Ergonomic work analysis and training: Past, present and future

2.1Historical elements: an informal network that lasts

The EWAT network has its roots in the organization of a first roundtable during the IEA congress in 1991 in Paris [1]. The field of training had been relatively absent from the publications of ergonomics researchers until Canadian-Québécois, French and Swiss experts started a reflection on the contribution of ergonomic work analysis to professional training. Questioning the relationship of ergonomics of work and professional training was not commonplace. Such a research question required a solid theoretical explanation to justify that addressing training issues when discussing ergonomics was in line with the initial project of ergonomics. Therefore, the researchers assured theoretical consistency by stating the conditions when the association between training and ergonomics contributes to theory and practice. Those conditions are condensed in two lines of contribution. Both research avenues respected and enhanced the principles of ergonomics of work. The first axis aimed at training occupational health and safety actors (and in particular trade unionists) in ergonomic work analysis for the transformation of work situations considered problematic due to health, safety, quality, and/or productivity issues. The second axis addressed the mobilization of ergonomic work analysis for the design of learning objectives and/or training programs that meet the realities of work and performance conditions. The purpose was the transformation-conception of work for all, using training as the means to adjust the socio-technical systems to the workers. Consequently, training is not centered on the prescribed tasks alone, it also considers context or interplay of contributing factors. In spite of its informal nature, the network was able to continue within the international ergonomics community by: i) successfully proposing to the organizers of each IEA congress (except in 2015) one or more communication sessions or symposiums; and ii) regularly publishing outstanding contributions in special issues of scientific journals (Safety Science, 1996 [2]; Industrial Relations, 2001 [3]; Pistes, 2004 [4], 2014 [5]; Work, 2012 [6]; Laboreal, 2014 [7]) or chapters [8, 9]. Over the years, the network activities were numerous and impactful. The EWAT network included researchers from eleven countries from two main continents (North and South America and Europe). This influence was even broader at the IEA 2021 congress with the participation of colleagues from Africa (Nigeria) and Asia (Japan and Taiwan). Hence, it is clear that concerns about work analysis and training converge beyond cultural and geographical boundaries.

Over the last three decades, the two lines of thought have taken different directions. In the field of training in ergonomic work analysis, the emphasis was placed, for example, on:

In the field of work analysis for the improvement or design of training, research has also focused on a detail-oriented analysis during network meetings. In particular, the focus was on:

From the intersection of the two lines of thought emerged a broader reflection on the role played by the ergonomist - trainer - designer in the training model. This model stands for major principles of adult learning in professional environments which aims at emancipating people through and in their work [26].

The informality of this research network has not prevented it from enduring over time, thus testifying to the relevance and renewed relevancy of its framework proposed at the time of its creation.

2.2Three pillars for a common background: Real work, system and participation, multi-disciplinary approach

Literature review shows the network shares three theoretical and methodological pillars.

The first pillar is the concern for real work (i.e. the work as it is actually done). Far from the approaches that think and design training objectives, programs and evaluations based on tasks prescribed by managers or organizations, the work carried out by this network’s ergonomists demonstrates the interest of describing work as it is understood, preserved and done by workers themselves [27]. The advantages of detailed real work knowledge are fourfold: i) to diagnose the existing situation and to determine if the context-related questions are indeed related to employee training and not to the design of the work; ii) to define the knowledge and know-how necessary for the performance of the real work in its individual and collective dimensions in order to design training systems that contribute to building that knowledge and know-how; iii) to build the links between the training situation and the work situation necessary for the continuation of learning after the formal training period is completed and for the appropriation of knowledge and know-how in daily work through experience; iv) to build evaluation-improvement approaches for learning systems based on a realistic representation of the intangible resources (knowledge and skills) to be transferred for the work ahead.

The understanding of real work played a major role in the researchers’ decision to use the concept of activity in its multiple approaches and according to different theoretical models (e.g. Faverge’s proposal on the work analysis in terms of regulation [28]; Leplat’s model of the double regulation of the activity [29]; Engeström’s cultural-historical theory of the activity system [30]; Theureau’s course of action [31]; Schwartz’s ergology [32]; the Rabardel’s instrumental approach of activity [33]; etc.), in particular inspired by the work from constructivist approaches. These are notably the two major schools of thought: Russian psychology from the beginning of the 20th century [34] and Piagetian psychology [35]. Both theories consider that the activity deployed by a person, in order to carry out his/her task, is: a) singular, because it is situated in space and time as a result of a given professional history, b) finalized, according to the individual, collective or organizational goals pursued, c) mediated, by the material, organizational and intangible resources which orient the capacities and practices of people, and d) invested in, by the significance each person gives to his/her work [36]. Approaching real work through the concept of activity presents a fifth advantage, by making it possible: v) to propose an approach to health-work relations that is not unique or deterministic, since a person’s activity in a given situation mediates these relations by positioning the person as a potential actor, considering the resources allocated and his or her capacities. This approach takes into account dysfunctions, variabilities, collective work, what is not foreseen, or prescribed [37].

