Ap~liedErgonomics 1982, 13.

4, 281-287

The present and future of human

factors
D. Meister
US Navy PersonnelResearchand DevelopmentCenter,San Diego,California 92152, USA

In view of the problems facing human factors specialists, how do they feel about the
present status of their profession and its future prospects? A small number of highly
qualified practitioners were asked their opinions about various questions which have
been discussed in two previous articles in this series. In a 1979 survey they agreed that
designers rarely solicit human engineering assistance and resist human engineering
inputs; that the behavioural research reported in the literature is of relatively little
value in system development work; that government does not monitor human
engineering in system development very effectively. In a survey performed for this
article, specialists were generally optimistic about the future of their discipline but
concerned about government funding and job support under the Reagan administration;
felt that engineering and public acceptance of human factors is increasing slowly; were
ambivalent about any significant improvement in methodology; and considered that
the scope of human factors work would expand in the future. The need for human
factors should increase in the future and the future looks reasonably promising if
specialists learn to deal with a rapidly changing technological environment.

Keywords: Human engineering, system development, problem solving

I ntroduction (4) Will there be a significant improvement in human

In two previous articles (Meister, 1982a, b) the problems
facing the human engineer working in system development
(as well as human factors specialists in general) were
described. The most important of these problems are:
(1) Negative engineering and management attitudes
toward human factors;
(2) Inadequate funding for human engineering in system
development;
(3) Inadequate techniques for solving behavioural
problems arising during system development.
This article addresses the present and future status of
human factors relative to these problems; specifically it
focuses on the following questions:
(1) How optimistic are human factors specialists about
the future of their discipline?
(2) Will acceptance of human factors by engineering and
the general public increase?
(3) Will funding by government military and civilian
agencies increase or decrease and what will be the
effect on jobs in human factors?
The opinionsexpressedare thoseof the author alone and
do not representthe Departmentof Defenseor the
Department of the Navy.
engineering methods?
(5) What will the future scope of human factors work
include?
(6) What are the major problems that human factors
professionals face?
Questions as global as these have no absolute answer and
empirical data bearing on them are almost non-existent. One
way of approximating an answer is to solicit the opinions of
those most knowledgeable about human factors. These are
available in answers to two questionnaire surveys performed
by the author, one in 1979 and another specifically for this
article.
It would be unfair to report these survey results without
first cautioning the reader. Making predictions is in the
vernacular 'a mug's game'. Even the literature on the rather
more sophisticated forecasting of technological (equipment)
innovations (Wise, 1976) suggests that forecasts are poor
and in any case valid for no more than ten years in advance.
One of the problems we encounter is the tremendous
variability in any forecast based on opinion. If, of 20 people
asked a question, 10 answer 'yes'; five 'maybe'; three 'no';
and two refuse to commit themselves, what is the 'true'
answer? Majority opinions give us only a clue to an answer,
not the answer itself. Moreover, opinions can be radically
altered by rapidly changing events. So - the reader is
warned.

