See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233200702

Human factors and ergonomic principles in building design for life and work
activities: An applied methodology

Article  in  Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · March 2012

DOI: 10.1080/1463922X.2010.504286

CITATIONS READS

59 6,091

2 authors, including:

Erminia Attaianese
University of Naples Federico II
38 PUBLICATIONS   94 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Modelo conceitual de ambiente de aprendizagem de Ensino Médio adequado a práticas com novas tecnologias View project

Dance as educational and ri-educational practice (University Degree Disstertation in Edicational Science View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Erminia Attaianese on 21 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia
Attaianese]
On: 21 March 2012, At: 05:30
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics

Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttie20

Human factors and ergonomic

principles in building design for
life and work activities: an applied
methodology
a a
Erminia Attaianese & Gabriella Duca
a
LEAS, Faculty of Architecture, University of Naples Federico II,
Via Tarsia 31, 80135 Naples, Italy

Available online: 27 Jun 2011

To cite this article: Erminia Attaianese & Gabriella Duca (2012): Human factors and ergonomic
principles in building design for life and work activities: an applied methodology, Theoretical Issues
in Ergonomics Science, 13:2, 187-202

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.504286

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
Vol. 13, No. 2, March–April 2012, 187–202

Human factors and ergonomic principles in building design

for life and work activities: an applied methodology
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Erminia Attaianese* and Gabriella Duca

LEAS, Faculty of Architecture, University of Naples Federico II,

Via Tarsia 31, 80135 Naples, Italy
(Received 17 March 2010; final version received 23 June 2010)

Even though all human activities are executed in a built environment, only a few
studies seem to be available about a building design methodology based on an
ergonomic approach. The article presents a preliminary survey of some principles
driven by human factors/ergonomics discipline, analysing the role they play in the
architectural design process, in order to define a design methodology supporting
the building designer to create working and living spaces actually fitting the needs
of inhabitants. The human-centred building design methodology presented here
takes inspiration from the holistic approach of ergonomics. It depicts an iterative
process for architectural design activities including human factors principles, such
as users’ involvement, their variability and diversity consideration, stereotypes
and standards followed. The design methodology is described in operational steps
supported by practical examples related to different architectural scales.
Keywords: users’ cluster; task analysis; user-related performances; architectural
details; design methodology; ergonomic principles

1. Ergonomics principles and architectural design

As it is well known, ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned
with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system,
providing theoretical principles, data and methods to design in order to optimise human
well-being and overall system performance.
The level of optimisation depends on the possibility to understand and explain those
system qualities that are able to make the system fit its users’ needs. Even though all
human activities are executed in a built environment, either a building or an outdoor place,
only few studies seem to be available about a building design methodology incorporating
ergonomic principles and techniques. In fact, ergonomic studies concerning products or
the design of workplaces appear to consider buildings as a simple surround or a minor
element of the context of use rather than a possible focus of the ergonomic design itself.
Despite the most acknowledged definitions of ergonomics or human factors that
ergonomic design of environments bring the same concerns as any other kind of systems,
and even though a poor building design affects a whole physical, cognitive and
organisational aspects of ergonomics in a given situation, a comprehensive methodology
purposed to designing ergonomic buildings is still lacking.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1463–922X print/ISSN 1464–536X online

ß 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.504286
http://www.tandfonline.com
 188 E. Attaianese and G. Duca

In order to define a design methodology supporting the building designer to create

working and living spaces actually fitting the needs of inhabitants, it can be useful to have
a survey of some principles driven by human factors/ergonomics discipline and, to analyse
the role they actually play in architectural design process.

1.1. Users’ involvement

The active involvement of end-users’ active involvement is one of the key aspects of
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

ergonomics. The international standard (ISO 13407: 1999) specifies that human-centred
design of systems is founded on a clear understanding of the characteristics of the users
and the overall tasks they will carry out with the system. In the workplace ambit, the
involvement of users implies the systematic application of participative techniques within
the ergonomics enquiry and intervention, considered a very powerful technology of
ergonomics for realising worker’s welfare (Nagamachi 1995).
In building design context, participation of users has increased over the last three
decades, but the attitude towards user participation is ambiguous among the architects for
the double nature, both artistic and socialistic, of architecture design. The artistic
dimension, moving from the conception that art is a private and not a collective activity,
can sometimes inhibit users from involvement in the design process even if, on the other
hand, the social dimension of architecture encourages one to try new methods to involve
users in the design activity so that the resultant architectural artefacts might attain a more
appropriate and effective design (Granath 2001).
With the growing interest in quality control, the role of users’ satisfaction becomes
essential within the building design. In this ambit, Volker and Prins (2005) indicate the
experience of quality as one of the main quality attributes in architecture, which originates
in confrontation between the individual and the object, building or place, and this
concerns the characteristics of the individual, the object and the situation. They state that
user participation does not assure design success although user exclusion invariably results
in dissatisfaction (Volker and Prins 2005). On the other hand, Brown (2001) reports the
need of a sort of appropriateness of user involvement in the design process, since certain
user groups at certain design stages can be counter productive.

