Human Factors Minute is now available to the public as of March 1st, 2023. Find out more information in our: Announcement Post!
Oct. 19, 2022

MSD Lab and Human Factors Communications | #HFES2022 | Bonus Episode

On this bonus conference coverage episode of Human Factors Cast we interviewed Lisa Brooks about the Musculoskeletal Disorder Lab (MSD Lab), and Camille Peres about communicating Human Factors to non HF people.

Recorded in front of a LIVE studio audience on October 11th, 2022, in Atlanta Georgia. Hosted by Nick Roome and Barry Kirby with guests Lisa Brooks and Camille Peres.

On this bonus conference coverage episode of Human Factors Cast we interviewed Lisa Brooks about the Musculoskeletal Disorder Lab (MSD Lab), and Camille Peres about communicating Human Factors to non HF people.

This episode is part of our #HFES2022 live coverage. The other episodes as well as the full live stream can be found here:

Let us know what you want to hear about next week by voting in our latest "Choose the News" poll!

Vote Here

Follow us:

Thank you to our Human Factors Cast Honorary Staff Patreons: 

  • Michelle Tripp

Support us:

Human Factors Cast Socials:



  • Have something you would like to share with us? (Feedback or news):


Disclaimer: Human Factors Cast may earn an affiliate commission when you buy through the links here.



