models, 213 planning levels, 200
Preproduction planning analysis, 62 product assurance concept for
Prescriptive models, 213 corporate projects, 200– 201
Priority conflicts, 243 sizing of projects, 200
Process work, 227– 228 step-by-step implementation, 203– 205
Product assurance concept, 200– 201 systems decision analysis, 211– 214
Production planning, 62 data and information
Productivity, 19, 41, 84 requirements, 212
Product life cycle, 205 decision model, 212– 213
Program, 23, 24, 220 implementing decision, 214
Project, 23– 24, 221 making decision, 214
impacts, 228 performance measure, 212
life cycle, 205 problem statement, 211
partnering, 234 systems hierarchy, 220– 225
312 Index

systems implementation outline, S

208– 211
control, 210– 211 Saccade, 130
documentation, 211 Safety, 84
organizing, 209– 210 feasibility, 227
planning, 208– 209 measures, 84
scheduling, 210 Satisficing models, 213
termination, 211 Scheduling conflicts, 242
systems structure, 205– 208 Science, technology, and engineering (STE)
control, 207– 208 projects, 205
definition, 206 Self-assessment, 86
organization, 206– 207 Semantic analysis, 154– 156
planning, 206 Sensory memory, 121
problem identification, 206 Silent discussions, and consensus, 217
resource allocation, 207 SIPOC, see Suppliers, Inputs, Process,
scheduling, 207 Outputs, and Customers (SIPOC)
termination, 208 chart
tracking and reporting, 207 SMART, see Specific Measurable
work breakdown structure, 225– 226 Achievable Realistic Timed
work feasibility, 226– 228 (SMART) principles
Project Management Body of Knowledge SMEs, see Subject matter experts (SMEs)
(PMBOK® ), 201 SOAR, see State, Operator, and Result
Project Management Institute (PMI), 201 (SOAR)
Prototyping, 140, 201 SOCA, see Social organization and
Proximity cooperation, 240 cooperation analysis (SOCA)
Psychological health and safety Social cooperation, 240
management system (PHSMS), Social feasibility, 227
265 Social organization and cooperation
Pupil diameter, 129 analysis (SOCA), 113, 114
SOW, see Statement of work (SOW)
Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic
Q Timed (SMART) principles, 23
Qualitative data, 83 Stanford Natural Language Processing
Qualitative tools, 21 platform, 170
Quality, 84 State, Operator, and Result (SOAR), 143
Quantitative data, 83 Statement of work (SOW), 226
Quantitative risk assessment, 269, 271 STE, see Science, technology, and
Quantitative tools, 21 engineering (STE) projects
Questionnaire design, and distribution, 217 Strategies analysis, 113– 114
Subjective measures, 123– 129
National Aeronautics and Space
R Administration task load index,
Rasmussen, Jens, 112 124– 126
Ratio scale, 83 workload profile, 126– 129
Raw data, 99 Subject matter experts (SMEs), 112,
identify, 95– 96 115, 116
locate, 96– 97 Suitability, 19
Raw NASA-TLX (RTLX), 125 Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and
Resource conflicts, 243 Customers (SIPOC) chart, 42
Resource schedule (RS), 70– 71 SVM, see Systems value model (SVM)
Riso National Laboratories, 112 System, 24, 221
RS, see Resource schedule (RS) integration, 25– 26, 222, 223
RTLX, see Raw NASA-TLX (RTLX) management, 14
Index 313