1.2. Human variability and diversity

In ergonomic approach, human variability is a design parameter. Focusing on the actual
activities of the individuals, the ergonomic point of view considers diversities of people
involved in a broad context of situations with a wide range of capabilities and limitations.
There are many factors that influence human variability, concerning both physical and
mental characteristics. These factors not only consist of individual differences, including
body measures, age, health and body conditions, sex, race and national origin (Wagner
et al. 1996), but also concern perception of environments, human processing and cognitive
functioning, relating to comprehension and reasoning, attention, motivation, etc. The
consideration of variability and diversity appears crucial when referred to building users:
people’s abilities vary over time, and the design of built environment has to comply with
health condition, body size, strength, experiences, mobility power of real users, such as
disabled, elderly or children, rather than occasional users, etc. In architectural design
practice, many cases report that the ergonomic approach is non-applied, because there is
a lack of empathy to interpret requirements of diverse users (Afacan and Erbug 2009).
 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 189

Body sizes are the factors of variability that is most frequently considered in built
environment design, although the average measures usually applied to produce
architectural details that do not accommodate the variations of the wide range of
end-user characteristics. In addition, spatial features influencing mental and affective
reactions are usually neglected, except in the cases of work environment studies aimed to
understand human performances for the improvement of workers’ productivities (Lu and
Hignett 2006, Bluyssen 2010).
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

1.3. Stereotypes and standards overcoming

Outputs of architectural design are generally driven by adoption of guidelines, handbook
examples and directions of mandatory standards.
Although architects can benefit fromplenty of data and references, there is a
theory–practice inconsistency (Gregor et al. 2005). In fact, the design data are often not
readily available, and their random respect does not result in a building fitting people’s
actual needs, abilities and limitations.
Focusing on human–systems interactions, ergonomic approach requires, on the
contrary, consideration of total environment’s effects on real people who are using it,
overcoming stereotyped behaviours and fixed conduct codes, that give a simplified image
of human activities without reflecting the reality (Bandini Buti 1998).

1.4. System oriented approach

According to the International Ergonomics Association (IEA), ergonomics is a systems-
oriented discipline which now extends across all aspects of human activity. The term
‘system’ in IEA’s definition represents not only the physical or technical system that people
interact with, but also the wider social and organisational system framework. Every
interaction has to be analysed in terms of the system in which it occurs. A system is defined
as the combination of the user, the product, the task and the environment in which it all
takes place. The key contributors to performance within any system vary according to the
circumstances. Each of the designed elements of a system can be modified or optimised for
efficient function accordingly with these contextual circumstances (Ringholz 2003). When
the system is the built environment, the systemic approach requires that designers move
from an attention exclusively reserved for building functions towards the set of actions
that users actually perform and that building has to support. Each architectural detail can
be designed to optimise the execution of activities providing the best level of users’ comfort
and satisfaction (Bandini Buti 1998).

2. Human factors in building design: recent approaches

Building design involves a variety of subjects, each of which brings its own financial,
functional, technical, sociocultural, environmental and aesthetical input for the project.
These solicitations are managed by the design team in a problem setting/solving process
(Volker and Prins 2005) aimed to harmonise heterogeneous constraints and demands
(Suckle 1980). In the practice of building design, it can be observed that the weight and the
role assigned to the human-related issues in the creative process can vary. Ergonomic
principles’ implementation does not depend only on the designer’s personal approach to
the matter and its ability to turn customer requests into technical choices, fitting design
 190 E. Attaianese and G. Duca

goals in the broadest sense (i.e. satisfaction of explicit and implicit stakeholders’
objectives). In professional practice, the successful attainment of human factors’ issues
often depend on the availability of applicable voluntary ergonomics standards for the
specific building type, like the case of control centres design (ISO 11064-1: 2000), or
evidence-based design case studies, that let us understand effects of built environment
characteristics on specific activities and users (see for healthcare buildings, Gesler et al.
2004, Dijkstra et al. 2008; for schools, Sanoff 2009; for offices, Goins et al. 2010; for
residential environments for elderly, Clarke and Nieuwenhuijsen 2009).
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Even if many authors (e.g. Passini 1996, Jensen 2005, Hedge 2008) consider the success
of the architectural design process related to the extent to which users judge a building
suitable for their intents and/or needs, literature does not report experiences of a full
integration of ergonomics analysis and design techniques into the architectural design
process, since studies generally concern human factors’ issues in relation to a single design
stage, users’ involvement technique or a specific architectural detail. Four main fields of
investigation of the human factors’ role in building design can be delineated which are as
follows: (1) ergonomics and building sustainability, (2) usability measurements for
buildings, (3) buildings accessibility and design for all and (4) building use in design
management perspective.