I'm sitting here with Lisa Brooks here. We're going to talk about some fun stuff today. Lisa, welcome to the show. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. I have to say I'm a little nervous though. It's okay. You're only in front of a live audience of thousands of Human Factors professionals. It's okay. We're all good. Streaming across our channels. The official HFS channel. It's all good. No sweat. We're all good. So you're here to talk about something, specifically the MSD Solutions Lab. But I want to back up really quick. Before we talk about that, can you just tell the audience at home who you are and a bit of your background so we know who we're talking to? Happy, too. Happy to. So my name is Lisa Brooks and I've been in the field of Ergonomics and Human factors and safety for 30 years. That's really hard for me to admit. In May of this year, I crossed over that 30 year mark. But I started out as a corporate economist for Alcoa back in 1992 and then moved over and was the corporate economist and safety manager for International Paper and then spent over eleven years with GE as their corporate and safety manager. And then I left and went to Orchestu, an organization that is a health safety environment, networking and services firm. And two years ago that company was bought by the National Safety Council. So for two years now I've been a member or not a member, I've been an employee of the National Safety Council. So that's how I got to where I am. I'm a problem. Michigan grad. So I'm going to the Michigan Alumni Dinner tomorrow night for the first time. I haven't been to HFPS in a few years. I've been to other professional conferences, so I'm just delighted to be back here. Yeah, it's great to have you here as well. Thank you very much for giving the time. What a lot of people have said is they're really valuing this new networking time that is a bit unfamiliar to everybody at the moment. So it is fantastic that you've given up some of that time to spend with us. Could you give us a bit of an insight into what the National Safety Council actually does? Well, fantastic. And I made sure I had information to make sure I said this correctly, but the National Safety Council is America's leading nonprofit safety advocates and they have been for more than 100 years. So it's a mission based organization working to eliminate all the leading causes of preventable death and injury. And the National Safety Council has pillars in workplace roadway and impairment. So we create a culture of safety, not only keeping people safer at work, but also beyond the workplace so that they can live their fullest lives. Now. We're here to talk about the MSD Solutions lab. What is that? There's some letters. It's an acronym. It's a lab. What does it do? Great question. So the MSD Solutions Lab or the Musculoskeletal Disorder Solutions lab? It's a groundbreaking National Safety Council strategic initiative. It was born or established in June of 2021 and it's funded by Amazon. It focuses on addressing musculoskeletal disorders, which as we all know, are the most common workplace injury or illness. So in the lab's approach is to engage key stakeholders, conduct research, identify new technologies, innovate solutions, and then scale the results so that all workplaces across, not only the US. But the globe can benefit. We have four pillars that we operate under. So the four pillars are engage, research, solve, and amplify. So why would he quit the first place? Yeah, well, again, going back to the number of muscular skeletal disorders, so musculoskeletal disorders are the largest category of workplace injuries and illnesses and the leading cause of disability worldwide. So not only in the US. So the World Health Organization reports that musculoskeletal disorders are the leading cause of disability worldwide. In fact, approximately one 7 billion with a B. People have musculoskeletal conditions across the globe and in the US. According to the National Safety Council's injury facts, just shy of a quarter million, musculoskeletal disorder injuries were severe enough in 2020 to cause folks to take days away from work. So it's a huge issue and costing, so according to the Liberty Mutual Safety Index, MSD injuries are costing our businesses approximately $16 billion each year. So it's a pervasive issue in terms of the numbers, but I think it boils down to the pain and suffering of people and workers. And the National Security Council said this is an issue that we felt that we brought something unique to the table that we could help and address or explore ways to address it that hadn't been attempted before, so we could bring all different players together to participate. So it really is just the largest pain and suffering issue. And we stepped up to the table and said we'll do our part to address this. And it's an incredibly important issue. And I think the big question for me is, like you mentioned that this was just set up recently and the question is why now? That's a very important issue or very important question because, you know, it's not like this is brand new. We've had muscular skeletal disorders. It's been the largest category for years. And in fact, I would say a lot of companies are having a renewed emphasis in fatal and serious injury prevention and they define that also to include life altering or life impacting. But somehow musculoskeletal disorders didn't get in that equation. So I think it's important for this initiative. Timing is important because there's so much effort being on fatal and serious injuries and leaving behind muscular skeletal disorders. So recognizing that musculoskeletal disorders are life impacting, life impacting, life altering. But unlike the other faton serious injuries, there's no alarms going off and they don't demand attention. So this is a way to bring visibility to this issue that because of all the great and necessary emphasis on fate, on serious injuries, somehow the muscle skeletal disorders have kind of gotten left behind. So it's bringing new visibility to it. And I think that all of the pieces fell in place. You had an organization like the National Safety Council willing to step up. You had an organization like Amazon willing to fund it. And so all the pieces were in place to say, let's take this on, let's address it. That's really interesting because it's obviously made that imperative for right now. But you mentioned four pillars earlier. Could you tell us, expand a bit more on the four pillars and tell us what they actually mean to you? Absolutely. So the pillars are engaged, research, solve, and amplify. And let's talk about engage. Engage means bringing all of the right people, a diverse set of minds together to address this topic. So in engaging, important stakeholders are the workers, are the companies, but also are the solution providers, the innovators, academia. So all of these different players contribute and are necessary in order to come up with a solution. One of the things, one of the first initiatives that stood up as part of the MSD Solutions Lab was an advisory council. And that advisory council, let's see, I wrote down here, currently has 62 members and the 62 members represent 43 different organizations. But the advisory council again, has representations from academia, has representations from business, has representations from consulting, from solution providers, from innovators, all to come together to help be part of this and really advise the National Safety Council on our strategy and approach for addressing muscle skeletal disorders. So that's the engage part. The next pillar is research. So an important thing is for us to understand what is the current stage of research, where are the gaps, and then be able to support filling those gaps by research grants and working with different universities, connecting research organizations and businesses so that the practical application of that research actually can meet a new standard. So then the third pillar is stalled and really it's to find new ways and communicate all of the fantastic ways that we already know about to address Musculoskelet skeletal disorder. So it might be using new technologies or it might be using existing technologies in new ways. So things we're doing there some innovation challenges, some kind of hackathons, but really innovative ways to find new solutions to address musculoskeletal disorders. And then the fourth pillar is amplify. And this is about getting the message out to the masses, right? Making sure that all companies are aware that this