0003-6870/82/04 0281-07 $03.00 (~ 1982 Butterworth & Co (Publishers)Ltd AppliedErgonomics Docember1982 281
The 1979 survey
In the 1979 survey (Meister, 1979) whose theme was the
effect of government on human factors, 27 human engineers
responded along with 24 research contractors and
30 government laboratory personnel and managers. The
survey was deliberately elitist; it solicited only the opinions
of those the author considered to be most qualified to
answer his questions.
As one would expect, the company human factors group
spends most of its time (63%) supporting system development
(whether or not funded by the government), 24% of its time
on government-funded research contracts and 13% on
incidental activities.
Since the human engineer attempts to apply behavioural
research in system development, the question of the
applicability of this research - as reported in journals like
Human Factors, Ergonomics or the Journal o f Applied
Psychology - to his problem is important. Over half (52%)
of the respondents considered that the research was non-
applicable. Obviously, many human engineers do not
believe that they are getting much out of the behavioural
research reported in the literature. Sample comments about
these reports were that it was 'narrow', 'theoretical', with
'very little generalisability to system development'.
As has been pointed out previously, the relationship
between the human engineer and the designer is crucial for
the effectiveness of human engineering. 64% of the human
engineers felt that designers on their own are incapable of
understanding human factors inputs. However, some
respondents pointed out that engineers may understand
these inputs but do not push for their incorporation in
design. There are large individual variations in designer -
human engineer relationships.
76% agreed that designers do not solicit human engineering
assistance. Again there are individual variations, special
individuals and special circumstances, but the armed
neutrality between designer and human engineer seems the
same as it was when it was first described 15 years ago
(Meister and Farr, 1967). A key element in securing designer
co-operation appears to be a supportive management.
Respondents suggested a number of reasons to explain the
negative designer- human engineer relationship: the designer's
wish to function with complete autonomy; his view of
human factors requirements as merely additional constraints;
the human factors group's reputation which may not be very
positive. Human engineers may also have difficulty
communicating their ideas to designers.
Slightly more than half (57%) of human engineers felt
that there is still considerable resistance on the part of
designers to the inclusion of human factors inputs in design.
The positive side is that almost half (41%) feel that the
situation is improving somewhat. And indeed it may be
improving, because in years past almost all human engineers
would have given a negative answer on this point. Some
human engineers felt that if behavioural inputs are
'reasonable', engineers will accept them. Unfortunately
human factors inputs are sometimes inadequate and this
creates resistance to or rather avoidance of the inputs.
This resistance may result in part from the fact that, as
many of the respondents (72%) felt, engineers may find
human factors inputs to design insufficiently precise and
quantitative. Some pointed out that human factors data
282 AppliedErgonomics December 1982
must be translated by human engineers into specific design
terms or else the input is merely an additional burden to
the designer.
Not unexpectedly, almost all the human engineers (96%)
felt that, left on their own, designers would not incorporate
human factors considerations in design as effectively as
would human engineers. There is considerable variability
among designers, a few being highly proficient in human
factors methods, the remainder much less so. If designers
handled behavioural problems on their own, obvious
problems might be caught but not the more subtle ones.
Since, as was pointed out previously, design tends to be an
adversary process between inputs from different disciplines,
motivation to incorporate behavioural inputs - or rather
the lack of motivation - becomes critical.
Many human engineers (60%) view their work as
depending more on the human engineer's special talents
and persuasiveness than on a formal body of principles and
data, which one can call science.
By a very large majority (78%) human engineers felt
that behavioural research data are generally inadequate to
answer behavioural questions arising during system
development. Their data do not lend themselves to concrete
design operations. In general, the human engineer needs
more specific detail than he can find in the literature. More
molecular aspects such as controls or displays are fairly well
covered in the literature, whereas others such as task design
are not.
Almost half of the human engineers (48%) felt that if
human factors is not more influential in system development,
it is because the necessary backup data are not available. Do
human engineering handbooks like Woodson (1981) or
Van Cott and Kinkade (1972) and military standards like
1472C (Department of Defense, 1981) provide sufficient
information to handle the great majority of human factors
design situations encountered? 44% said yes, 54% said no.
80% felt that behavioural research performed under
