Technologies and systems have become more complex with the advancement of modern digitalization. Human factors practitioners and researchers face challenges in designing products for everyday activities and complex domains. Learning one human factors methodology at a time is the most common approach, and finding complementary methodologies is sometimes difficult. In this paper, we summarize achievements needed in human factors research in three categories: motivation-related needs, task-related needs, and applied domain assumptions and characteristics. Some common methodologies are discussed, and we briefly introduce how to implement them in general resilient and cyber-resilient systems.
BoringR. L. (2010). How many performance shaping factors are necessary for human reliability analysis?
2.
BoyJ.EveillardL.DetienneF.FeketeJ.-D. (2015). Suggested interactivity: Seeking perceived affordances for information visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 22(1), 639-648.
3.
BuchterR. B.FechtelpeterD.KnelangenM.EhrlichM.WalteringA. (2014). Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis [Review]. Bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 14, 11, Article 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-14-76
4.
CampopianoG.De MassisA.CassiaL. (2012). The relationship between motivations and actions in corporate social responsibility: An exploratory study. International Journal of Business and Society, 13(3), 391.
5.
ClarkeS. (1999). Perceptions of organizational safety: implications for the development of safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 20(2), 185-198.
6.
DeCampW. (2019). Parental influence on youth violent video game use. Social science research, 82, 195-203.
7.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. In Situational awareness (pp. 9-42). Routledge.
8.
ErevI.CohenB. L. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), 1-18.
9.
FerneleyE. H.SobreperezP. (2006). Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 345-356.
10.
FrowP.PayneA. (2011). A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept. European journal of marketing, 45(1/2), 223-240.
HardréP. L. (2003). Beyond two decades of motivation: A review of the research and practice in instructional design and human performance technology. Human Resource Development Review, 2(1), 54-81.
13.
HaysD. G.McKibbenW. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99(2), 178-188.
14.
HeckhausenJ. E.HeckhausenH. E. (2008). Motivation and action. Cambridge University Press.
15.
HendricksJ. W.PeresS. C. (2021). Beyond human error: An empirical study of the safety Model 1 and Model 2 approaches for predicting workers’ behaviors and outcomes with procedures. Safety science, 134, 105016.
HosseiniS.BarkerK.Ramirez-MarquezJ. E. (2016). A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 145, 47-61.
18.
IshimatsuT.LevesonN. G.ThomasJ.KatahiraM.MiyamotoY.NakaoH. (2010). Modeling and hazard analysis using STPA.
19.
LevesonN. (2004). A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety science, 42(4), 237-270.
20.
LiR.BlancK. L. (2022). Flexible task analysis framework: feedforward and feedback. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,
21.
LiR.PhillipsT. B.McJunkinT. R.Le BlancK. (2022). A Use Case Structure for Technology Integration. 2022 Resilience Week (RWS),
22.
McAtamneyL.CorlettN. (2004). Rapid upper limb assessment (RULA). In Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 86-96). CRC Press.
MonosovI. E. (2020). How outcome uncertainty mediates attention, learning, and decision-making. Trends in neurosciences, 43(10), 795-809.
25.
NaikarN.HopcroftR.MoylanA. (2005). Work domain analysis: Theoretical concepts and methodology.
26.
NevilleK. J.PiresB.MadhavanP.BoothM.RosfjordK.PattersonE. S. (2022). The TRUSTS Work System Resilience Framework: A Foundation for Resilience-Aware Development and Transition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,
NielsenJ. (1995). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Nielsen Norman Group, 1(1), 8.
29.
NormanD. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.
30.
O'TooleM. (2002). The relationship between employees' perceptions of safety and organizational culture. Journal of safety research, 33(2), 231-243.
31.
OlsonJ. R.OlsonG. M. (1995). The growth of cognitive modeling in human-computer interaction since GOMS. In Readings in Human–Computer Interaction (pp. 603-625). Elsevier.
32.
PollockN. (2005). When is a work-around? Conflict and negotiation in computer systems development. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(4), 496-514.
33.
SmithL.FolkardS.PooleC. (1994). Increased injuries on night shift. The Lancet, 344(8930), 1137-1139.
34.
VahabiM. (2010). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Does format presentation of probabilistic information regarding breast cancer screening affect women's comprehension?Health Education Journal, 69(2), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896909349262
35.
ValdésR. A.ComendadorV. F. G.SanzA. R.CastánJ. P. (2018). Aviation 4.0: more safety through automation and digitization. In Aircraft Technology. IntechOpen.