The second pillar shared within the network is based on a systemic and participatory approach to research and intervention in workplaces. Systemic, because it is about understanding the relationship between work and training as a potential professional development system for trainee-employees, trainers or tutors and not about learning processes or pedagogical devices in isolation. This scientific position builds links between work and training. Therefore, it sheds broader light on the systemic approach defended in ergonomics, which more frequently focuses on the work as a sociotechnical system only (e.g. [38, 39]). Participatory, because each person is in turn an expert and an ignorant person (including ergonomists) and it is a question of combining the knowledge and know-how of different stakeholders to describe, understand, design, transform and evaluate work and/or training, to develop the agency of the participants (i.e. their intelligence and creativity in action) and thus to reinforce the sustainability of the action [40].

The third pillar lies in a deliberately broad opening to a multidisciplinary approach. Over the years, the network has welcomed research from sociological, managerial, psychological, medical, educational or training science approaches, and evaluation research. Two arguments justify the pertinence of a multidisciplinary approach. On the one hand, the complexity of the systems studied and the issues addressed cannot be solved by ergonomists alone. In addition, ergonomists are equipped to lead projects, to build synergies, and to mobilize stakeholders (decision-makers, engineers, employees-trainees, trainers, designers, etc.) [41, 42]. On the other hand, scientific improvements and innovations are developed through cooperation and scientific controversy around common projects. The multidisciplinary approach indicates an expansive scientific strategy.

The informality of the network has allowed these three theoretical and methodological pillars to consolidate over time. The informal nature of the network has also given the successive coordinators freedom to emphasize one particular pillar, according to the themes of the congresses and the proposals made by the network authors.

3.1Building the links between work as it is done and training: Reasons and ways

Under this axis, which is part of the continuous reflection carried out over the last 30 years, nine contributions were identified. In all of them, the work analysis was performed before training, hence supporting the subsequent interventions. What is hereafter discussed are: i) the different reasons that supported this analysis and; ii) the way this analysis was performed, challenging, at times, the most accepted methods that are part of the heritage shared by the EWAT network members.

As far as the reasons are concerned, the symposium organized by Chambel and colleagues [43] shows how the analysis of activity performed by ergonomists at the beginning of their career (in France but also in Peru) can be useful for nourish the spaces of debate. Junior ergonomists invest in such moments to reflect upon the practice of the profession. Various intermediary objects [44] (e.g. intervention maps) that expects ergonomists’ activity through simulation and games, are influenced by new shared knowledge (e.g. on intervention strategies) that emerges to enrich the practice of each individual.

From another perspective, research used work analysis as the moment prior to the definition of training plans and as a way to identify intervention clues that enable the improvement of working conditions. An example thereto is the work developed by Juns and Gomez [45], Nepomuceno and colleagues [46] and Oliveira and Rotenberg [47], where the work analysis made it possible to identify context-related intervention clues, anchored in the workers’ activity, whether they were healthcare professionals or industrial operators. All three studies try to intersect the purpose of transforming the conditions and ways the work is organized with the workers’ development through the training debate about the conditions in which their activity is performed.

However, the authors’ findings did not yet include elements that could illustrate such development. Two studies mention something that is expected to happen as a result of the collective debate and of the training performed with the decision makers [45, 47]. Nevertheless, the third study found evidence that a change in the representations of work did not necessarily lead to the implementation of the measures reported in research-action-training [46].

A last group of communications used work analysis mainly to reflect upon training design and implementation work performed by trainers. For example, Munoz, Parage and Simonet [48] analyzed care assistants’ activity, aiming at understanding how the “clandestine activity”, resulting from cognitive and ethical suffering, is taken into consideration by the trainers and can update training itself. Similarly, Ketelaars and colleagues [49] started from the analysis of the work performed by the Covid-19 Humanitarian First Responders to question how to develop training when the work situation is unpredicted, unanticipated and, for those reasons, unregulated. Rodrigues and colleagues [50] analyzed how primary teachers can make work itself the object of children’s study. In line with these previous works, Pereira, Delgoulet and Santos [51] questioned to what extent the working conditions in situations of high production demands in pull flow organizations can impact the way knowledge transmission occurs among workers. The work analysis allows the research to be at the heart of the work or learning, as close as possible to invariant factors that characterize them, but also to their situational specificities. Work analysis clarifies what is at stake for learners, trainers, and tutors, and thus to design training programs that take this into account.