is a need. There honestly are a lot of small and midsized organizations that don't even fully understand that this is an issue that's related to the workplace that should be addressed. So it's making sure the message is out there, providing resources, information to help them begin to address this pervasive issue. And part of the amplify, or very important part, is initiative that we've called the MSD Pledge. And this is an opportunity for companies to raise their hand and say, hey, I want to be a part of that call to action, and I want to my company will also commit to do their part both in addressing the musculoskeletal disorders in their own organization, but then share what they've learned along the way. So those four steps engage, research, solve amplify. I have a question about amplify. Communication is really important to us here. Obviously, we're on a podcast, but one question I have is sort of how do you reach those midlevel companies? Like, what communication strategies are used? That's a good question, and I think we're developing them additional methods as we go along. The nice thing about the National Safety Council is that the nice National Safety Council has between 14 and 16,000 members, of which the majority are small and medium enterprises. So we have an arm into those organizations where we have an avenue to communicate to folks that maybe have not at this point been addressing muscular skeletal disorders. So we're using their existing infrastructure. And honestly, our funding partner, Amazon, also has a reach in all of their suppliers that really is unparalleled. So just those two communication methods alone. But we are reaching out and working with all different kinds of professional organizations. In fact, I need to acknowledge that the Human Factors in Ergonomics Society has agreed to be a professional partner with the MSC Solutions Lab. We're reaching out to other professional organizations in the Ergonomics and safety and health disciplines to also be professional partners to help us reach new people, new organizations in different ways. And I'll be honest with you, if you guys have suggestions on ways to reach new people, our ears are always open and we welcome new ideas. We can always come on a podcast and just let people know. That's wonderful. I was with the National Safety Council when we stood up this initiative, and so I had the pleasure of being part of being there from the very beginning. But I am a technical advisor. I don't have the luxury of working on it day to day. Unfortunately, my colleagues sitting over here in the corner, rob McKayla is the subject matter expert for this, but Kareem Teller is also she's the director that we hired. And Rom and Kareem would love to participate in another podcast going in the future. We got to get you hooked up with this guy, Mr. Barry Kirby. He can. Okay, Barry, they're ready for you. Or maybe the question is, are you ready for them? Well, I'm always up for a challenge that sounds brilliant and some content that we would actually be able to share and travel to. You've talked about the pledge, the MSD pledge, how the tool is that for you in your armory to get people to get companies and organizations engaged. Well, actually, if I'm being honest, I will tell you it took off faster than I thought it would. You know, we had aspirations when we first announced the pledge that we would by year end have commitment from 100 different companies. Well, we passed that mark. We're already 126, 126 different companies have taken the pledge. Really, because the pledge is about doing the right things in their own organization, but it's also about sharing what they learn along the way with others for the good of everyone. That I think it really has power. And you know, if you look at what they commit to, they commit to reduce risks. So to really look at the MSD hazards and risks in their own organization and invest in solutions to reduce those risks, they commit to innovate and collaborate. They commit to build an organizational culture that values safety. And again, in many organizations these things are already there, but it's about sharing them and then commit to a significant reduction in the risk. Now, the truth is, we really try to focus this initiative on risk, knowing that if people do the right things in terms of addressing MSD risks in the workplaces, that the injuries will take care of themselves. Because with many of the small and medium sized organizations that maybe haven't been addressing musculoskeletal disorders, it's possible and even likely that you'll see an uptick in numbers before you see a decline because they first got to understand where the hazards are getting in place to tell them where the issues are. We expect to see in some organizations to see an uptick. But by focusing this initiative on risk and getting organizations to address the risk, the MSD risk in their companies built into their operations, we feel that the injury numbers will overall come down as an entity. So you mentioned sort of reducing significant reduction in risk is what you said. Now I'm wondering, what does that actually look like? Is it a metric that they have to meet like a certain percentage? Is it just in general, what counts is significant? So that's a good question. So we have really struggled with that because you guys in the field understand that there's not one recognized way to measure MSD risk. There are many different tools available that each of them have different strengths and different gaps. So we've created something called an MSD index. And that MSD index really looks at your systems around risk culture, collaboration and innovation. And we are actually in the final stages of refining. Our first is a questionnaire and we will ask that all companies that have taken the pledge, they do the index on an annual basis so we can evaluate their efforts. So it's understanding that they are using what tools that they are using, what systems do they have in place, how are they sharing, are they sharing? And I will be honest in the process. We also ask for actual injury numbers, but that's not what we're measured on. We are capturing the injury numbers so that we can assess as a whole, is this initiative making a difference? I guess following on that, because I've seen a number of initiatives that are made with the best of intentions. Companies pledge to do the right thing by climate change, companies pledge to do, et cetera, et cetera. How do we know that the companies aren't massaging the numbers or just basically make when they're reporting into you, that they're not just making something just to tick the box and they're actually delivering, I guess, the real view, because it's a real view that's valuable, isn't it? So how do we know that they're actually doing that rather than just making it look good in their management charter? Yes, that's an interesting question. We are working to address that and providing opportunities for companies to, say, get third party audited, so if they report in on the MSD pledge, they have an opportunity to really get it to validated by a third party. So we're working on systems. So the question you raised is actually one that we are, I wouldn't say struggling with, but actively working on now. So to make it a meaningful, credible index. We have just a couple of minutes left. I want to open up the floor to you. Is there anything else that you want our listeners, anyone watching on the live stream right now to kind of know about the MSC pledge or anything about the MSD solutions lab? It is evolving every day and we're adding more resources, more opportunities. So I would encourage folks to watch the progress and engage. The website is backslash MSD and everything related to the entire initiative to the pledge. If you think you're willing to raise your hand as a company to be part of the pledge, one of the things we're working on is mechanisms to collect and then share effective practices. Different organizations have libraries of solutions that work. We're looking at ways to do that because we want to minimize reinventing the wheel. If there's a solution, effective solution already out there, make it available. So this has only been in existence for a short time, so we're still working on it and we're open to suggestions and input. So reach out to us on the website and we'd love to hear from you and engage with anyone who's willing. Well, Lisa, thank you so much for being on the show. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back after this. Thanks, everyone.