2.1. Ergonomics and building sustainability

Several studies have introduced the concept that an environment-friendly building design
cannot neglect the fact that building users are themselves part of the environment, so that a
good building from an environmental point of view should also be healthy and
comfortable for its inhabitants (Hedge 2008). In this framework, some standard tools
for sustainable performance rating of buildings and projects have included ergonomic
related indicators; however, although these tools, like the US leadership in energy and
environmental design (LEED) rating system, promote ergonomics as a comprehensive
strategy (Hedge 2008), it can be noticed that indicators are mainly referred to the
ergonomic features of machines, equipments, furniture and tools that are able to reduce
discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders rather than to architectural details shaping the
whole building design.
From a different perspective, Leaman and Bordass (2007) have considered that if green
buildings are designed paying poor attention to users’ preferences and needs, they can
result in a sort of fragility with respect to their assumed energy performances.
A further point of view is provided by Charytonowicz (2007), who states that
ergonomic approach to the building design process facilitates the selection of the most
appropriate technologies; these are supposed to bring an optimised building functioning
and, consequently, a waste reduction, thanks to the optimisation of built estate
management.

2.2. Usability measurements for buildings

An effort to apply the usability concept and measurements, as defined in the ISO 9241-11
(1998), in the field of building design has been recently conducted by the International
Council for Building (CIB) ‘W111 Usability of workplaces’ commission.
The workgroup has presented a comprehensive discussion and conducted some
exploratory case studies, starting from the idea that ‘well-being and satisfaction from
 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 191

the building users are also seen to be very important for some companies and facility
management departments’ (Jensø et al. 2004). Reported experiences in this field concerns
case study of effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction measurement by user experiences
that are mainly based on the walk-through or post-occupancy evaluation techniques
(Hansen et al. 2005) conducted with the direct involvement of end-users. Based on the
concept that usability, or functionality in use, is concerned with a building’s ability to
support the economic and professional objectives of the users’ organisation (Alexander
2008), this recent approach seems to focus principally on the assessment of building
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

performances for the existing buildings in an improvement perspective, rather than the
consideration of users’ needs during the whole flow of building design process.

2.3. Buildings accessibility and design for all

Designers concerned with building accessibility issues are ineluctably interested in some
ergonomic issues. This perspective focuses on cognitive, sensory or physical abilities and
impairments of all building users, setting the problem of human variability consideration
within the building design process. Several aspects of the building design are taken into
consideration under this point of view: (1) wayfinding, (2) safety during emergencies,
(3) design for all and (4) design for people with special needs.
Main contribution brought by this field to this dissertation is related to the relevance of
a better understanding of actual users’ needs as strategy for increasing the building’s end-
user satisfaction (Afacan and Erbug 2009), for reducing frustration during built
environment use (Passini 1996) as well as for improving safety conditions in normal or
emergency circumstances (Kobes et al. 2010). Conversely, from the previously discussed
approaches, it can be observed that literature about human factors in building design for
all reports a general understanding of the need for a more comprehensive integration of
specific users’ data in architectural design process (Iwarsson and Stahl 2003, Harrison and
Parker 2005). Furthermore, designers’ awareness about the actual human–building
interactions resulting from the specific user’s ability is supposed to produce better design
outcomes at both whole building and detail scales, which will require neither further
modification or users’ adaptation nor constraints derived from technical decisions (Afacan
and Erbug 2009).

2.4. Building use in design management perspective

A further point of view on ergonomic issues in building design is brought by the design
management side. The core focus of design management is value creation.
Several concepts of values can be found within the evolution of economic and
management theories. Jensen (2005) reports that utility, that is the use value, is one of the
six values to be managed in the design process. He states that it is the individual needs of
the customer that define the value of the product, so that it is important to develop
a design value that is increasingly more segmented and adapted to specific groups of
customers. On the other hand, a product is meant to be able to provide use value according
to its efficacy (Himanen 2003), considered the extent to which the product fulfils users
needs and increases their satisfaction (Jensen 2005).
In design management, human factors are also attributed to actors and skills involved
in the design process; these can be considered one of the five main categories of a project’s
success and are represented by factors such as experience, client characteristics or project
 192 E. Attaianese and G. Duca

team (Chan et al. 2004). In this view, human factors can be a great element of uncertainty
at individual, organisational or practical levels, needing strategic management approaches,
able to control collaborative multidisciplinary design of buildings so as to fulfil the
expectations of all the parties concerned, either directly or indirectly (Volker and
Prins 2005).