Though the reasons are distinct, because they are in line with the objectives of each research study, it is understandable that work analysis remains a key element of the reflection and intervention in different contexts.

Regarding the way work analysis was developed, several works chose on-the-job observation and workers’ verbalizations in order to understand the workers’ motivations and their decision-making process on how to perform their job. However, fewer contributions used other tools to know the real work, including for instance, questionnaires. Research from Juns and Gomez [45] and from Oliveira and Rotenberg [47] are examples thereto, that used questionnaires to collect information from a broader group of workers about the conditions in which they perform their work and about the perceived impacts on health. In these studies, the findings were subsequently discussed with the workers, and as such, the authors debate the content of the training sessions to reflect on the constraints imposed by the real work and the strategies developed in the activity.

Research by Atueyi and colleagues [52] also used questionnaires. This study’s objective is to accomplish a first approach to knowledge awareness and practices about ergonomics from lecturers of two distinct fields (Engineering and Medicine). The authors’ conclusions reinforce the idea that having knowledge of ergonomics does not make it automatically possible to apply ergonomics principles in daily work; consequently, the authors point to the need to implement a training action where reflection upon the working conditions is the actual training subject.

The option for uncommon instruments within the network is included in the acknowledgement of potential data triangulation [53], from different sources and under the scope of multi-methodologies, which provide in-depth knowledge of situations. However, that option also results from the need to find alternatives to continue the research and intervention on work, even during a health crisis. Ketelaars and colleagues [49] proved this need in a different way: when the observation of the work execution was forbidden due to pandemic restrictions, the solution encompassed recorded video diaries and video call interviews.

The network gives priority to the field, to the direct and live contact with the workers, recognized as pivotal to access a perspective on the real work; notwithstanding, restrictions imposed by the context, physical or temporal, are leading researchers to implement more or less creative solutions/instruments to perform work analysis, to get around the obstacles and, above all, to assure the interventions never stop. The use of questionnaires (and other instruments) also seems to result from the integration of new lenses, complementary perspectives introduced by different fields of study, though equally concerned about the relationships that may be established between work and training, as both can contribute to the transformation of working conditions and the activity performance conditions.

Two additional observations emerge as relevant. The first observation addresses an adjustment noticed when the type of training designed using work analysis is presented. More than the design of a training action in order to solve a problem, different contributions highlight the importance of having spaces for debating work among workers and, for instance, developing an activity sector [45], strengthening the groups [47], building analysis tools [50], or changing representations of work [46]. Consequently, the relevance of the debate within professional groups and between professional groups seems to assume relevance in training, mainly in situations when problems are not yet acknowledged by the different stakeholders. In such cases, it is essential to share at least a common framework to help define intervention commitments.

The second observation addresses the importance of the discussion triggered by the work from Nepomuceno and colleagues [46] about the limits of voluntary participation in research. Some stakeholders in the work situation were absent from the intervention and for that reason no decisions were made that would guarantee the implementation of certain measures, collectively designed. The importance of the collective in the scientific tradition assumed by this research network, together with the wakeup call established in this text, endorse the continuity of the reflection about the constitution of debate/training/intervention groups and about the conditions the researchers must meet to assure their involvement in research-action-training.

The different reasons and ways that work analysis is present in these studies do not minimize the focus work analysis still gets in this network’s project. In fact, it is evident that researchers update how they perform work analysis, bearing in mind the constraints they face, but protecting the ethical principles that guide research within this network, that is, the effective participation of the stakeholders directly involved in research.

3.2Digitalization of activities and training consequences

The eight contributions included in this section, without neglecting the theoretical-methodological principles this network holds dear, stand out from the previous ones due to the focus on technology issues. In fact, when facing the challenge of reflection upon the major changes that the world of work is undergoing, technological changes posed the most questions to the network’s authors. Two approaches emerge from these contributions. The first approach, less common, is concerned with the prerequisites of training when introducing changes in technology at work or in training. The second approach, more widely discussed by the authors, focuses on the use of digital technologies in training.

In the first axis, more than just a reflection about the role played by training in situations when the work is undergoing a technological transformation, three manuscripts invite a reflection on the prerequisites that precede the introduction of such tools in training: Boccara and Toralla [54], based on a literature review, discussed the concept of “scenario”; Ketelaars and Flandin [55] studied the necessary characteristics to learn in role play situations and Person and colleagues [56] focused on the conditions necessary for the co-design of a learning analytics tool by computer scientists and teachers.

