Occupational Change and Design Using Human Factors: A Critical Analysis of Research and Theory

Georgia Hodkinson GMBPsS is an Organisational Psychologist and researcher with interests in human factors and work system design. Their work focuses on applying human-centred design principles to organisational and technological change to support worker wellbeing, safety, and performance. They have a particular interest in sociotechnical systems, job design, and the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the workplace.

Introduction

Occupational change has become a defining feature of contemporary working life. Advances in technology, economic globalisation, environmental pressures, demographic shifts, and changing social expectations have fundamentally altered how work is organised, performed, and experienced. Jobs that were once stable and clearly defined are increasingly fluid, with workers expected to adapt continuously to new tools, roles, and organisational structures. Within this context, occupational design, the deliberate shaping of jobs, tasks, environments, and systems, has gained renewed importance.

Human factors (also referred to as ergonomics) provide a critical framework for understanding and managing occupational change. Human factors is concerned with the systematic application of knowledge about human capabilities, limitations, and behaviour to the design of work systems. Rather than viewing workers as components that must adapt to poorly designed systems, human factors emphasises designing systems that fit people. This perspective is particularly important during periods of occupational change, when mismatches between human capabilities and job demands can lead to stress, errors, ill health, and organisational failure.

This article critically examines occupational change and design through the lens of human factors. It explores key drivers of occupational change, outlines foundational human factors theories and models, and evaluates empirical research on human-centred occupational design. In doing so, it highlights both the strengths and limitations of existing research and theory, and considers future directions for human factors in an evolving world of work.

Conceptualising Occupational Change

Occupational change refers to transformations in job roles, skill requirements, work processes, and employment relationships. These changes may occur gradually, such as the incremental introduction of new technologies, or rapidly, as seen during organisational restructuring or global crises. Occupational change operates at multiple levels: individual (e.g., task redesign), organisational (e.g., restructuring), and societal (e.g., shifts in labour markets).

A significant body of research identifies technology as a primary driver of occupational change. Automation, artificial intelligence, and digital platforms have reconfigured tasks across sectors, from manufacturing and logistics to healthcare and education. While these technologies promise efficiency gains, they also alter cognitive demands, decision-making authority, and skill requirements. Human factors research cautions that technological change without adequate consideration of human capabilities often results in new forms of error, workload, and stress rather than genuine improvement.

Beyond technology, demographic and social changes are equally influential. Aging workforces raise questions about physical capacity, sensory decline, and knowledge retention, while increased workforce diversity necessitates inclusive design approaches. Additionally, changing worker expectations, such as demands for autonomy, meaningful work, and work–life balance, challenge traditional occupational models. Human factors provides tools to address these challenges by grounding occupational design in empirical understanding of human diversity.

Foundations of Human Factors and Ergonomics

Human factors is an interdisciplinary field drawing on psychology, engineering, physiology, sociology, and design. The International Ergonomics Association (2000) defines it as the discipline that aims to optimise human well-being and overall system performance. This dual focus on human and system outcomes distinguishes human factors from narrower productivity-oriented approaches.

Classic human factors models emphasise the interaction between the human, the task, the technology, and the environment. Early ergonomic research focused heavily on physical factors, such as posture, reach, and force, particularly in industrial settings. While this work remains relevant, modern occupational change increasingly involves cognitive and organisational dimensions, including information processing, decision-making, teamwork, and organisational culture.

Cognitive ergonomics examines mental workload, attention, memory, and human–computer interaction. Organisational ergonomics, in turn, addresses work structures, communication patterns, leadership, and participation. Effective occupational design during change requires integration across all three domains, physical, cognitive, and organisational, yet research suggests that organisations often focus narrowly on one dimension, limiting the effectiveness of interventions.

Theoretical Models Informing Occupational Design

Several theoretical frameworks are particularly influential in linking human factors to occupational change and design. One of the most widely applied is the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). This model conceptualises work in terms of demands, which require sustained effort and are associated with costs, and resources, which support goal attainment and personal development. From a human factors perspective, occupational redesign should aim to balance demands and resources by reducing unnecessary workload while enhancing autonomy, feedback, and support.

While the JD-R model is valuable, critics argue that it can oversimplify complex work systems by treating demands and resources as discrete variables (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Human factors research suggests that the interaction between system elements, such as technology, task design, and organisational policies, can create emergent demands that are not easily captured by traditional models. This highlights the need for systems-level approaches.

Sociotechnical Systems (STS) theory provides such a perspective. STS theory emphasises that work systems comprise interdependent social and technical components, and that optimising one at the expense of the other leads to suboptimal outcomes (Trist & Bamforth, 1951). Human factors aligns closely with STS in advocating for joint optimisation and participatory design (Carayon, 2006). Research grounded in STS demonstrates that involving workers in occupational redesign enhances usability, acceptance, and performance. However, implementing participatory approaches can be time-consuming and politically challenging, particularly in hierarchical organisations.

Another influential framework is the Human–System Integration (HSI) approach, commonly used in safety-critical industries (Booher, 2003). HSI emphasised integrating human considerations into system design from the earliest stages rather than retrofitting solutions after problems emerge. Despite strong theoretical support, empirical studies indicate that HSI is still underutilised outside high-risk sectors.

Human Factors Research on Occupational Redesign

Empirical research provides substantial evidence for the benefits of human factors–based occupational design. In healthcare, for example, studies have shown that redesigning workflows, interfaces, and team communication can reduce errors and improve both patient safety and staff well-being. Carayon and colleagues’ Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model demonstrates how work system design influences processes and outcomes, offering a comprehensive framework for occupational change (Carayon et al., 2006; Holden et al., 2013).