Systems decision analysis, 211– 214 U

data and information
requirements, 212 Unconscious cognition, 131
decision model, 212– 213 Unit cost model, 52, 55
implementing decision, 214 Univariate learning curve models, 52– 58
making decision, 214 interruption of learning, 58
performance measure, 212 log-linear learning curve model, 52– 55
problem statement, 211 multifactor learning curves, 56– 58
Systems value model (SVM), 17 US Army, 144
Systems viewpoint, 3– 30
application of work project V
management, 290– 21
concept of total worker health, 29– 30 Value vector modeling, 19
constraints, 14– 16 Vertical cooperation, 240
definition, 8 V-model, 6
engineering, 12– 13
example of value vector modeling, 19 W
framework for work effectiveness,
16– 17 WAI, see Work Ability Index (WAI)
hierarchy, 23– 27 Waterfall approach, see Once-through
improved organizational performance, approach
9– 12 WBS, see Work breakdown structure (WBS)
integrated systems implementation, WDA, see Work domain analysis (WDA)
21– 22 WEBA instrument, 265
technical systems control, 8– 9 WHO, see World Health Organization (WHO)
work and hierarchy of needs of Work
workers, 27– 28 application of, project management,
worker-based factors for, success, 20– 21
22– 23 attributes, 17
work for social and economic factors, 17
development, 28– 29 indicators, 18
work systems logistics, 13– 14 systems value modeling, 17– 18
work systems value modeling, 17– 18 Work Ability Index (WAI), 252
Work breakdown structure (WBS), 225– 226
Work domain analysis (WDA), 113
T
Worker competencies analysis, 113, 114
Takt time Workers’ health, 29
using, for work design, 65– 66 Worker well-being, 245– 273
for work planning, 63– 65 background, 245– 246
Takt time computation, 63 definitions for, 248– 256
Task, 24, 221 composite, 252
Technical conflicts, 243 determinants of, 254– 255
Technical feasibility, 226 and measurement, 253– 254
Technical systems control, 8– 9 objective, 249– 250
Text mining technique, 176 overview, 245
Theory of Work Adjustment, 255 responsibility for, 255– 256
Theory X principle, of motivation, 229 subjective, 250– 252
Theory Y principle, of motivation, 229 examples of use of, in public policy/
Timeliness, 84 guidance, 259– 268
Total Worker Health (TWH), 29– 30, issues, 256– 259
259, 266 actions to reduce threats and
Triple C model, 218, 233, 236– 237 increase promotion, 257– 258
TWH, see Total Worker Health (TWH) as driver of public policy, 258– 259
314 Index

patterns of hazards, 246– 247 identifying, 89– 90

research and operationalization needs, identify raw data, 95– 96
268– 273 identify responsible party/parties,
unifying concept of, 247– 248 99– 100
Work evaluation, MWL measures for, locate raw data, 96– 97
121– 133 making changes to bring process
information processing, 121– 122 back, 104– 105
performance, 130– 133 new performance goals/measures,
calculated measures, 130– 131 105
learning, 132– 133 performance goals/standards,
unconscious cognition, 131 92– 93
physiological measures, 129– 130 translate into, 94– 95
subjective measures, 123– 129 types of, 99
National Aeronautics and Space reemergence of, 81– 88
Administration task load index, benefits of, 85– 86
124– 126 determination of, 82– 85
workload profile, 126– 129 foundation for, 86– 88
Working memory, 121– 122 justification for, 86
Work integration, 185– 194 Work planning/selection, 33– 47
cognitive evaluation in manufacturing, case study of, process improvement,
185– 188 42– 44
framework validation, 190– 194 defense enterprise improvement,
laboratory experiment, 192– 194 34– 35
pilot study, 190– 191 efficiencies in work programs, 35– 37
theoretical framework, 188– 190 elements of PICK chart, 38
Workload profile (WP), 124, 126– 127 quantitative measures of efficiency,
Work performance measurement, 79– 108 38– 41
process overview, 88– 108 implementing PICK chart, 46
analyze/report actual performance, PICK chart quantification methodology,
102– 103 44– 46
collect data, 100– 101 World Health Organization (WHO),
compare actual performance with 257– 258, 259
goals/standards, 103– 104 WP, see Workload profile (WP)
corrective action, 104 Wright State University, 192
data collection forms, 101
data collection system, 101– 102
establishing, 93– 94 Y
identify critical activity/activities,
90– 92 Yerkes, Robert M., 186
identify indicator, 97– 99 Yerkes– Dodson law, 186