government sponsorship does not sufficiently address system
development problems. On the other hand, some suggest
that data are available but may not be used adequately; in
other words, that the interpretation of research results is
perhaps as important as the research itself.
64% of the respondents felt that the influence human
factors had on overall system development is minimal: A
similar majority (69%) felt that other priorities such as cost
or reliability seriously diminish the influence of behavioural
inputs on design.
With all this there is reason for hope. Three out of four
human engineers felt that over the years designers have
shown increasing appreciation of human factors in design.
The older ones tend to be more conservative. Perhaps as
these r e t i r e . . .
The 1982 survey
In this survey of 58 questionnaires mailed, 45
(approximately 78%) were returned. The survey consisted
of a series of propositions to which those surveyed
responded by checking one of five categories indicating
degree of agreement or disagreement or amount of increase/
decrease. It was a condition that all responses be anonymous,
especially since a number of those reporting hold high
positions in industry and government.
 A bare recital of those agreeing or disagreeing with a
particular proposition would tell the reader very little.
About half the respondents provided detailed explanations
of their opinions and these are presented in summary fashion
immediately following each topic question. Responses are
phrased in terms of percentages because the number
responding to individual questions varied slightly (for a few
questions, by 2 or 3).
The future of human factors in the near term (5-10 years)
95% were either optimistic or highly optimistic. Some of
this optimism arises from respondents' conviction that
civilian-oriented human factors will become increasingly
more important. The perceived emphasis on defence
spending by the present government administration bodes
well in their opinion for human engineering in system
development. They see the shock effect on the public of
the Three Mile Island nuclear incident as being quite
important for human factors. In addition, there is some
feeling that the tremendous increase in automation and
computerisation and the behavioural problems associated
with these will require more human factors work. Others
feel optimistic because they see the scope of human factors
expanding into consumer products and industry which they
believe have a greater potential demand than human factors
specialists will be able to supply.
The future of human factors in the long term (10+ years)
Again 95% were optimistic or highly optimistic. Optimism
for the long term is even greater than for the near future.
There may be some temporary reduction in human factors
activity because of 'Reaganomics' which worries many
specialists, but the long term future is seen as good
because of the increasing complexity of the systems people
have to operate and maintain. Again, many see the long
term future of human factors as involved more with civilian
than with military uses of equipment but they are cautious
about this. They feel that there is an implicit need for
human factors but that that need has not yet been fully
realised by those who should utilise our products. The
expansion of human factors is seen as paralleling and
depending on the increasing recognition by engineers and
the general public of that need. A number of respondents
were afraid that other disciplines such as industrial
engineering would assimilate human factors and we will
either lose our identity or at least become less behaviourally
oriented.
Engineering/public acceptance of human factors
This is generally seen as increasing (90%). A major
problem still persisting is the lack of acceptance by engineers
of the value of human factors work. Respondents cite
indices of greater approval, such as human engineering being
mentioned in advertisements for commercial products, as
well as the importance attributed to human engineering by
the investigatory arm of Congress, the General Accounting
Office (1981). The Three Mile Island incident with its
emphasis on human error was helpful in this connection.
Some human factors specialists feel that additional publicity
is necessary and appeal for more public relations activity.
Others feel that acceptance has been especially good in the
civilian sector. Some of the optimism with regard to
acceptance assumes that it is inevitable because of an
implicit need for human factors (a form of 'manifest
destiny') because systems are becoming more complex.
Nevertheless there is a strong underlying feeling that
human factors is still a minority discipline and must prove
itself anyway it can. Most realise that acceptance will take
time.
Military financial support of human factors system
development
There is some feeling that restricted government funding
will cut human factors down a bit. Thus although of those
responding to this question 52% felt that funding would
increase somewhat, 41% felt that government support would
either remain the same or decrease. The optimism reported
previously with regard to human factors as a whole does
not seem to carry over quite as strongly to military support,
although new systems should be developed as a result of the
massive infusion of money into the military. The money
would then trickle down to human factors. Those in the