Boccara and Toralla [54] stated that regardless of the technological tools to be used in training, it will always be necessary to build scenarios for simulated situations. They led a systematic revision in the field of vocational training aiming at identifying the characteristics associated with the definition of a “good scenario”. While this research made it clear that “realism” is the most commonly referenced characteristic in scientific papers, the research from Ketelaars and Flandin [55], in a study conducted with civil protection officials, drew attention to the fact that it is not always necessary to insist on the most realistic high-fidelity simulations. Choosing “good enough” simulations, whose focus is on consistency with ordinary work, seems to meet the purposes of activity learning, particularly for the least experienced workers. The study of Person and his colleagues [56] is based on the observation of co-design sessions between computer scientists and teachers involving a dashboard using Learning Analytics (LA). The observation was complemented by individual interviews. The authors noticed the first stage of co-design is the definition of concepts, objectives and modalities. Failing to do so, LA and the dashboard only fit into the world of computer scientists and the co-design sessions do not fulfil their function of bridging the two professional modes of designers and users. Computer scientists are too far from the professional activity of teachers who fail to project themselves into the potential use of this new tool. These three studies emphasize that beyond technology itself, it is the way objectives and contents are used in the learning activity or in the teachers’ work activity that are of primary importance.

Concerning the second axis centered on the use of technological tools in training, the presentations concerned virtual training environments [57], simulators [58], eye tracking system [59] and videogames [60].

Literature in this field emphasizes [61] the value of using these tools in training. This value is particularly evident in three configurations: i) in highly complex learning situations, thus avoiding the constraints imposed by the real as is the case for firefighting, studied by Morélot, N’Kaoua and Garrigou [57]; ii) when the knowledge held by experts is embedded and is difficult to put into words, as is the case with the radiology doctors studied by Aoki and his colleagues [59]; iii) and, when trainees themselves can use such tools to recreate situations from their work, as the workers of lignite power domain in the study from Praetorius, Mallam and Nazir [58]. However, these technological training tools may also bring difficulties, namely for the trainers’ work: certain tools lack flexibility, which may hinder the adjustments trainers usually do throughout the learning process, hence transforming trainers’ activity [57].

Finally, Cusanno, Vidal-Gomel and Le Bellu [62] describe the analysis of a situation deeply transformed by the introduction of technology – driving automated vehicles – to think about the design of a learning tool that takes into account the sensitive situations identified by the analysis of the drivers’ work. The drivers need to adapt their “traditional” driving schemes since trust in the technological device is an essential aspect in learning about automated driving. Such a situation will not be reached if the functioning of the automated systems is kept opaque.

It seems indisputable that technology is deeply changing human activity and learning practices. What these studies reveal is the acknowledgement that there is still a major debate to be held to fully consider the real work’s point of view, considering the users’ activity from the process of tool design, the learning processes and paces and the construction of new experiences based on the past, but providing clues for the future, strengthening work collectives.

4.1The EWAT scientific network configuration

This scientific network, although informal, celebrated its thirtieth anniversary in 2021, which attests to its durability and to the acuity of the questions it addresses in the field of ergonomics. The diversity of the researchers who contribute to the network indicates shared scientific concerns beyond cultural specificities of training and learning formats (laws, funding mechanisms, training organizations, commonly shared adult learning models, etc.) that can be observed in the teaching practices of different countries.

In the years to come, the stabilization, or even the reinforcement, of the network’s visibility at an international level can take two paths that remain to be discussed within the EWAT network. The first path would be to seek a form of flexible institutionalization of the network which would ensure the evolution from an informal, discreet research network to an identified and agile network in its configuration and organization. The IEA provides the means to implement this evolution because committees are formal organizations (e.g. Technical and Scientific committees – TCs and SCs). The constitution of a new committee would then solve the need for formality and recognition. The second path would be to pursue cooperation with the members of the IEA’s Gender and Work Technical Committee, and with other TCs. These two horizons could enrich the network’s work on an international scale.

4.2Challenge for the future

For 30 years, this network has developed an original view of the contribution of ergonomics to training. Based on the primacy of real work, to understand learning situations and design training situations, programs or tools, the network shows today how much the deep transformations of work (e.g. digitalization, robotization, and automation) depend on these approaches to place the human being at the heart of these transformations. However, there are still many challenges to be met in a world where technological and environmental changes will reexamine work and professions. In particular, it is necessary to:

Ergonomists, researchers and practitioners must address these questions to contribute to the design of work and training situations that are favorable to the emancipation of women and men at work [65]. These questions seem fundamental for ergonomists and the EWAT network to contribute to the future of training and work.