ISO 16710-2:2025

International
Standard
ISO 16710-2
First edition
Ergonomics methods —
2025-10
Part 2:
A methodology for work analysis to
support design
Ergonomie —
Partie 2: Méthodologie d'analyse du travail à l'appui de la
conception
Reference number
© ISO 2025
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, or required in the context of its implementation, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on
the internet or an intranet, without prior written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below
or ISO’s member body in the country of the requester.
ISO copyright office
CP 401 • Ch. de Blandonnet 8
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva
Phone: +41 22 749 01 11
Email: copyright@iso.org
Website: www.iso.org
Published in Switzerland
ii
Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .v
1 Scope . 1
2 Normative references . 1
3 Terms and definitions . 1
4 General requirements in specifying the human components . 2
4.1 User experience and resultant activity .2
4.2 Limitations of the scientific and technical knowledge provided by existing ergonomics
standards .3
5 Fundamentals . 3
5.1 Participatory approach .3
5.2 Work analysis .4
6 Elements of methodology . 5
6.1 Analysis of overall work situation components .5
6.2 The “activity-focused work system” .6
6.3 Principles of work activity analysis . .7
6.3.1 General .7
6.3.2 Observation .7
6.3.3 Description .8
6.3.4 Interpretation .8
6.4 Knowledge validation process .9
7 The work activity in the design process .10
8 Recording the process and reporting the outcomes.11
8.1 Traceability .11
8.2 Assessment outcome and validation .11
8.3 Assessment report .11
9 Coherence with other standards .12
Annex A (informative) Example of requirements specification to be integrated into tender
submission for ergonomics design for work equipment .13
Annex B (informative) Some techniques used for work analysis in an ergonomic approach . 19
Annex C (informative) The approach and ergonomic analysis applied to design:Stages and
processes .28
Bibliography .31

iii
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through
ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee
has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations,
governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work. ISO collaborates closely
with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are described
in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular, the different approval criteria needed for the different types
of ISO document should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the editorial rules of the
ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
ISO draws attention to the possibility that the implementation of this document may involve the use of (a)
patent(s). ISO takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of any claimed patent
rights in respect thereof. As of the date of publication of this document, ISO had not received notice of (a)
patent(s) which may be required to implement this document. However, implementers are cautioned that
this may not represent the latest information, which may be obtained from the patent database available at
www.iso.org/patents. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation of the voluntary nature of standards, the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions
related to conformity assessment, as well as information about ISO's adherence to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) principles in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), see www.iso.org/iso/foreword.html.
This document was prepared by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) (as EN 16710-2:2016)
and was adopted without modification other than those given below. It was assigned to Technical Committee
ISO/TC 159, Ergonomics, Subcommittee SC 1, General ergonomics principles, and adopted under the “fast-
track procedure”.
— Source documents for 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 have been updated to ISO 6385:2016.
A list of all parts in the ISO 16710 series can be found on the ISO website.
Any feedback or questions on this document should be directed to the user’s national standards body. A
complete listing of these bodies can be found at www.iso.org/members.html.