And we're back here for more coverage. 66 Annual Human Factors Society. Welcome back. Welcome to the show. Camille Paris, thank you for coming back. You've been on the show before. We talk to you when you and Chris were going up for the presidency, and it's kind of weird to see Chris complete his presidency now, and now we're moving on to the next set, but just for those listeners or folks who aren't familiar, could you just give folks a little bit more about yourself? Who are you and what are you all about? Sure. So, my name's Camille Paris and I'm an associate professor at Texas A Am University and I do research on integrating human factors into high risk industrial settings. So think chemical plants, refineries, oil and gas, that sort of stuff. The higher risk, more complicated, the better. And I've been doing that for I guess about nine years now. That's about how long I've been at Texas A and M and before that I was at the University of Houston Clear Lake and actually set up a program there in Applied Cognitive Psychology, which is essentially human factors and ergonomics and was there for about seven years and got my PhD from Rice University in Cognitive Psychology. And just really loving being here at HFES and seeing all my friends and seeing the students that are getting to learn all about it and having you all here. This is really cool. It's a cool thing to have you all here and it's great to be back on the show. Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. Oh, man, yeah, we love being here. We love having you here. And I am especially jazzed about the topic that we're going to talk about today and it's communications of human factors to people who may not be human factors and to people who are human factors. It's just communication within human factors as a whole thing. So let's talk about the status of communication of human factors. It's really important to us as podcasters and practitioners that communication be effective. So what is the current state today? What does it look like? Well, of course it depends on where you are and what industry you're in, I think is a huge piece of it. And one thing about the state of communication is I want to give you all some kudos is after the last time I was here, we had talked just extraporaneously come up with this idea of a so what webinar and to have a scientist come on and have a webinar and then have a practitioner there at the same time talking about a paper. And we've had a couple of those and they've been really well received. So be on the lookout. We're going to have another one coming up with the society petroleum engineering and talk about automation. And so we're really looking forward to that. And so that's, I think a very important step with regard to this translation and communication of the science to people who actually are going to be using it. And one of the things that I have found in my work with folks who are in, again, primarily petrochemical oil and gas, that sort of thing, is they typically don't think of human factors as a scientific discipline. I usually get people who think of it as factors that are associated with a human, meaning that that's fatigue or that's individual differences, like maybe they had a fight with their significant other before they came to work or things like that. Lists of things that you could associate with a human but nothing to do with any kind of scientific discipline or profession, lord knows not a profession. And so there's that component and then there's another group that thinks of human factors as meaning, specifically safety, culture, and just has to because it's about humans. And so I've come up with this method of communicating sort of the methods and discipline around human factors that I was introduced to initially as a graduate student. It's called the Interactive Behavior Triad. So the idea is to be able to predict how people are going to behave. That you need to have information about three things. Thus the Interactive Behavior Triad and you need to have information about the task the person's doing. You need to have information about the person who's doing the task and you need to have information about the tool that the person is using to do that task. And when you have that information, then you can better predict how people are going to behave. And I was first introduced to this in an experimental way or we were reading a paper and this was actually Mike Byrne was talking about it with regard to cognitive modeling. And that most of the time what happens is people will do experiments and do these twoway interactions like they'll see. Can we predict human behavior if we do a test or an experiment with the task and the tool, or with the task and the person or the person in the tool? But very rarely do they look at all three and really that can make a difference. So if you have a crap tool and you know a lot about the task and you have a specific task and specific attributes of the person, like what kind of cognition are they using semantic memory or are they using long term? Those kinds of things? The design of the tool can make a difference in how they're going to behave. And I was just really struck by it at the time. Young, Impressionable Graduate student and it just made so much sense to me and it was an AHA for me and I started seeing it everywhere, kind of like when you discover human factors, you just see the bad human factors everywhere. And I started seeing that and then it kind of went in the back of my mind. But then I started thinking of examples and when I was trying to explain human factors to people who were not human factors specialist, realizing that this could be helpful. And the example that I use a lot as a professor was writing a paper when students need to write a paper and that whole task. So the task breaking that down and saying, okay, so the task here is