<p>Some people ridicule Ergonomics and say it is not Engineering but today my professor showed us through Statics that a worker carrying a box a few centimeters away from his body may require sometimes 30% more force to move it. </p>
<p>So he basically explained that IE’s can use these concepts of Statics and Mechanics to create training programs to educate factory and warehouse workers on how to properly carry boxes, how to properly lift a box, etc. </p>
<p>When I worked for UPS, they put a lot of emphasis on teaching us Ergonomics to make our jobs easier and I still use those concepts in my everyday life.</p>
<p>It may sound simplistic and not “Engineering-like” but having a crew well trained on Ergonomics can have a HUGE impact on efficiency and reduce the number of injuries significantly which may translate to millions of dollars in savings for a company.</p>
<p>Don’t most Industrial Engineering departments offer a class in Ergonomics? In the past few years it has become a more and more significant area of study. I would think it would be useful for safety engineers and biomedical engineers as well.</p>
<p>Engineering at the very fundamental level incorporates many design disciplines. As such, ergonomics are certainly part of engineering. Anything designed with human interface in mind needs to be at least somewhat ergonomic, especially if safety and/or comfort is a concern. </p>
<p>Chairs, keyboards, seat belts, steering wheels, automotive/aircraft interior interfaces… all of these things are engineered with ergonomics in mind. Granted, engineers don’t always get the ergonomics right, but it is a design consideration nonetheless. Some companies hire people specifically with a background in human factors to help with this part of the design.</p>
<p>When I was at Purdue taking classes in ergonomics, human factors, and safety engineering (graduate IE) we used to joke about this. Nothing like EE students coming to the classroom after us, looking at elaborate diagrams with statics and mechanics of how someone falls off a ladder, and going =)) compared to Fourier transforms and other incomprehensible stuff they were dealing with.</p>
<p>There are a lot of formal engineering methods used in human factors that would look arcane to an EE of course, In terms of ‘raw difficulty’ they’re probably ‘easier’ than more calculus happy engineering stuff, but they’re engineering all the same. </p>
<p>Depending on what you’re doing, there could be lots of analysis too. If you run, say, a design clinic and run a few dozen people thru a prototype or two, collecting lots of data points, then throw it all in SPSS to make some sense out of it. I’ve done that as well and it is a lot of work. </p>
<p>One could also be doing layout/prototype design, in which case it’s more design. For that we use tools like Altia. I’ve also seen and used work cell or factory design software (simulation) that also used a lot of engineering and math to do the work. Depending on what you’re doing there’s also real world simulations for setting up dual task type experiments, and so on. </p>
<p>My son is studying IE and chose it because of the human factors/ergonomics aspect. Interesting to hear from @bschoolwiz that people ridicule ergonomics. Reminds me of a Kris Kristofferson song - Jesus Was a Capricorn - with the line “Everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on, who they can feel better than at any time they please”. Those EE’s won’t be laughing when their backs and necks are killing them from sitting on the computer all day! They’ll wish they had a friend with some ergonomics expertise then.</p>
<p>Good for him. Having studied Civil Engineering and Computer Science along with IE/Human Factors I can say that IE is ‘easier’ in terms of not requiring the math. Let’s see, Euler’s law on 3D steel column bending versus, umm, Fitt’s law (simple equation). No brainer. Herr Euler wins.</p>
<p>But HF requires a lot of thinking, design skills, understanding physiology a bit, anthropometrics, economics, and many other disciplines. </p>
<p>Where we HF types get our last laugh is when products designed by EE’s or CS’s or ME’s go head to head competing with products that are properly designed by IE/HF types. One can vilify Apple all they want, but they did their homework (for the most part). It’s like fresh fruits and vegetables. Once one knows what a tomato tastes like (the real thing, from a farmer’s market) versus the stuff sold at supermarkets, the difference is apparent. I’m not saying their products are better, just that they’re designed to function with their users in mind. I use an iPhone5 personal phone and an Android for work. No comparison in terms of who did their homework for proper design. There are economic factors there at play of course but the bottom line is that proper design is a must, and IE/HF is a key factor in good design.</p>
<p>I once did a homework of 30+ pages doing task analysis on my car radio. At the end it was apparent that the guys who designed the car radio had done the exact same analysis and did exactly the right things, as I only found a very minor flaw in it. In 30 pages. That was from a car company that took ergonomics and human factors very seriously, not that it did them much good (Saab).</p>
<p>BTW, knowing ergonomics and using them are different. I almost lost a finger to a table saw not long after I got an A in Safety Engineering :"> </p>
<p>Can you clarify what you mean, turbo, by saying “IE is easier in terms of not requiring the math” ? One of my kids graduated in IE last year and out of curiosity I looked at what math is required for civil and IE. Both required linear algebra, Calc I and II , multivariable calculus, vector geometry, and differential equations to graduate. What am I missing that the civil may be taking for math beyond that? Just curious.</p>
<p>Sevmom, Civil engineering, in general, is not that math intensive either. Look at EE math requirements. And not just the requirements though. EEs use much more difficult math with regularity in college compared to civil engineering. My boyfriend is an EE and I’m a Civ. E at Purdue. My homework in my civil engineering classes looks like high school level stuff compared to his homework in his EE classes.</p>
<p>I generally use algebra, maybe a little bit of calculus. He uses stuff from Calc 3 and more. His integrals are nasty.</p>
<p>Thank for clarifying Seirsly. My husband is a civil . Good luck with your classes at Purdue!</p>
<p>I did just look at electrical and the math requirements looked the same but I must be missing something ( and I’m certainly no engineer!). Electrical was of course learning all about circuits,etc. </p>
<p>Seirsly nailed it. In Civil there’s heavy duty math only if you stumble into the wrong class (i.e. plates & shells, etc) otherwise it’s pretty straightforward. I did 1/2 of an MSEE until I hit the math intensive classes and at that time I knew it was curtains. </p>
<p>IE math can get ugly at times (Simulation Theory… random number stuff) but I’ve done enough probability theory and applications in CS to last me a while so it wasn’t difficult. IE certainly has tougher math (optimization, etc) but again, those are more ‘what to do’ rather than ‘how to do the accursed calculus’ part.</p>
<p>The math requirements are the same during first two years, I took differential equations and Calc 3 8-X in Civil but never used those in junior / senior year or in real life. In EE land they actually live and breathe the stuff.I did lots of numerical analysis work in Fortran and sure, it helps, but that’s like one class. </p>
<p>I was CivE, switched to Mech. Most engineering students have similar math first 2 years. To me , it seemed (simply through casual observation of friends) that EE relied on those math skills more in the higher level courses. </p>