iv
Introduction
The ergonomic design approach involves considering human capabilities, skills, limitations and needs. It is
developed on the basis of a decision process, which calls upon not only scientific and technical knowledge
data provided by existing standards but also expression of the “know-how” capitalised by the intended user
population. Know-how and other knowledge data provided by standards can only become meaningful when
based on preliminary analysis of real-work.
Ergonomics design focuses on the actual activity of operators. The methodology described in this document
therefore increases the effectiveness and efficiency of the machinery or system being designed; improves
human working conditions; and reduces adverse effects on health, safety and performance.
This methodology can lead to one or more suitable solutions embracing situations to be confronted by future
users. Applying this will raise productivity, improve work quality, reduce technical support, maintenance
and training needs, and will enhance user/operator satisfaction.
Application of this methodology will be most effective when management is closely involved (adoption,
communication, etc.).
Extensive ergonomics knowledge exists in relation to organizing and establishing an efficient design
process. Applying this knowledge, this present document structures a user-based approach and proposes
corresponding requirements for project managers. This approach complements existing design methods
and requires reference to ergonomists.
This process concerns both established, as described by ISO 12100, and emergent risks and their association
with the independent evolution of any system, user variability and conditions of equipment usage.
In this respect, the methodology for work analysis presented in this document is based on the resultant
design being at least partly determined by anticipated future developments, especially those indicated by
the client.
This is a shared procedure, in which the client provides specifications detailing the knowledge helpful to a
design suited to the needs and expectations of users. Examples of the contribution of an ergonomics design
approach to preparing specifications are included in informative Annex A.
Design based on an ergonomics process is necessary to meet any “performance obligation” (i.e. obligation of
result).
This document complements knowledge generated by work activity analysis to enhance the quality of
references and other solutions validated within a participative framework. This is indeed the case when
a compromise solution cannot be found in relation to a specific point because the underlying knowledge
cannot be validated. This document facilitates orientation towards a shared final decision.

v
International Standard ISO 16710-2:2025(en)
Ergonomics methods —
Part 2:
A methodology for work analysis to support design
1 Scope
This document describes a procedure for analysing human activity in relation to specifying and refining the
human component in the design or redesign of machinery and work systems.
NOTE 1 The ergonomics methodology described in this document could also be applied to the design or redesign of
products and non-work systems.
This document is intended to assist project leaders in implementing human and physical resources, methods
and schedules as well as in preparing the documents necessary to meeting related requirements.
The ergonomics methodology described can be applied to all different stages in design projects from the
earliest concept to the final “prototype” or “mock-up”, whatever the industrial field or sector.
The objective of this standard is to achieve a solution that takes into account as many situations as possible
which all users - including operators, maintenance staff and installers, may encounter. This will ultimately
allow improved usability of the machinery and more robust technical solutions, combined with significantly
greater system resilience, user autonomy and accessibility.
NOTE 2 Examples of the application of the methodology described in this document are provided in Annex A.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.
3.1
ergonomics
scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among human and other elements of
a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design in order to optimize
human well-being and overall system performance
[SOURCE: ISO 26800:2011, 2.2, modified — Admitted term "human factors" deleted and NOTE deleted.]
3.2
worker
operator
person performing one or more activities to achieve a goal within a work system
[SOURCE: ISO 6385:2016, 2.4, modified — synonym “operator” added]
3.3
work activity
manner in which a prescribed task is, in reality, performed

3.4
work system
system comprising one or more workers and work equipment acting together to perform the system
function, in the workspace, in the work environment, under the conditions imposed by the work tasks
[SOURCE: ISO 6385:2016, 2.2]
3.5
accessibility
extent to which products, systems, services, environments and facilities can be used by people from a
population with the widest range of characteristics and capabilities to achieve a specified goal in a specified
context of use
[SOURCE: ISO 26800:2011, 2.1 modified — NOTE 1 and NOTE 2 deleted.]
3.6
work equipment
tools, including hardware and software, machines, vehicles, devices, furniture, installations and other
components used in the work system
[SOURCE: ISO 6385:2016, 2.6]
3.7
assumption
proposal relating to the explanation or interpretation of phenomena, observable facts and solution principles,
assumed temporarily before being subjected to checking
Note 1 to entry: In observing workers the observer should verify any hypotheses concerning knowledge acquired
regarding the work and its translation into solution principles with the workers concerned.
3.8
prescribed task
formal description of how a task is expected to be performed
EXAMPLE prescribed and prohibited tools, conditions of use, procedures, order of operations etc.
4 General requirements in specifying the human components
4.1 User experience and resultant activity
Ergonomics design involves considering all work situations that may be encountered by intended users.
Users of machinery and of other systems performing the same or similar functions, possess a variety of levels
of skills (including procedures for anticipating and avoiding risks) and knowledge of various constraints
concerning individual and collective performance (described by the term “know-how”). Systematically
collecting this know-how is fundamental to decision making in developing the design of a new machine and
or work system. The know-how of an individual has a strong influence on their activity. It is essential to
understand the motivations induced by the work system and the experiences of the user, which determines
their observed activity.
To maximize accessibility, the design shall take account of the full range of users depending on the objectives
of design including, where applicable, older people and those with disabilities. This requires the designer
to consider characteristics which are associated with increasing age. It might also include identifying
specific subgroups that should be included, for example people with impaired hearing, those with cognitive
impairment, and people who are already using assistive technologies or who might require individualized
solutions or alternative means of access. For this purpose, the approach described by this document
firstly requires identification of reference situations, in which work analysis will be performed. Reference
situations are situations close enough to the design situation to enable the extraction of the knowledge data
required, to enrich the specifications for the system (machinery, work system, product, etc.) to be designed.