to generate the content from the class and being able to summarize it in a way that your professors can be happy with. It's not super risky. Maybe you do it three or four times a semester. So these are the things for the task itself. What is it you're trying to accomplish? And then the person has got to use some long term memory. They've got to use their upper extremities, they've got to use visual scanning. They've got to use what are the things that they are needing to do. Their motivation is important. And then we start talking about the tools. And one of the things that's always fun when I do this in presentations is because I'll say, okay, anybody out there ever written a paper with a typewriter? And of course, depending on the age of the audience, of course I always raised my hand because I used a typewriter. And then everybody just remembers, oh that's right. You can write a paper and submit it without using a word processor. So writing a paper, the task is not using the word processor. That's the tool to accomplish the task. And so if it is I've got that task, I keep that task constant and I use a typewriter. And let's say that my motivation. I've got a student who is straight A student. She's really motivated to make sure that she does really great on this paper. It may not be whether she uses a typewriter or computer. Maybe it won't make that big of a difference in what her behavior is. She may be a little bit slower, maybe a little more frustrating, but the end product may not be that different. I've got somebody who is doing just enough to get by, wants to make sure his parents don't bring back home from college. He's got his buddies that are ready to go to happy hour. And if he's got a typewriter versus a computer, a word processor to do the task, what we see as far as that end product, that interactive behavior probably would be very different as far as that interaction there. But then if we actually added that third variable of if it's a task that they do once a year versus if they're doing it three or four times a year, then we might actually see that interactive behavior change even more depending on those other two variables. And so when I explain this to people, I'll say this is a human factor specialist is going to be able to come in and unpack the situation and look at, okay, what are people trying to accomplish? What are the attributes of the human experience that matter for this thing? And then what about I've been saying tool, but I really think more about the context than the tool as part of that because you have the psychosocial piece you've got for the oil and gas. Let's say, are they doing this in the North Sea? Are they doing this in the Gulf of Mexico? Because all of that matters as well. But it helps to unpack a little bit. And I think people who are trained in this can put this together and help unpack it and put it back together so that we can have the most efficient, effective and safe interactive behavior as possible. But it's unpacking it and putting it back together. And so we all know that that's a lot of different disciplines that I've described, right? So you've got biomechanics, cognitive engineering, you've got task analysis, psychosocial stuff, you've got tool building, a lot of different things. But when I'm talking to industry, they don't care about that. They don't need to know that. They don't need to know that a human factor specialist needs to have some basic background and all of those things, but they need to have a parsimonious way of understanding why it's difficult and then being able to point to examples. And so it's a tool that I've been using that can be effective and it's also helpful for sort of teaching students and coming up with examples. My mind is kind of blown now. So obviously we're talking specifically about communications here and I'm just thinking about what we do in terms of this podcasting and things like that. From a human perspective, how does using the trial play specifically into communications? How would we use that on a day to day basis? I guess on a day to day basis I would say that. So I'm not exactly sure with the podcast. I don't know that business very well. Any other? Yeah. So as a practitioner tool. I would say to help if I were going in and consulting. Let's say. And somebody brings me a problem and that this is the problem that we're having. It's something that I would use and kind of pull out. You know. My little cheat sheet that I have and say. OK. Where do you think this problem is and why do you think that this is about the task? Do you think that we're asking too much of the person? Or do you think we haven't accommodated the fact that they've got to do visual scanning and the labels are crap and they can't see the labels? Or that it's always really foggy and they can't see what's going on? Or is this about the quality of the tool or is there a bad psychosocial environment or is it really cold outside so let's sort of unpack each one of these things or just what's going on? Even if we can't identify the problem initially, let's talk about what's happening in each of these spaces. And of course there's a lot more, there's a lot going on in each of those spaces, but it's a nice way of unpacking a problem first and I think that would be a way of working with people initially. I. Learned something today. I'm going to take that home and next time my wife asked me to change a dirty diaper, I'm going to say, okay, well, let me look at the task, the tool and the motivation and I'll explain to her where the problem is and why I don't want to do it. Exactly. I think that would be all about motivation. Exactly. That is it. So, I mean, we are science communicators and in order to communicate that science, we have to be good at something. What are we good as, human factors practitioners? What are we good at communicating? Well,