research end of things fear that funding for human factors
research will be downgraded in favour of applied
development.
Non-military financial support of human factors system
development
There is also some pessimism about non-military support
of human factors in a time of straitened circumstances.
Only 36% feel that non-military support will increase; the
remainder feel that it will either remain the same or decrease.
The present administration's curtailment of funding for
work in civilian agencies like Labour, Transportation, etc,
will hurt. Nuclear power is considered about the only
exception to this. Respondents recall that in any event
the amount of non-military government support of human
factors has never been very great. There is some hope that
following the present administration there will be an upsurge.
Industry may take up the slack.
Future improvement in human factors methodology
Respondents are very divided on this point, 48% seeing
some improvements, 24% being non-committal, and 26%
disagreeing. If new methodological approaches are needed,
no one seems to know what these would be. Part of the
negativism about methodology is a carryover from the general
pessimism resulting from government cutbacks. Another
point of view is that if the methodology we do have is not
being applied (by engineers, presumably), why do we need
more sophistication? What will these new methods be?
Computer-aided design is what most people think of; others,
field research and multivariate problems, particularly where
highly robust techniques are needed; but see Topmiller
(1981 ). The pace of methodological development will be
slow.
Human factors jobs in civilian system development
There is considerable optimism about the availability of
jobs in civilian system development based in part on the
increased attention given human factors by Three Mile
Island and by the increase in computerisation. 85% of the
respondents felt that the number of civilian oriented jobs
will increase, only 13% that they would remain the same or
decrease somewhat. The increase in jobs will occur in high
technology companies that are at the forefront of research
and development for civilian products such as computers,
communications and electronics. For many the rationale for
Applied Ergonomics December 1982 283
the increase in jobs is an article of faith based on the concept
of a consumer 'demand' which, being inevitable, will
somehow manifest itself. This faith is tied also to a feeling
that military human factors, where we began and where we
are still most active, is somehow not fully respectable
because it is non-productive, whereas consumer human
factors is good because it satisfies people's wants. Many
respondents are, however, afraid that the current recession
will slow down any civilian progress, that the 'civilianisation'
of human factors is a long term phenomenon. In the near
term there may be a loss in civilian employment but this
will be reversed later.
Human factors jobs in military system development
There is much less optimism about jobs resulting from
military system development. Only half (54%) say the
number of such jobs will increase somewhat, the remainder
feeling that the number of jobs will either remain the same
or decrease. Some feel that the military will devote its
money to systems that do not require extensive human
engineering, others that human factors has not yet convinced
the military that it is worth supporting. Those who are
optimistic see the manpower situation in the American
military (ie, the all volunteer force) as creating a demand
for human factors to assure maximum ultilisation of systems.
Human factors/obs in research
There appears to be no great anticipation that jobs in
human factors research will increase. Only 28% of
respondents felt that these jobs will increase; 51% that they
would remain the same; and 20% that they would decrease.
Part of the problem is the present economic climate which
is depressing and the feeling that the Reagan administration
and government as a whole are more application than
research-minded. In consequence the biggest growth surge
may occur in applications, which translates into human
engineering in industry. If there is to be any improvement
in the research picture, it will take time.
Scope of human factors work
Almost everyone (94%) agrees that this will increase in
the future. One can think of scope in terms of the number
of human factors jobs that will become available or the
range of topics the human engineer will have to deal with.
Table 1: Ranking of problems facing human factors professionals
Number in rank category
Problem 1 2 3 4
Worth of human factors 12 7 4 2 4
Lack of adequate training 7 6 9 4
Poor acceptance 5 6 6 6
Too few professionals 3 9 4 5
Inadequate training 6 3 7 2
Lack of government support 3 5 3 10
Not enough jobs 1 1
284 Applied Ergonomics December 1982
In both cases there is agreement that the scope will increase,
but greater agreement that the variety of topics will expand.
The expansion will be into new consumer and social areas.
Some of the respondents who perhaps have a wider view-
point see human factors as being applied to just about
everything in our culture. We are presumably only at the
beginning of this trend. Others say that the number of
problems to be solved by human factors may not increase
but that their nature will change. There is a feeling that
technological changes will force a change in scope and that