A key part of that knowledge data will be the assumptions made by individuals in operating existing systems
(machines and or work systems) in these reference situations.
This type of knowledge, concerning real work situations, is valuable in specifying system functionality
consistent with work system requirements.
Figure 2 (see 6.1) illustrates the work activity’s central position in understanding work system operation. It
is necessary to proceed iteratively in establishing relationships between different components of the overall
work situation. The work activity analysis methodology is described in 6.3. The knowledge generated by
these analyses and their translation into specifications requires validation by the intended personnel.
8.2 describes the validation of the outcomes.
4.2 Limitations of the scientific and technical knowledge provided by existing ergonomics
standards
A standard aims to smooth out differences to produce a standard applicable to all situations and conditions.
However, it is unable to integrate specific characteristics of the work context. Both existing variability
criteria and an ergonomic design approach require consideration of these differences.
Variability can be:
— industrial: raw material quality, adherence to delivery times, etc.;
— inter-individual: age, gender, morphology, experience, know-how, etc.;
— intra-individual: chronobiology, ability to act, etc.;
— contextual: organization, daily period, yearly period, night work, etc.
It is these sources of variability that essentially qualify the real operation of work systems and hence
production systems. They should therefore be taken into account.
Within an ergonomics design framework, the standard implemented as an assessment tool appears to be
a component contributing to the resulting validation process. The two processes, involving assessment by
standards and work knowledge validation by intended operators, combine to reinforce decision-making
rigour, a guarantee of design system sustainability.
5 Fundamentals
5.1 Participatory approach
Personnel participation in implementing and developing a project is a valuable part of the design process.
It simultaneously enriches the knowledge generated in relation to user activity and validates the principles
behind solutions or other references to be considered in the design. Clearly defined at the start, these
objectives are immune from any risk of the approach being instrumentalized, e.g. by seeking acceptance by
relevant personnel in relation to technical options selected without their involvement.
Participation is particularly beneficial when the personnel involved form a population similar to the one
destined to operate the planned system. It is therefore a key factor in that it facilitates appropriation of
future situations.
The ergonomics design process described in this document envisages a participatory approach between all
parties involved. As illustrated in Figure 1 for example, particularly for lager projects, this could involve the
formation of a steering committee, responsible for formulating the design. Under the leadership of a project
manager, this steering committee would be the decision-making body (final validation). Membership of such
a committee should include representation from users, supervisors and managers, and project designers,
as well as personnel with ergonomics and occupational health and/or safety knowledge and expertise.
The participative structure of the ergonomics design process outlined, establishes a system for transfer of
information between a steering committee and working groups established by that committee.