I think that that is going to be they're going to be good at communicating what they're good at communicating. I think what we need to be generally good at communicating is what the findings are and how those findings can and need to be integrated. And I think that integration piece is a really big challenge and that really has to do with listening. And it could be tool too, that the triad could be used as a reflective device to be able to say, hey, this is what I think I'm hearing, or this is what I think I've learned is that this is kind of what this space is that you all are living in and it seems like there might be a problem here. Is that right? Does that sound correct? And this might be a way for us to address that. That could be another way of looking at it because it's always got to be about in order to communicate, you've got to listen and really know that you've heard it and that they've been heard. That seems like a really big message for us to be listening and then to do the reflective piece. Is there something that you may be observed in human practice practitioners as a cohort that we could generally improve something, maybe a character trait that we all share just by the nature of being human practice practitioners that we could the beast that we are, what could we improve as a cohort? Well, now that's loaded. You think got it. Exactly. Somebody I'm not a practitioner and to say that I think that as people, so I'm not going to say practitioners, I'm going to say as people. I think it's really easy to get into the US and them mindset and if they would just listen, if they would just understand, why don't they? And as opposed to focusing on how can I help them and that they're struggling with this too and understanding the demons and beasts were on their side of the fence and trying to fit in with that and to be able to not just speak the language. Because I think that actually as human factors folks, we do a pretty good job of speaking other disciplines, languages and other technologies, languages. But more than that, understanding the constraints that they have and the motives that they have and that we have to fit within that. And I think a good example of our moving towards that is that we've been able to integrate into agile programming. I mean, that's spectacular, really. And so I think those kinds of things and it can be in some really recalcitrant kinds of populations that can be tough where they really just see the humans as the problem. And so why in the world would I want to talk to you all about the humans that are the problem? I know I find that a lot. And so the thing that's interesting about that is probably one of the most powerful communication tools that I have when I'm talking to industry folks is graphs with data. So when I say I did this study in this experimental way and I show that this happened in this way and they see a lot of our engineers and they want to see that we can do empirical work and show that these things make a difference in performance which ultimately makes a difference in the bottom line. And that's when they really started sitting up and going oh, she's not just talking about that. She feels this way or she has an opinion this way because she's got a PhD. It really is. I have evidence around this and that made a big difference. So I think the evidence in a lot of ways can really be impactful. Yeah, that's definitely been sort of a light bulb moment a lot of times for other people who don't quite get what we do. When you show them sort of the data, when you show them the graphs it's because we speak different languages, they speak in data and numbers and if we provide recommendations without that data or without those graphs, then they think it's just on a whim because they need to see the numbers to back it up. That's something that I found effective in my everyday work is exactly that show them the graphs. How might we be able to better communicate with folks human factors people to non human factors people just in general, like the general public? Is there a way that we can communicate to them effectively? Again, I think it's not a monolith. I think if we have an approach that is for everyone, that's going to be tough. I think it is targeting who we're trying to get to and what problem we're helping them address. And if it is that we are wanting to bring in younger people and have them better understand that this is a career and that this is a way of actually getting involved in Stem, that you're not in a lab by yourself or you're not coding in a room on your computer by yourself but you're doing these really cool things with technology and science and getting involved. So that's one thing to communicate and that's of course just getting involved with the kids and all of that. If it is that we're trying to help people solve problems, then it is going out to those different we need to go to those groups and be involved in those groups and not ask them to come to us. I go to a lot of different industry conferences for that reason and communicate to them. But I don't think there's one approach. Now, I do love these commercials that I'm seeing. I think that is awesome, really awesome, and getting those out there for sure. Are you reading my notes? Because that's my next question, is how do we reach people where they are versus having them find human factors? Because at least in terms of discovery, from sort of a practitioner educator perspective, there's two ways in which we kind of understand that people find human factors, is either they've found human factors through digging, or human factors has found them through some of these side channels. And how do you I think the more effective router, the more common route, I should say, is the one where human factors find them. And that's kind of the next question I have. And you kind of alluded to it a little bit with getting involved with children. How do you sort of make human factors meet people where they are instead of having people come to the discipline, right? How can we be more pervasive as a field? That whole idea of outreach is that kind of what you're thinking? And I think that is where we can really leverage the fact that we touch so many different areas of life, right? We're not only in medicine or only in all of these different areas. And I think it is then that we have to get in there and get involved in those areas, communities, and the professional communities and scientific communities. And the tough thing is that I'm not a petroleum engineer. I am not a chemical engineer. I'm not going to be any of those things. And at the same time, I need to go to some of those conferences to present some of my work so that they know what's going on. And that's a little bit of a burden. It's actually quite a bit of a burden. But at the same time, if I really want to have impact, that's where I've got to go. In their world, that's where I've got to go, because they're not coming here. And so I think that's been my experience. So I can't speak unilaterally for all of the different areas, but I think that as a field, we need to start bringing all of us together. So for the folks that are, I think the HF human factors at the Healthcare Technology Conference, though, is an excellent example of where those folks have and our folks have come together in a mutually beneficial event. And a lot of that has to do with FDA regulations. So they had to do that. I think each one of the communities is going to be different and aerospace is going to be different and computers are going to be different. So speaking to each one, the TGS could be a great source of information about so how does this work? You know, how are we going to go to how are we going to be where they are and get to them in their space? And is that something we can do? Collaborate in a singular space like health care did? Or do we need to do it more explicitly, outreach? I think it's going to be unique. I think that gives us plenty of homework to look at as well. Obviously, this is still day one of the conference. I've just heard all day about all the amazing things that people are getting up to and you're all going for happy hours this evening and I'm hugely jealous. But what have you got out of the conference so far? I guess? What are you most looking forward to over the next few days as well? I think, of course, seeing my friends and going to happy hours and networking the ideas back and forth is the thing that just completely revives me every time I come here. And just the hardcore, well, that's interesting, but have you ever thought about this? And that is always really a hallmark and a highlight for me. I think seeing how many students are here, just seeing everybody back has been just invigorating and I think seeing all the feeling, all the energy that there is, I'm really looking forward to continuing to do that. And then that for me, it's community. It really is about the community. And yes, the exciting new things at the ECS got planned and, yeah, lots to look forward to this week. Camille, thank you so much for coming back on the show. Thank you so much for having me.