there will also be greater opportunities for cross-disciplinary
work.
Problems facing human factors professionals
A final question asked respondents to rank seven major
problems facing human factors. Table 1 lists the problems,
the number of respondents ranking each problem along
the scale of 1 to 7 and the mean ranking of the problem.
This last was determined by multiplying the number ranking
a problem in each category by the rank of that category
(eg, 7 respondents in rank 1 = 7), then adding the total
per problem (eg, (7 x 1) + (6 x 2) + (9 x 3 ) . . . = 90) and,
since not all respondents ranked every problem, dividing
by the number of respondents ranking that problem (eg,
90 + 31 = 2.90). The lower the ranking, the higher the
priority the problem has.
The two problems tied almost in a dead heat are the
problem of demonstrating the worth of human factors
(2"88) and lack of adequate professional training (2-90).
The first is the acceptance problem again. The second, a
feeling that many of those claiming to be human engineers
are not completely qualified.
Enough has already been said about the problem of
gaining acceptance (which is next in importance with a
ranking of 3-13) to which the demonstration of human
factors worth is tightly linked. The problem of lack of
adequate training is one which frankly the author had not
thought was a serious one. That it is serious is suggested not
only by the responses to this survey item but also by the
Committee on Human Factors of the National Research
Council, which recently ran a workshop to consider the
problem of post-graduate education and those techniques
for which human factors professionals need most retraining.
Number Total
5 6 7 responding rankvalue Mean rank
3 2 34 98 2-88
3 1 1 31 90 2.90
4 2 29 91 3-13
2 5 28 93 3.32
5 2 3 28 99 3"53
3 2 2 28 103 3"67
6 6 14 85 6"07
 There is some feeling that there are too few human factors
professionals (ranking of 3.32) which may be linked to lack
of adequate training. The problem of inadequate techniques
(ranking of 3.53) did not seem to bother respondents as
much as the author had anticipated; they may believe that
there are many techniques and the difficulty is one of not
using them.
Lack of government support is apparently not the most
pressing problem for respondents and this is tied to the
problem of insufficient number of jobs which few thought
was important enough to rank and those who did felt it
was much less important than the other problems noted.
The cloudy crystal ball*
From the variability in responses to the two surveys, it
is clear that the future of human factors is just as obscure to
our 'experts' as it is to the reader. However, certain trends
are apparent.
The need for human factors in the future
The need for human factors assistance should increase in
the years to come because
(1) Technological sophistication will increase so much
that it will significantly exceed the capability of
personnel to operate and maintain systems (particularly
the latter). The discrepancy between technological
sophistication and personnel capability is already
evident in the United States Navy. For example, one
highly advanced propulsion system had to be removed
from a number of ships and replaced at great expense
with one less advanced because personnel did not
have the expertise to utilise the former.
(2) The fact that less qualified personnel enter the
military services and industrial production lines will
exacerbate the problem posed by technological
sophistication. Among less qualified personnel one
finds women, people whose mental and/or educational
qualifications are less than desired and people from
developing countries. Women may be somewhat
culturally deprived because their upbringing tends to
reduce their contact with technology. The need for
military personnel has led to the recruitment of
personnel with less than a high school (leaving school)
certificate, some of whom are functionally illiterate.
Opportunities for human factors may expand
significantly in the design of equipment for Third
World people (see the December 1968 issue of Human
Factors).
Changes in future human factors scope
Further expansion of human factors efforts will take
place in the civilian sector; the demand for human
engineering of military systems will level off. Computers,
office furniture, medical systems, trucks and tractors,
process control systems, ships and aircraft - to name only
a few; it is reasonable to hypothesise that all will be
exploited by human factors more fully in the further, if
not nearer, future. There may be some tentative human
factors advances into the design of social systems (eg,
*The author acknowledges with pleasure the contribution
of R.A. Newman to the writing of this section.
welfare, police) but there it is wise to be circumspect
because of the many political factors influencing the design
of such systems.
Overall the future for human factors looks reasonably
promising if
(1) Human factors specialists obtain and maintain the
necessary level of competence in dealing with a very
rapidly changing system/hardware environment.
Specifically, the rate of computerisation, and the
increasing degree of sophistication of computer-based
systems, will be the big challenge to human factors
practitioners.
(2) New tools are provided for human engineering
application which the human engineer has the ability
to understand and apply.