The working groups should include one or more “operator” working groups (WGO , WGO .), made up from
1 2
volunteers drawn from appropriately experienced operators within the workforce (professionally qualified
where appropriate). Inclusion of supervisory personnel in an “operator” working group is likely to focus
the thinking of that group on technical options rather than understanding human and social issues. It is
therefore recommended to include them in a specific “supervisor” working group (WGS).
Figure 1 — Organisational structure of steering committee and working groups
Under the leadership of an ergonomist, the personnel in a working group discuss the knowledge derived
from the analysis of work, performed under current or similar reference conditions. They should observe
and analyse the work performed by a number of operators in real conditions. It is important to gather
information about actual task performance. Based on this analysis, and drawing on their own knowledge and
expertise, they propose, and provide the initial endorsement of possible solutions. At this level, standards
or other technical and scientific knowledge are helpful for assessing results and consolidating potential
solutions.
Based on knowledge acquired by themselves, working groups provide a forum for “proposals”, while the
steering committee seeks the best compromises and validates specifications to be forwarded to the
designer(s), albeit under the responsibility of the company manager.
5.2 Work analysis
Work analysis is based on methods and a corpus of scientific knowledge involving human functioning,
as well as other knowledge relating to work organization, preventive health and safety regulations and
standardization. All these areas contribute to the consideration of physical and mental health in designing
work situations and equipment.
In analysing work activities, it is important to differentiate between the operations prescribed (e.g.
instructions, procedures, checklists) for carrying out work tasks and those actually performed. Limiting
work analysis to analysing tasks as prescribed is insufficient. It is essential to analyse how tasks are actually
performed by considering the influences of work situation, context and operator variability in relation to
their performance. This is then referred to as the analysis of an actual work activity. The activity is what is
implemented by the operator in order to achieve the task goal.
Analysis of the work as it is really performed requires application of a combination of observation, description
and interpretation methods, and assigns the operator to a central position in the analysis process.
The prescribed task is a reference or benchmark for optimal conditions and the analyst should avoid placing
undue emphasis on this in carrying out the analysis and being judgemental due to expectations of how the
task should be performed.
The analysis is not limited to observable behaviour. It is necessary for the analyst to understand contextual
and other factors, which influence why the operator does not perform the task as prescribed.
The approach is heuristic, guided by uncovering new working hypotheses, which may lead to solutions that
are innovative and best adapted to the variability of contexts and situations.

Analysing key factors within the overall work situation, together with reference to appropriate standards,
aids the interpretation of the results provided by the work activity analysis and assists in understanding
any operating difficulties identified during discussions with the relevant operators (see Figure 2).
In order to optimize the relationship between a human and their environment (ergonomics) it is essential
to go beyond analysing the prescribed task to understand observed activity. Involving intended users as co-
designers provides the basis for sustainable implemented solutions whose underlying principles will have
been detailed in the design specifications.
6 Elements of methodology
6.1 Analysis of overall work situation components
Figure 2 shows the overall work situation in terms of the “Resources” and “Means” required to implement
the work activity. It illustrates the interrelationships and interactions between all parts of the overall work
situation. A work situation is qualified as “overall” insofar as it requires consideration of the links between
its various internal and external components, which may affect the work activity.
Figure 2 — Overall work situation
Analysis initially concerns a set of determining factors grouped under the headings “Resources” and “Means”.
“Resources” are the characteristics of the human operators in a work situation; such as characteristics relating
to age, gender, morphology, visual and motor capabilities, training, skills, length of service at enterprise or job,
as well as components of life outside work (when these influence the work situation). Their analysis stresses
the importance of considering existing criteria concerning inter-operator variability. It should be noted
that human operators are “naturally” subjected to extensive internal variation resulting from accumulated
fatigue, tensions due to a difficulty encountered, biological rhythms that vary sharply and cyclically during
the day, and feelings of growing discrepancy between wishes, and the reality of everyday life.
“Means” groups together the “working conditions” data that enables operators to perform their task:
characteristics of the production process, tools, machinery, work stations, work physical environments, and