3. Need for a holistic approach

Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

One of the first approaches focused on users’ needs as key elements for a comprehensive
design process has been suggested for non-residential buildings by Burgess (1981). He
proposes a human factors systems paradigm for analysis of user building requirements,
founded on a basic goal statement for operating the entire building. The analytic method
starts from the stipulation of operational goals of each area of the building. In this
method, functions, expressing the building mission, became essentially the things that must
be done or provided to accomplish goals, while design criteria indicate how the building
must be structured or laid out to facilitate these functions.
In order to define efficient building features, and review if the needs to be satisfied have
been really incorporated into the design, it is considered most effective to include
employers in different process phases: in the early planning phase, by participative
management procedures; in the drawing review phase, by users scrutinising preliminary
design; and in the building evaluation phase, by users assessing building suitability after
construction. An interesting point is the analysis of training functions, aimed to assure
end-users and personnel training about some building design features in operation and
maintenance.
More recently, a matrix of items defining the nucleus of architectural detail has been
proposed (Emmitt et al. 2004), starting from the idea that detailing decisions influence,
above all, the easiness with which users can use their buildings, and finally affecting the
quality of life of building users. Items considered in the matrix include comparable aspects
such as human factors, use of buildings, indoor climate convenience together with shape
and form, component parts, matter, energy and materials, nature, environment and
production process.

4. A design methodology for human-centred building design

The suitability of a building to be effectively used by its actual users depends on the
understanding of design requirements that will consequently enable successful detailing
choices, according to the user perspective. The process of design for the building
requirements concerns the characteristics of the individuals, the object and situation
(Volker and Prins 2005). In this frame, an object can be defined as technical components to
be specified, whereas individual and situation characteristics are the input data to be
considered for architectural details matching building specific functions and overall design
goals.
In general, design process moves from the macroscopic scale, the building as a whole,
to the microscopic one, referred to constructive details (Remijn 2006). A human-centred
building design process should be characterised by cyclical steps aimed to the iterative
enhancement of user-related building requirements and performances; this iterative
approach is also able to guarantee building suitability to users’ activities in time. Figure 1
depicts the seven steps for a successful human-centred building design.
 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 193

Design briefing:
functional goals and Users profiling and users
environmental context clusters setting
data gathering

Task analysis:
task scenarios identification
and sub-tasks description of
use of building by users
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Requirements tailoring in
order to fit needs /
expectations of all user
clusters

Architectural detailing
implementing tailored
requirements

Design solutions validation

Users-related performances
in use monitoring

Figure 1. The iterative workflow of the human-centred building design process.

4.1. Design briefing: functional goals and environmental context data gathering
It could be said that the earliest stage of the building design process starts when a customer
formulates the request of some spatial needs to be satisfied.
The consciousness of these needs may be quite general (e.g. expressed in terms of an
office for a certain number of employees or a residential block for a given number of
people, etc.) or more specific, since customer requests can be addressed to the design team,
emphasising the stakeholder care for some specific design aspects such as the building’s
environmental footprint, aesthetic preferences, expected operational conditions, etc. Other
constraints like time and costs for construction can be given, but what is important to
consider is that the existence itself of a planned building involves a variety of stakeholders,
each of them bringing a wide range of expectations, that may be explicit or implicit
according its own background, type of interest in the design output and level of
involvement in the design process (Pati et al. 2006).
In order to fulfill the widest range of all stakeholders’ expectations in the entire
building’s lifecycle, the design team should spend the initial effort for grasping information
as accurately as possible on intended use, planned facility management strategy, expected
people behaviour, future possible transformations and any other information to make
designers more engaged with the delivery of design outcomes (Macmillan 2004), since only
in that way, the achievement of functional requirements will attain the technical context
most suitable to user goals.
 194 E. Attaianese and G. Duca

Haltered pace

Walking with stick or crutch

Physical
Moving with wheelchair
ability

Difficulty in keeping balance

Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Low fatigue resistance

Partial visual impairment

Heavy or total visual impairment

Sensory
ability Partial auditory impairment

Heavy or total auditory impairment

Haltered color perception

Brisk walk

Slow walk

Weight/luggage manual handling

Behavioral
Weight/luggage handling with trolleys
characteristics
Fear of falling

Unknown place

High heel or special footwear

Figure 2. User clustering for understanding mobility needs (adapted from De Margheriti 2009).