(3) Human factors practitioners make the effort to
improve the level of their professionalism (ie,
competence) and the relevance of human factors
research to real world problems. Currently much
human factors research is academic in orientation,
and, as we have seen, not particularly useful in a work-
oriented context. Its emphasis must be reoriented to
the real world system.
The single most significant technical driving force for
human factors in the next two decades will be the increasing
sophistication of computer systems and the concurrent
developments in artificial intelligence and 'cognitive science'.
The result will be very different capabilities for systems
and system hardware which will also change the functions
of operators as well. It is almost a clich~ to say that
computer-based systems have changed the operator's role
from user to monitor and/or decision-maker. The expanded
capabilities of such systems will result in the computer and
software doing much of what is now considered monitoring
and decision-making, in particular data reduction, the
analysis of relationships and some evaluative functions. The
results will probably be that future human factors design
technology will have to meet new (and as yet undefined)
criteria involving display content, data rates, user/user
interaction and user/system interaction.
These modifications will also mean changes of emphasis
for the human engineer. For example, with increased
automation, personnel will become system managers in the
sense that operator functions will emphasise complex and
creative information processing, analyses and decision-
making rather than routine operations. Design implications
will centre around the cognitive rather than psychomotor
functions. With computerisation the human engineer will be
concerned more about software than hardware. If systems,
because of complexity, become increasingly more difficult
to maintain, he will be asked to turn his attention to design
for maintainability, an area most human engineers working
in system development have managed to steer clear of
(because of its difficulty).
There have been continuing efforts - and one presumes
that they will continue to be made - to bring the human
engineer into the very early phases of system development,
when the system is only a glint in the developer's eye and
only the rough outlines of the system can be discerned
conceptually. If the human engineer does get more involved
in earlier system development phases, his expertise will have
to emphasise much more sophisticated analytic techniques.
Applied Ergonomics December 1982 285
New developments in modelling and simulation technology,
new mathematical tools and new methods of working with
time-variant dynamic variables are becoming available for
application to system analysis. These may represent the
next generation of system development technology in
human factors.
lmplicationsfor the human engineer of the future
These implications centre around the functions the
human engineer will perform in future system development
and his training to perform those functions. It seems
unlikely that his development functions will change
significantly because, ff he performs as he ideally should,
he is presently involved with all behavioural aspects of
the system and this will not change. The critical behavioural
questions raised in system development will not change
substantially with technological sophistication; they may
become even more important.
The training of the future human engineer should
change a bit more. With computerisation one can see much
more emphasis being given to mathematics and statistics, to
learning about computers, how to use them, how to program
them and how to use computer-aided design tools. A major
area of emphasis in the training of prospective human
engineers will be highly sophisticated mathematical analyses
which underly the increasing sophistication of computerised
systems. Many human factors specialists are not currently
trained in these areas and may have difficulty communicating
with the designers of such systems.
Designing for the operator as system manager should
require more academic training in mathematical decision-
making and cognitive processes. It is the author's impression
that universities whose human factors training programmes
are well known, eg, North Carolina State University,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, do heavily emphasise those
areas for their graduate students and the loading will increase
in the future. Fortunately an increasing number of students
are entering the university Human Factors programme with
a background considerably broader than one finds in the
traditional academic psychology department. However, it is
the current generation of human factors practitioners that
will determine the course of the discipline's development
in the next two decades.
Technological lag in human factors
It is obvious to everyone that human factors is evolving.
If one makes the assumption, as the author does, that
human factors effectiveness depends upon the adequacy of
its methods, one must ask whether our technology, ie, the
totality of our methods, is also evolving. The answer to this
question is somewhat disturbing.
The author sees little evidence that human factors
practitioners as a whole are concerned about methodology.
If in some respects we move rapidly, in others progress is
intolerably slow. To the great majority of human engineers,