collectively-established work relationships. They also encompass safety rules and other means of injury and
disease prevention, procedures, work organization, etc.
Data on the physical environment are given in EN 614-1. However, they should be analysed in relation to the
real work to be performed, and to the activity to be deployed, depending on the context.
EXAMPLE Noise represents a work stress likely to have a harmful effect on personnel. But noise also provides
helpful information in some cases and its elimination can disturb an activity and thereby generate new safety-related
risks. Comparing the results of physical measurement with the relevant standards is not enough.
The approach to the work situation should also consider the different sociocultural, economic, technological
and regulatory contexts, in which work activities are created and subsequently develop.
6.2 The “activity-focused work system”
To have an accurate understanding of a work system operation, it is necessary to consider work activity
in relation to all work situation components. It is essential to examine and understand the way in which
different aspects of the work system influence and are influenced by the work activity.
These are illustrated in Figure 3, (derived from Figure 2), which highlights the interrelationships between
“Means”, “Resources”, “Results”, “Effects” and “Work activity”.
Figure 3 — The “activity focused work system”
A work situation arises out of the technical and organisational means provided (1 - Means). It is specified
based on personal characteristics (2 - Resources). Interaction between the means available to carry out the
work activity, coupled with the resources brought by the individual operators, influences the outcome of
the work activity. It can be analysed as a system because, at the same time, it enables a level of economic
performance to be achieved (3 - Results), affects personal satisfaction, or is harmful to health (4 - Effects).
In common with all systems, this type of system has a degree of operating independence. This is because
there is no deterministic link between resources, means provided and “outputs” expressed in terms of
overall performance (Results and Effects). In other words, it is impossible to foresee the exact consequences
of technical and organisational decisions on the economic performance and health of personnel.