4.2. All users profiling and clusters setting

The basic step is the definition of users’ profiles. From this early stage, users’ clusters shall
be defined considering the global use of buildings. Needs and expectations of all user
groups come up from the analysis of direct (inhabitants, permanent staff, etc.) and indirect
users (cleaning workers, maintenance personnel, suppliers, facility managers, etc.),
personal characteristics (adults, elderly, children, etc.) and state of users (occasional/
familiar, foreign/native, at work/leisure, etc.).
Each user’s cluster is characterised by different physical and cognitive abilities or
sociocultural background, whose variability has to be taken into account in order to draw
technical features best fitting all involved clusters (Figure 2). For instance, designers have
to think of diverse colour perception in the aged, balancing or overcoming difficulties in
children and elderly people, and also the potential way of finding and overcoming
weakness in occasional users of a public space.
 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 195

4.3. Task analysis: task scenario identification and sub-task descriptions according to
users’ goals
This phase is aimed at describing how all users can/could achieve their goals using the
building. Each users’ cluster can be concerned with a number of tasks that are carried out
by a set of sub-task. These sub-tasks break down into simpler actions that elicit the
understanding of users building different interactions; it also makes clear what are the
technical features of a buliding people use and which among them support rather hinder
users’ tasks (Figures 3 and 4).
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Users’ tasks can be surveyed by the direct observation of ergonomic improvement in

the existing buildings. For new building designs, task descriptions can be founded based on
the analysis of existing ‘references’, situations and the functional analysis of possibilities
for the new one, looking at the processes that take place in existing buildings similar to
functions and/or spatial features (Remijn 2006).
Users’ goals are elicited considering many different keys, purposely oriented to each
user’s cluster.
Several meta-requirements can be given in order to better focus building key
performance from the users’ perspective. Some ‘cross goals’, generally applicable to built
environment can be given; they can be qualities such as adequate safety and security
conditions, climate protection, pleasantness of spaces, environmental comfort, maintain-
ability, etc. All these needs are often considered as implicitly taken into account in a
traditional design process, but in a human-centred approach, they are enriched with
further material and immaterial values and meanings. As an example, for what concerns
safety it could be said that user is not fully satisfied if its safety, conditions are objectively
assured by buildings; rather, in his opinion, is actually guaranteed only if he feels safe and
protected in a space (Attaianese and Duca 2005).

4.4. Tailoring to users’ requirements

All the data gathered and analysed in previous steps supply information on those
characteristics of built environment necessary to satisfy all of the users’ expectations.
So, the definition step of general and technical requirements becomes a strategic phase in
the building process because, at this moment, and on the basis of all prior analyses, the
design process can assure that all actual users’ demands, and not those supposed by
designers, will be translated to technical requirements and a building’s detailed
characteristics. In fact, technical standards, designer experience, conventions and cultural
references give designers a ‘hybrid’ model of the users’ needs, hardly controllable without a
specific user-oriented design methodology.
Combining the data about each sub-task with the specific users’ needs and expectations
coming from the settled clusters, it is possible to outline specific user-related requirements
for the building, stating the expected performances at the different design scales. For
example, ergonomic requirements can be (Table 1; Duca 2006) listed as follows:
(1) For urban context
(1) pedestrian/vehicular accessibility
(2) adequacy of emotional dimension
(3) . . .
(2) For building as a whole
(1) controllability of users’ flows
 Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Wayfinding and Wayfinding and Getting the

196

Starting the
moving in the Getting the Moving away moving in the town
train trip
platform are platform area destination
train from the from the train
town to the town
Using facilities in Using facilities in
the platform destination the platform
area area

Leaving
Reaching
Reaching Leaving railway
Entering the the Entering Getting off
the platform station and
train platform the hall the train
platform area enter the
area
town

Orientating and Orientating and Orientating and

steering in the steering in the steering in the
platform area hall platform area

Getting Using facilities in

Waiting the train
information the platform area

Using facilities of
Buying tickets
the platform area
E. Attaianese and G. Duca

Using facilities in
the hall

Figure 3. Task analysis of a railway station use by travellers.

 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 197

Steering to the ticket AT THE TICKET Buying AT THE TICKET Steering to the ticket
counter COUNTER ticket MACHINE machine

Lining up and waiting Lining up and waiting

your turn your turn

Requesting by voice Requesting and paying

the ticket and paying the ticket interacting
with the machine
interface
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Leaving the ticket Leaving the ticket

counter machine

Going on with
other tasks

Figure 4. Sub-task analysis of the buying ticket task in a railway station.

Table 1. Example of technical requirements tailored for primary school.

Ergonomic Ergonomic Technical

condition requirements Markers requirements

Users flow control Path regularity Changes of direction in Less than 3

path room-entrance
Horizontal path Corridor width Corridor surface between
adequacy 1.48 and 2.83 mq/pupil
or corridor area bigger
than 25% of total
surface
Paths multiplicity Alternative paths, ways for Possible/existing
the same destination

Source: Duca (2006).

(2) flexibility of function allocations

(3) acoustic and thermal comfort
(4) . . .
(3) For rooms
(1) layout customisability
(2) outside context visibility
(3) free spaces transitability
(4) ...
(4) For building components
(1) finishing customisability
(2) noise protection
(3) . . .
 198 E. Attaianese and G. Duca

4.5. First architectural detailing

After having settled technical requirements characterising the building being designed, the
creative process oriented to technical decisions finally starts.
A hypothesis about the real constituents of architectural artefact can be drawn, for the
entire building and single component scale. Hence, space layouts, shapes and dimensions
are envisaged; systems for required natural and artificial lighting, ventilation, heating and
cooling are specified; level of automation and control system interfaces are selected;
inside–outside connections are hypothesised; and materials, textures, colours of
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

architectural finishes are detailed (Attaianese 2008). The outputs of this design phase
are not only technical drawings and renderings, but also conceptual diagrams and
mock-ups, some of which are intelligible, but not for technical stakeholders.

