Procrustes

PROCRUSTES 1 was on my early morning stroll round the park the other day, watching the sparrows squabbling about a crust an old lady had left behind, when I heard this whimpering sound. Samaritan that I am, I followed it to its source, and there, huddled against a tree, was an Ergonomist, sucking his thumb and hitting his head with a rolled-up document. His problem was he was likely to be given some money by the government to do some research. This left me blinking a bit, until he explained: somebody in the company had bid for a piece of work, and was looking about for someone to do it. They had been playing hot potato with it until it eventually landed with the young man before me. What was the work? I give it to you verbatim: "The creation of a simulation model o f a systems development team to act as a test-bed lot the comparative evaluation o f metrics, methods and tools. This would include computer modelling o f the cognitive tasks carried out by each member o f the development team as well as the physical tasks associated with the project development." Quietly, I withdrew, wondering who it is that thinks these things up, and who it is that agrees to provide funds for such ideas. You have to wonder; do they sit there, staring at the ceiling, until someone says "Well, we'd better find something to do with the m o n e y " , and then they all applaud the first ideas anyone can come up with? Are these people ever let out o f the building to find out what happens in the world outside'? Perhaps that's a dangerous notion would they ever find their way back? r~r~r~

Albert Bacon Pratt, in 1917, patented the first gun helmet. It looks like one o f those old Indian Army solar topees with a Kaiser spike on top, into which there was m o u n t e d a small cannon pointing to the front, with a gunsight dangling down in front o f the eyes. The wearer could fire the contraption by blowing through a mouth tube to operate the trigger. Presumably the reason for the mouth tube was to allow the wearer to hold on to his hat with both hands at the same time. I can't help wondering why they bothered with a gunsight; if I was wearing an armoured hehnet with a cannon in it, 1 would be a lot more worried about keeping the whole construction balanced, let alone aiming the thing, and firing it would be a long way down my list o f priorities. Can y o u imagine it; there you are, in your trench in Flanders, and the order comes, to go over the top and attack the enemy. How would you ever get up the ladder without toppling over backwards? And then marching through the mud to the enemy trenches? And firing the thing?? I suppose it would be the quickest way back to your own lines, though. For your head. that is.

Most Ergonomists I know get their only exercise from leisurely walks to the local bar, and from gripping the steering wheel in their cars. In other words, they are really unfit (yes, I am including you - when did y o u last even contemplate running for a bus?) and y e t they lead quite stressful lives. It seems strange that they, o f all people, have not taken to some exercise to dissipate some of the stress. I suppose it comes down to the usual objections;jogging is a solitary, boring process requiring a lot of self-motivation, and most other forms o f exercise require some degree of skill. And when you are really unfit, the reaction to

240

Applied Ergonomics

September1988

exercise is so strong, in terms o f shortness ot breath mid stiffness, that it is really demotivating. Expecially when one realises that it will take about a year for all the old, tired ligaments and so on to get used to the new level of demand. Surely there's an o p p o r t u n i t y for some of the exercise physiologists among us to come up with a training regime that addresses, in true ergonomics fashion, not only the physiological aspects but also the mental ones, to ensure people stay motivated, or even to generate tlle motivation in the first place? The keep-fit studios we see about us seem to have got it more or less right, by trial and error, it appears; couldn't we do it a little better? r~r~r~

I was reading about the massive effort in computerismg government departments in the United Kingdom. The Inland Revenue, which collects the taxes, the National Health Service, which attends to the sick, and the Department o f Health and Social Security, which attends to the needy, have all gone for computer-integration on a national scale, spending some billions o f pounds in this effort. What surprised me about this was not the usual stories about under-performance and late deliveries (and it should be said that in this case the stories are not horror stories), nor the usual claims for greater efficiency and reduced costs, nor the assurances about reduced manning levels (should that be personning levels?), but that the advantage was seen as greater flexibility of government, allowing the government not only to institute change, but to do it quicker, and to accommodate more radical change, instead of just tinkering with the system. One doesn't expect to find this emanating from politicians, but it did. As you have no doubt noted, the installation of systems such as these also provide the o p p o r t u n i t y to make even more radical changes, as other IT systems are integrated into the whole apparatus of government, so that, for example, there could be very flexible rules made regarding benefit payments and the like, allowing benefits to be tailored to a family's individual needs, instead o f using a blunderbuss approach (perhaps 1 should have omitted 'buss'?). And there is the negative side, as no doubt many people will tell me in stentorian voices at close range, that it could also bring the world of George Orwell's 1984 that much closer. Mind you, that's not an argument against such computer networks, but about the activities and goals of government. So, if" we take a look at the government o f the United Kingdom, especially tbe democratic end of it - Parliament do we see signs of computer networks to allow our elected representatives lull scope to check on the activities o f the Civil Service, and to rein in the occasional excesses? No we don't; there aren't even enough rooms for them, they don't have enough assistants, they d o n ' t get enough secretarial help, and the specialised committee system is only partially developed and hedged about with restrictions. Compare this with the West German system, where their Bundestag representatives not only get all these things, they also get terminals on their desks, linked through to the Civil Service computer systems so that they can see the same data that the government uses to make its decisions. That must be better than what we have now; it wouldn't necessarily guarantee better government, but it should go some way to preventing worse government, whichever group is in charge. All we have to do now is convince the government that this is a good idea. Shouldn't be difficult ..