Indeterminacy is inevitable because the nature of the operators’ “Work activity” (5) is not determined
“a priori”, but built up by operators themselves, based both on their experience and on the variability of
situations encountered.
Human operators thus optimize their work activity implementation conditions by controlling and changing
components of the means provided (1), in particular the initially planned task (arrow a).
EXAMPLE Operators can adapt every component of organisational flexibility to improve working areas and
storage facilities or even to create new work procedures that are more efficient than those specified in instructions,
even if this remains “unsaid”.
In doing this, the level of “Resources” (2) available changes (arrow b), especially through operators acquiring
new individual or collective know-how. However the level of resources can also reduce, through possible
deterioration of overloaded functions and resultant premature aging.
Depending on the work context and cyclic production fluctuations, human operators adjust the desired level
of contribution to “Results” (3) or “Effects” (4), while endeavouring to maintain performance (arrow c),
without going beyond what they consider to be their personal limits (arrow d). For example, they intensify
their work to save time; they take advantage of waiting times to anticipate the next operations, they carry
out several tasks at the same time and adopt uncomfortable postures to succeed in repairing a machine.
It should be noted that “Results” (3), such as production quantities, compliance with deadlines, customer
satisfaction and dysfunctions, are generally presented as a set of indicators of the production system's
operation. The “Results” should also be linked with the constraints concerning the implementation of the
work activities.
“Effects” (4) are harder to identify than the results. Occupational injury statistics and analyses provide an
initial idea of this. Statistics can provide indications of absenteeism, staff turnover and requests to change of
work station or workshop; these are criteria for assessing satisfaction at work.
Effects can also be positive, for example when they result in greater expertise or a feeling of motivation and
satisfaction at work.
To have an accurate understanding of a work system operation, it is necessary to consider work activity in
relation to all work situation components.
6.3 Principles of work activity analysis
6.3.1 General
Analysing work activity allows work-related knowledge to be generated, based on comfort, safety and
efficiency criteria and, furthermore, to transform these criteria into recommendations or other requirements
to be included in work equipment design specifications.
The three key stages of work activity analysis are:
— observation;
— description;
— interpretation.
Examples showing the different stages to be carried out are given in Annex B.
6.3.2 Observation
Observation of activity is the first level of analysis. It requires appropriate preparation and cannot be
properly fulfilled by a “quick look” or by the temptation to “put oneself in the operator's place”. It should not
be performed without operators being given all necessary guarantees (e.g. respecting operators privacy,
confidentiality) and explanations concerning process objectives, conditions of both implementation and
data collection operation.
Close cooperation with relevant operators is necessary in relation to identifying variations in activity
attributable to night, morning, afternoon and weekend work, regular production lines or specific product
ranges, normal system operation or degraded phases, etc. The choice of situations to be observed/analysed
results from hypotheses regarding work variability based on this analysis of the overall situation.
The choice of situations and contexts leads to the selection of appropriate recording and analytical
techniques: manual transcription of observables onto charts, audio-video recording of a significant work
sequence (involving one or more operators), etc.
Observables should be continuously collected during a full work sequence to understand the underlying
intent and display the reasoning during the interpretation phase. If appropriate, a video recording can
facilitate this collection process. This can help in reviewing the data and assists in its interpretation.
Observation of conditions should not interfere with performance of the real activity. A preliminary time
period is required to allow the viewer to immerse himself in the work situation, to identify significant
observables and to familiarise operators with the observer’s (or camera’s) presence.
6.3.3 Description
This process, which prepares for the results interpretation stage, effectively reviews the observed or
recorded data.
The data can be reviewed using charts or columns and the data to be extracted therefore includes factors
such as visual attention areas, postures adopted, actions taken on machine controls, etc. An example of
a chart can be found in Annex C. All relevant information on simultaneous machine or system operation
should be recorded in parallel: operating mode, various signals, alarms, etc.
Description may also involve drawing up an analysis graph of the operation in progress, to enter, in separate
columns, events that occur (noise, office entry of another operator, phone calls, etc.); actions (what the
operator is actually doing); and communications (dialogue in room, telephone calls, etc.); based on their
meaning and underlying intent.
6.3.4 Interpretation
Interpretation should clarify characteristics of the activity and work situation as independently as possible
from the area of operator wishes and opinions, though they may provide a valuable source of information
and should be recorded.
This process concerns both the directly observable and the non-obvious parts of the real activity.
It can only be properly implemented by questioning the relevant operator on the sequence to be analysed,
a process known as “verbalisation”. Thus, even when statistically analysing observables, it is important to
understand the reasons for the observed activity from the relevant operator’s viewpoint. For example, it
may be found that the operator spends a significant amount of his time “greasing a roller”, so the questioning
will seek the operator’s reasons for this.
Verbalisation also accesses those parts of the activities which are not directly observable, in order to
facilitate the understanding of intentions, meanings, representations, reasoning, emotions, etc.
Verbalisations are invariably required for proper interpretation of observables. One benefit of the use of
video-recording is that it enables the operator to be subsequently questioned about particular activities,
without any need to interrupt him during those activities.
Verbalisations should ideally be performed “in context”, i.e. in the workplace (on the job) or in a nearby
reserved area, in which the filmed sequence to be analysed can be viewed. A process known as “verbalisation
in self-confrontation”; it constitutes a particular form of semi-structured interview, which involves placing
the operator in conditions as close as possible to those of the real activity to prompt his narration and
commentary. Carrying this process out in (or close to) the workplace can help in assisting the operator to
explain or demonstrate particular aspects of the activity where necessary.

