Organizational status of “Ningen-kogaku” (Ergonomics) research in Japan

Abstract

Ergonomics or human factors engineering is called ningen-kogaku' in Japan. ‘Ningen’ refers to human and ‘kogaku’ to engineering or technology. The past one decade saw formation of ‘ningen-kogaku’ groups on a large scale. They are mainly oriented to equipment and work-place design, but this term seems to imply two features; as engineering it demands optimized systems solution, whereas as one of human sciences individual work and life should be within the scope of study. They emerge also from a historical sketch.In 1964 the Japan Ergonomics Research Society came into existence. There have been 10 national conferences. Contributors distributed among about 50 university departments, 18 research bodies, 16 enterprises and 4 hospitals. Five research groups which contributed the most are Industrial Products Research Institute, Railway Labour Science Research Institute, Architecture and Industrial Design Departments of Chiba University, Administrative Engineering course of Keio University and Institute for Science of Labour. There follow courses of machine engineering, industrial management or biomedical electronics in universities, national aerospace or aeromedical laboratories, living environment laboratories of women's colleges and industries of automobile and machines. Interenterprise groups are found in automobile, shipbuilding, camera, furniture or steel industries.J. E. R. S. activities extend from anthropometric projects, posture and work-space studies to display and equipment design and sensory-motor skills, fatigue or safety as well as human control and systems design (Table 2). The systems design projects seem, however, to show still reluctance to make the work really ‘multidisciplinary’. Work-science circles seem to approach the solution for their part by work load assessment. A sample is given in Table 3.The society's journal ‘Jap. J. Ergonomics’ is one of main publications for research results, but many are found separately in various specified journals as J. Sci. Labour, Ind. Engineering, Operations Res., Jap. J. Ind. Health, J. Soc. Automotive Engineers and others. Reports of independent institutions are also important.The difficulty of ergonomic work seems to lie both in understanding of man's dynamics and in multiple data analysis. Firstly, we find no universal agreement on ergonomic criteria. There are criticisms that human factors work is too narrow to solve design of work as an individual social activity. Integrated load assessment by work-scientists is not in a position to present a clearer model. In 1969 an ergonomists committee acted as a technical umpire of a labour-management confrontation of locomotive engineers and proposed the single-engineer plan. But criticism arose that there is little scientific basis to back the report in view of dense train operations with frequent night shifts and numerous level crossings. This called for grave reflection on an ‘ergonomic’ judgment.Secondly, we know technical optimization is often rejected if it lacks cultural considerations. As an example, recent computerization of the sales of American magazines caused complaints among readers when they were requested every month for the subscription fee for the next term. Another example is people's persistence to classical unit of land area, tsubo or 3.3m2, which is based on a two-mat size, a feasible unit in Japanese daily life.Thirdly more severe criticism is that the fixation of working patterns results from an ergonomic solution. The consequencies are easier but fragmentary, comprehensible but skill-killing work. A work that does not exclude the advancement of individual creative skill will be future problem. An attempt is being undertaken by ‘ergologists’ group through understanding of ecological and biological factors in human routines of work and life.There is strong hope that exchange of ergonomic