human factors methodology is the methodology of the late
1950s and early 1960s. The author was recently required to
write a report describing analytic techniques used in system
development (Meister, 1982c, in press) and found himself
consulting volumes written in the early 1960s (Folley et al,
1960) because nothing newer was available or adequate.
Useful descriptions of such basic (and primitive) techniques
as time line analysis, operational sequence diagrams, work-
286 AppliedErgonomics December 1982
load analysis, etc, are almost non-existent. It is even unclear
to what extent these methods are actually used in
development and how.
It cannot be repeated sufficiently that human factors
will be able to capitalise on the opportunities of the future
only to the extent that its methods are appropriate to those
opportunities. There are of course computerised models
and methods (eg, CAFES - Boeing, 1975) but as Topmiller
(1981) has pointed out there is little application of these
methods, perhaps because these 'advances' do not answer
the questions actually asked during system development.
Beyond that, where is the quantitative, probabilistic human
performance data base that many have been clamouring for
for years? How well do we know the basic mechanisms of
system development with which human factors technology
must mesh? Why is it that we can do so little in the area of
design for maintainability? As we trip bright-eyed into the
future, we leave a large vacuum of unsatisfied needs behind
US.
What must be done?
The author has no immediate solution to the problems
that have been raised in this series of articles, nor is he
presumptuous enough to suggest one. As a minimum,
however, human engineers can examine the issues and
discuss them. Do most human engineers fred the problems
discussed in these articles to be real problems? Are there
things that can realistically be done to help solve them?
It is remarkable that over the years there has been very
little discussion by human engineers about their role in the
system development process, although there is usually a
vast amount of discussion about academic research questions.
Human engineers themselves seem to fail to recognise
adequately the tremendous significance (or potential
significance) of their role. The system development process
is one of the few crucial mechanisms determining (at least
in part) our technological culture. Within that process only
the human engineer really represents the behavioural aspects
of that culture.
If human engineers believe these things, then they should
not merely accept the constraints (both external and internal)
under which they perform. The human engineering function
deserves the best efforts of its practitioners, not the least
part of which should be an awareness of the larger
significance of their work and a conscious attempt to
improve its effectiveness.
References
Boeing Corporation
1975 CAFES - Computer-aided function allocation
evaluation system (Executive summary). Report
DI80-18577-1, Crew Systems Technology, Boeing
Aerospace C9, Seattle, Washington.
Department of Defense
1981 MIL-STD- 1472C. Human engineering design criteria
for military systems, equipment and facilities.
Washington, DC.
Folley, J.D., et al (Eds)
1960 Human factors methods for system design. Report
AIR-290-60-FR-225, American Institute for Research,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
General Accounting Office
1981 Effectiveness of US forces can be increased through
improved weapon system design. Report PSAD-81-17,
Washington, DC.
Meister, D.
1979 The influence of government on human factors
research and development. Proceedings, Human
Factors Society Annual Meeting, 5-13.
Meister, D.
1982a Applied Ergonomics, 13.2, 119-124. The role of
human factors in system development.
Meister, D.
1982b Applied Ergonomics, 13.3. 219-223. Human factors
problems and solutions.
Meister, D.
1982c (in press) Behavioural inputs to the weapon system
acquisition process. Report US Navy Personnel Research
and Development Center, San Diego, California.
Meister, D., and Farr, D.E.
1967 Human Factors, 9.1, 71-87. The utilisation of
human factors information by designers.
Topmiller, D.A.
1981 Methods: Past approaches, current trends and future
requirements. In Moraal, J., and Kraiss, K.F. (Eds).
'Manned systems design: Methods, equipment and
application'. Plenum Publishing Corporation, New York.
Van Cott, H.E, and Kinkade, R.G. (Eds)
1972 Human engineering guide to equipment design
(revised edition), US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Wise, G.
1976 Futures, 8.5, 411-419. The accuracy of technological
forecasts, 1890-1940.
Woodson, W.E.
1981 Human factors design handbook, McGraw-Hill, New
York.

Patientsand_Programs
Femursand Feeclback
implantsand impedance
Waveformsand Wheelchairs
These a r e a f e w of our f a v o u r i t e things.
is where you find them !
is where w e report them !
is where you can read about them !
is where you can discuss them l
is for you, if you are a Clinician
Engineer, Technologist, or Surgeon

keeps you informed.

For further dermis write to:

Pubticoliono~the Biologicol EngineeringSociety Mrs. Jenny Earwaker
Butterworth Scientific Limited - - Journals Division PO Box63
Westbury House Bury Street Guildford Surrey GU2 5BH UK
Telephone: 0483 31261 Telex: 859556 SCITEC G

Applied Ergonomics December 1982 287

288 AppliedErgonomics December1982