4.6. Validation of human-related design solutions

Deliverables from the detailing phase are used to verify the concordance of the whole of
technical choices with the previously settled requirements. Then, several techniques can be
adopted to the purpose: check lists for incompliance survey (Attaianese 2008),
participatory sessions with stakeholders (Granath 2001) and expert heuristic evaluations
(Afacan and Erbug 2009). The result of this step could prompt a major or minor revision
of architectural project or provide the complete validation of the initial proposals from the
design team. Where adjustments are required, an iterative cycle starts, since improved
design solutions will require themselves to undergo a further validation process.

4.7. Building-in-use assessment for continuous improvement of human-related building

performances
Building-in-use assessment is the only way to measure the success of the building design
process under the user perspective (Preiser 1995). Several techniques, from survey (also
web-based) to interviews or focus groups, are applicable to understand the extent to which
buildings match users’ needs. All people having an interest in the building functioning
should be involved in the assessment step, including managers and maintenance staff,
other than the intended end-users.
Building-in-use assessment step allows one to understand the gap between the quality
expected by stakeholders and the actual quality performed by the building in the users’
opinion, so that failure in design can be grasped. Outputs of this follow-up design stage
may result in fine-tuning of the detected imperfections or in adjustment of management
practices (Watson 2003), in a continuous improvement perspective.

5. Conclusions
Ergonomic approach is aimed to optimise human interactions with systems, in order to
make human activities more efficient, safe, comfortable and satisfying. Built environments
influence people’s everyday life because all human activities are executed in a built space.
In this framework, architectural design can be enhanced by the consideration of human
factors perspective, because it gives the cultural and practical references to envisage how
technical solutions can fit the environmental needs derived from people’s life and work
activities they perform.
 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 199

Nonetheless, the application of proposed methodology would represent a rather

disrupting practice in the common flow of the architectural design process. First change
would concern the deployment of efforts, in terms of time and expertise, within the design
process. In fact, earlier stages of a human-centred design process would require more
resources than usual, due to the broadening of data set needed to frame the overall design
plan correctly.
The enrichment of competences foreseen for the design team, users’ involvement and
iteratvity of the design workflow increase the complexity of the architectural design
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

process and, consequently, require adequate professional skills to manage it. On the other
hand, the effectiveness of the design outcomes has a great significance in buildings where
human performances are crucial (Clements-Croome 2000), such as the case of safety
critical contexts (e.g. control centres and hospitals) or the case of buildings with social
relevance (e.g. schools, health care environments and public spaces in general). In
these cases, benefits resulting from the human-centred approach to architectural design
would largely offset the efforts required for the implementation of the proposed
methodology.
The human-centred approach appears particularly fitting in the case of refurbishment
design (Attaianese 2000); in this case, the tailoring of users requirements just represents
what users’ may expect from the renovation of their living and working environment.
The possibility of applying a structured methodology for observing actual users and their
actual behaviours in using spaces to be refurbished, could allegedly increase the overall
quality of delivered design solutions in terms of users’ satisfaction.
After all, built environment represents the actual context of use for products, services
and systems, whose use quality level is strongly affected just by physical features of
the places they are used in. Thus, building design, according to an user-centred
methodology, represents a challenge for creating more suitable life and work contexts of
use for all.

References

Afacan, Y. and Erbug, C., 2009. An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal
building design. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 731–744.
Alexander, K., 2008. Usability philosophy and concepts. In: K. Alexander, ed. W111 research
report – usability of workplaces – phase 2. Rotterdam: CIB, 5–10.
Attaianese, E., 2000. Strategies for urban and building rehabilitation finalized to life quality
assessment. In: Proceedings of the international congress the human being and the city, towards
a human and sustainable development, 6–8 September. Naples, 1–7.
Attaianese, E., 2008. From the qualities to the quantities: applied ergonomics in a control room
architectural project. In: W. Karwowsky and G. Salvendy, eds. AHFE international – applied
human factors and ergonomics conference 2008 proceedings, 14–17 July. Luisville, KY, USA:
USA Publishing, 1–8.
Attaianese, E. and Duca, G., 2005. Perceived quality in buildings: human factors in global approach.
In: K. Kahkonen and M. Sexton, eds. Combining forces advancing facilities management and
construction through innovation – series – proceedings of 11th joint CIB international
symposium/vol. IV – facility building and his management, 13–16 June 2005, Helsinki,
Finland: VITT – RIL, 327–333.
Bandini Buti, L., 1998. Ergonomia e progetto. Rimini, Italy: Maggioli editore.
Bluyssen, P.M., 2010. Towards new methods and ways to create healthy and comfortable buildings.
Building and Environment, 45, 808–818.
 200 E. Attaianese and G. Duca