Verbalisations can thus help to explain the difficulties experienced and to highlight implemented components
of the operator’s know-how.
Further inferences regarding the activity can be obtained by developing working hypotheses through
linking the outcomes of statistical analyses or operator answers with scientific knowledge and available
standards.
It may happen that certain actions or events cannot be interpreted because the operator does not know; does
not remember exactly; or quite simply cannot explain their chosen activity. This provides additional clues
that reveal, for example, the difficulty of solving a problem, incomprehensible dialogue with a colleague or a
control interface, a resolution deadlock, which represent as many missing conditions for system reliability
and form highly significant paths for improving a situation.
6.4 Knowledge validation process
Individual verbalisation work is concluded by an iterative process of interpreting the knowledge generated
from the observed work and reflecting the outcomes back to the operators for validation. This is a first step
in the iterative validation process, which progresses from individual, to collective (working group(s)) and
decision (Steering Committee) steps.
At a “collective” level, the validation process allows movement from the acquisition of operational knowledge
and its individual validation to compromise and renegotiation of results in the Working Group. Validation
involves ensuring that the descriptions produced are:
— a fair reflection of real activities in terms of diversity and as they take place in most situations;
— appropriate to their operator or management staff interpretations.
Based on test results validated at “collective” level and on know-how that may be provided by certain of
its members, the Steering Committee then decides, in full knowledge of the facts, either to validate the
knowledge data presented or to suggest other paths requiring supplementary analysis.
This iterative process of knowledge validation, illustrated in Figure 4, ensures that the practical dimension
is fully integrated into the development of the specification from the inception of the design.

Figure 4 — Iterative process for producing ergonomic specifications
7 The work activity in the design process
The work activity analysis approach described in 5.3 represents a method of assessing real needs, which
makes it possible to specify requirements for design consideration.
More precisely, the process implies:
a) implementing regulatory, normative, methodological and technical monitoring solutions and using
analysis-generated knowledge to develop design proposals;
b) illustrating principles and/or formulating design solutions using simulations, models, mock-ups, etc. to
designers to make their decisions more explicit;
c) offering users the possibility of testing design solutions under real conditions or on a virtual test bench
(numerical models, simulations, etc.) and considering test results (feedback, proposals);
d) assessing several design solutions or several design alternatives in relation to usefulness and usability
(from both performance and user satisfaction viewpoints);
e) continuing the necessary iterative process in conjunction with the designer until the activity associated
with human operator-centred aims is reached.

8 Recording the process and reporting the outcomes
8.1 Traceability
The results of design operations, performed to meet the requirements listed in Clause 6, should be recorded
to ensure management of the iterative design process. This recorded information can be entirely in document
format or can include actual design productions, e.g. hardware or software prototypes.
Specifications include:
a) the source of knowledge generated in relation to the activity (work sequences, ranges, context, etc.);
b) existing standards to be complied with and suggested method of application;
c) the type of problems identified and design modifications considered for solving them;
d) basic requirements and the rules of best practice to be integrated into the design process, to ensure that
the designed equipment will fulfil its expected operation more closely;
e) constraints imposed on the team (e.g. financial, timescales, manufacturing).
8.2 Assessment outcome and validation
Conclusions of all resulting assessments should be recorded and validated to control the iterative design
progress.
In particular, relevant evidence should be provided to demonstrate that:
a) suitable sample of operators from the user population took part in activity analyses and working groups
and that these users were representative of those identified for the equipment usage context;
b) data collection and activity analyses were processed using valid methods: data statistical processing
mode, assumption formulation mode, applied analysis methodology, scientific knowledge reference
frame, and considered standards;
c) data on the overall work situation should be verified (confirmed) by objective measures of the physical
environment;
d) test conditions defined for implementing possible simulations are respected;
e) the result is validated by stakeholder assessment; this validation contributes to appraisal of the results
assessment and supports decision-making.
8.3 Assessment report
Depending on the aim of the assessment, three forms of reporting can be useful:
a) Reporting of design feedback. This report should:
— be at an appropriate time during process development, such as during design reviews;
— be based on suitable assessment sources (e.g. knowledge based on real activity analyses validated
by users);
— provide design feedback in a format that supports design decisions;
— result in demonstrable changes in the system, where applicable.
b) Reporting of assessments with respect to specific standards. This report should:
— identify relevant standards and provide a rationale for thei
...