In manufacturing and manual labour contexts, ergonomic interventions such as adjustable workstations, tool redesign, and task rotation have been shown to reduce musculoskeletal disorders and absenteeism. However, critical reviews note that many studies focus on short-term outcomes and fail to account for organisational and psychosocial factors. This limitation suggests that physical ergonomics alone is insufficient for sustainable occupational change.

Research on office and knowledge work highlights the growing importance of cognitive ergonomics. The introduction of digital technologies has increased information load and multitasking demands. While flexible work arrangements can enhance autonomy, they may also blur boundaries between work and non-work, contributing to fatigue and burnout. Human factors research emphasises the need for deliberate design of digital tools and work practices, yet organisational adoption of these insights remains inconsistent.

Critical Analysis of Research and Practice

Despite robust theoretical foundations, the application of human factors in occupational change often falls short. One recurring criticism is that human factors interventions are frequently reactive, addressing problems after they arise rather than shaping design decisions proactively. This limits their strategic impact and reinforces the perception of human factors as a remedial rather than transformative discipline.

Another challenge lies in the translation of research into practice. Many human factors studies are conducted in controlled or sector-specific contexts, raising questions about generalisability. Additionally, the language and methods of human factors research may be inaccessible to managers and policymakers, hindering uptake. Bridging this gap requires not only better communication but also interdisciplinary collaboration.

There is also a risk that human factors principles are applied superficially, for example by focusing on individual resilience rather than systemic design. Critics argue that this can shift responsibility for coping with poor design onto workers, undermining the ethical foundations of the field. A genuinely human-centred approach must address power, participation, and organisational accountability.

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

The future of occupational change presents both opportunities and challenges for human factors. Remote and hybrid work models require rethinking traditional assumptions about workspace design, supervision, and collaboration. Human factors research is beginning to address issues such as virtual teamwork, digital fatigue, and home workstation ergonomics, but the evidence base remains emergent.

Artificial intelligence and algorithmic management introduce new forms of human–system interaction. While these technologies can support decision-making, they also raise concerns about transparency, trust, and loss of autonomy. Human factors theory provides tools for evaluating these systems, yet ethical considerations must be more fully integrated into occupational design research.

Sustainability is another growing concern. Designing work that is not only efficient but also socially and environmentally sustainable requires expanding the scope of human factors beyond traditional performance metrics (Thatcher et al., 2026). This represents a significant but necessary evolution of the field.

Ethical Implications of Occupational Change and Human Factors Design

Occupational change raises significant ethical considerations, particularly regarding responsibility, power, and worker well-being. Human factors approaches are grounded in the ethical assumption that work systems should be designed to accommodate human capabilities and limitations, rather than requiring individuals to compensate for poor design. When occupational change is implemented without this consideration, workers may experience increased stress, health risks, and moral injury, raising concerns about non-maleficence and duty of care.

A key ethical risk identified in contemporary practice is the tendency to emphasise individual resilience and adaptability while neglecting systemic design failures. Such approaches may inadvertently shift responsibility for coping with poorly designed work systems onto workers themselves, obscuring organisational accountability. From a human factors perspective, this represents not only a design failure but an ethical one, as it undermines principles of fairness and justice in the distribution of risk and responsibility.

Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and algorithmic management further intensify ethical concerns. While these systems can enhance efficiency and decision-making, they may reduce transparency, limit worker autonomy, and reinforce power imbalances if not designed and governed ethically. Human factors research has a critical role in ensuring that occupational design incorporates ethical considerations such as participation, explainability, and respect for human agency. As such, ethical analysis should be viewed as integral to human-centred occupational design rather than an optional addition.

Conclusion

Occupational change is an unavoidable feature of modern work, but its outcomes are not predetermined. Human factors offer a powerful framework for designing occupations that support human well-being while enhancing system performance. Theoretical models such as the JD-R model, Sociotechnical Systems theory, and Human–System Integration provide valuable guidance, while empirical research demonstrates the tangible benefits of human-centred design.

However, critical analysis reveals persistent gaps between theory and practice. Human factors principles are too often applied narrowly, reactively, or superficially, limiting their potential to shape meaningful occupational change. Addressing these limitations requires stronger integration of human factors into strategic decision-making, greater emphasis on participatory design, and expanded research into emerging forms of work.

As occupations continue to evolve, the challenge is not merely to adapt workers to change, but to design change around human capabilities, values, and needs. In this sense, human factors are not simply a technical tool, but a fundamentally ethical approach to the future of work.

References

• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

• Booher, H. R. (Ed. ). (2003). Handbook of human systems integration. John Wiley & Sons.

• Carayon, P. (2006). Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Applied Ergonomics, 37(4), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.011

• Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B. T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Brennan, P. F. (2006 ). Work system design for patient safety: The SEIPS model. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 15(suppl 1), i50–i58. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.015842

• Holden, R. J., Carayon, P., Gurses, A. P., Hoonakker, P., Hundt, A. S., Ozok, A. A., & Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J. (2013 ). SEIPS 2.0: A second generation model of the systems engineering initiative for patient safety. Applied Ergonomics, 44(1), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.06.006

• International Ergonomics Association. (2000 ). What is ergonomics? https://iea.cc/about/what-is-ergonomics/

• Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014 ). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Springer.

• Thatcher, A., et al. (2026). Ergonomics/human factors and the future of work: A global perspective. Applied Ergonomics.

• Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some relevant social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101