Brown, S.A., 2001. Communication in the design process. London: Spoon Press.
Burgess, J.H., 1981. Human factors in built environment. Newtonville, MA: Environmental Design
and Research Centre.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D., and Chan, A.P.L., 2004. Factors affecting the success of a construction
project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130, 153–155.
Charytonowicz, J., 2007. Reconsumption and recycling in the ergonomic design of architecture in
universal access. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Human-Computer Interaction. Ambient
Interaction), 4555, 313–322.
Clarke, P. and Nieuwenhuijsen, E.R., 2009. Environments for healthy ageing: a critical review.
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Maturita, 64, 14–19.

Clements-Croome, D., ed., 2000. Consciousness, well being and senses. Creating the productive
workplace. London: E & FN Spoon, 29–39.
De Margheriti, G., 2009. La percorribilità negli edifici pubblici. Criteri per il controllo della qualità
d’uso dei percorsi e delle pavimentazioni. Thesis (PhD). University of Naples, Italy.
Dijkstra, K., et al., 2008. Individual differences in reactions towards color in simulated healthcare
environments: the role of stimulus screening ability. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28,
268–277.
Duca, G., 2006. An operative method to design usable buildings for education. In: Promotion of
well-being in modern society, proceedings of 38th Nordic Ergonomics Society annual congress,
24–27 September 2006. Hämeenlinna. Tampere, Finland: NES, 253–257.
Emmitt, S., Olie, J., and Schmid, P., 2004. Principles of architectural detailing. Oxford:
Wiley–Blackwell.
Gesler, W., et al., 2004. Therapy by design: evaluating the UK hospital building program. Health and
Place, 10, 117–128.
Goins, J., Jellema, J., and Zhang, H., 2010. Architectural enclosure’s effect on office worker
performance: A comparison of the physical and symbolic attributes of workspace dividers.
Building and Environment, 45, 944–948.
Granath, J.Å., 2001. Architecture: participation of users in design activities [online]. In: International
encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. Available from: http://granath.arch.
chalmers.se/_private/encyklopedia.htm [Accessed 14 March 2010].
Gregor, P., Sloan, D., and Newell, A., 2005. Disability and technology: building barriers or
creating opportunities. In: M. Zelkowitz, ed. Advances in computers. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
284–346.
Hansen, G.K., Haugen, T., and Leaman, A., 2005. A usability success story? The case of Nord
Trondelag University College. In: S. Emmitt and M. Prins, eds. Proceedings of the CIB W096
architectural management – CIB publication no. 307, 2–4 November. Lyngby, Rotterdam: CIB,
357–365.
Harrison, J. and Parker, K., 2005. Designing for real people’s lifelong needs. In: Proceedings of UIA
region IV work programme ‘architecture for all’ UIA/ARCASIA workshop, 3–10 July, Istanbul,
Turkey, 15–24.
Hedge, A., 2008. The sprouting of ‘‘green’’ ergonomics. HFES Bulletin, 51 (12), 1–3.
Himanen, M., 2003. The intelligence of intelligent buildings: the feasibility of the intelligent
building concept in office buildings. Thesis (PhD). VTT Building technology, Espoo,
Finland.
ISO 9241–11, 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals
(VDTs) – part 11: guidance on usability. Geneva: International Standard Organization.
ISO 11064-1, 2000. Ergonomic design of control centres - Part 1: Principles for the design of control
centres. International Standard Organization.
ISO 13407, 1999. Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. Geneva: International
Standard Organization.
Iwarsson, S. and Stahl, A., 2003. Accessibility, usability and universal design: positioning and
definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 25 (2), 57–66.
 Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 201

Jensen, P.A., 2005. Value concepts and value based collaboration in building projects. In: S. Emmitt
and M. Prins, eds. Proceedings of the CIB W096 architectural management – CIB publication
no. 307, 2–4 November, Lyngby, Rotterdam: CIB, 3–10.
Jensø, M., Hansen, G.K., and Haugen, T.I., 2004. Theoretical framework for understanding and
exploring usability of buildings [online]. In: Proceedings of the international CIB W070
symposium: understanding the needs of our costumer, 7–8 December 2004, China PR, Hong
Kong. Available from: http://www.metamorfose.ntnu.no/dok/050421Usability_Hong_Kong_
mj.pdf [Accessed 23 February 2010].
Kobes, M., et al., 2010. Building safety and human behaviour in fire: a literature review. Fire Safety
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

Journal, 45, 1–11.

Leaman, A. and Bordass, B., 2007. Are users more tolerant of ‘green’ buildings? Building Research
and Information, 35 (6), 662–673.
Lu, J. and Hignett, S., 2006. Ergonomics methods applied to healthcare architecture. In:
D. Amaratunga, R. Haigh, R. Vrijhoef, H. Mary, and C. van den Broek, eds. Proceedings
of 3 rd international built & human environment research week, 3–7 April 2006, Salford,
379–388.
Macmillan, S., 2004. Designing better buildings: quality and value in the built environment. New York:
Spoon Press.
Nagamachi, M., 1995. Requisites and practices of participatory ergonomics. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 15 (5), 371–377.
Passini, R., 1996. Wayfinding design: logic, application and some thoughts on universality. Design
Studies, 17, 319–331.
Pati, D., Park, C.S., and Augenbroe, G., 2006. Roles of building performance assessment in
stakeholder dialogue in AEC. Automation in Construction, 15, 415–427.
Preiser, W.F.E., 1995. Post-occupancy evaluation: how to make buildings work better.
Facilities, 13 (11), 19–28.
Remijn, S.L.M., 2006. Integrating ergonomics into the architectural design processes: tools for user
participation in hospital design. In: Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association
16th world congress on ergonomics, 10–14 July 2006 Maastricht, The Netherlands. Oxford
(UK): Elsevier (CD Rom).
Ringholz, D., 2003. Systems approach to universal design education. In: Presentation at the
Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA) national education conference. Available from:
http://www.idsa.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/David_Ringholz.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2010].
Sanoff, H., 2009. Research based design of an elementary school. Open House International, 34 (1),
9–16.
Suckle, A., 1980. By their own design. New York: Whitney Library of Design.
Volker, L. and Prins, M., 2005. Exploring the possibilities of correlating management with value in
architectural design. In: S. Emmitt and M. Prins, eds. Proceedings of the CIB W096
architectural management. 2–4 November, Lyngby, Rotterdam: CIB, 47–59.
Wagner, D., et al., 1996. Human factors design guide [online]. FAA Technical Center. Available
from: http://www.deepsloweasy.com/HFE%20resources/HFE%20Design%20Guide%204
COTS.pdf [Accessed 10 March 2010].
Watson, C., 2003. Review of building quality using post occupancy evaluation. Journal of the
Programme on Educational Building, 35, 1–5.

About the authors

Erminia Attaianese is Assistant Professor in Architectural Technology at Faculty of Architecture of
University Federico II of Naples (Italy), where she is also the head of LEAS – Laboratory of Applied
and Experimental Ergonomics. She received her PhD in ‘Buildings and environment rehabilitation’
awarded by University of Genoa (Italy) and specialised in Ergonomics at CNR (Milan). Since 1998
she is a Eur.Erg. certified ergonomist registered at CREE (Centre of Registration of European
 202 E. Attaianese and G. Duca

Ergonomists). She is president of the Italian national board for Eur.Erg. certification and national
representative at CREE, member of the General Principles workgroup for the Ergonomics
Commission at UNI, member of the ISO group ‘Ergonomics for elderly and people with disabilities’
and Member of Professors Body of PhD in Architectural Technology at University Federico II of
Naples. Dr Attaianese has taught courses on ergonomics and architectural technology topics within
undergraduate and postgraduate programmes at universities of Reggio Calabria, Rome La Sapienza,
Federico II and Second Universities of Naples. In over 20 years of academic engagement, she has
investigated ergonomics in products, buildings and constructions fields, with special reference to use
quality, comfort and safety for users; she patented a telephone for people affected by Parkinson’s
Downloaded by [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche], [Erminia Attaianese] at 05:30 21 March 2012

disease and has led many researches and national and international projects in ergonomics, for
public agencies and private companies.
Gabriella Duca is currently a Post-Doc Fellow at LEAS – Laboratory of Applied and Experimental
Ergonomics based in the Faculty of Architecture of University Federico II of Naples (Italy). She
received her PhD in ‘Buildings and environment rehabilitation’ by University of Genoa (Italy), after
a specialisation as ‘Expert researcher in methods and procedures for built environment rehabilitation
with information technology’ (Corited consortium, Naples). In 2003 she obtained the European
certification of professional competences in ergonomics with the Eur.Erg. title awarded by the
CREE (Centre of Registration of European Ergonomists). Dr. Duca works as academic researcher
focusing on the application of ergonomics to the built environment and investigates the topics of
usability, accessibility, health and safety in built environment, as well as ergonomic qualities for
construction project, process and materials. She is also experienced in other ergonomic fields such as
product, service and software usability; she developed applied researches for ergonomic programs
implementation in relevant manufacturing and software industries. She is regularly invited to teach
or seminars, lectures and workshops for university and professional classes on the above research
topics. She serves as editorial board member and reviewer for scholar journals about the same
themes.

View publication stats