Camille PeresProfile Photo

Camille Peres

Associate Professor at Texas A&M University

Ergonomic impact of software design
Auditory design display
Fatigue assessment and mitigation for workers in high risk industrial settings
Human factors of procedures design and implementation

Lisa BrooksProfile Photo

Lisa Brooks

North American HSE Networks Director, Workplace Practice

Lisa Brooks is the North American HSE Networks director, workplace practice, at the National Safety Council. She has leadership responsibilities for the Western Occupational Safety & Health Group, the European Union Health, Safety & Environment Forum, the Corporate Health Directors Network and Washington D.C.-based Occupational Safety & Health Network. Additionally, Lisa manages webinars and special benchmarking meetings, and plays a key role in the “New View” of health and safety think tank.

Lisa Brooks has been working in health and safety for nearly 29 years. Prior to joining ORCHSE, she held various global, corporate leadership positions in ergonomics and safety for GE, International Paper and Alcoa. In 2003, she was selected as the only manufacturing representative to serve on the U.S. Department of Labor National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics. NACE, which was a 15-member committee commissioned for a period of two years, was established to advise the assistant secretary of labor for OSHA on ergonomics guidelines, research, outreach and assistance.

Ms Brooks was part of envisioning and organizing the first Human & Organizational Performance (HOP) Summit in 2012 and has been part of managing all subsequent HOP Summits, including serving as chair in 2018 and 2021.

Lisa is a member of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society and the Institute of Industrial & Systems Engineers. She served on the Industrial Advisory Board for the Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee for seven years. She has served on the Leadership Team for the Applied Ergonomics Conference since 2005 and is currently co-chair of the Ergo Cup Competition. Lisa holds master of science degrees in industrial and operations engineering and in kinesiology, both from the University of Michigan, and bachelor of arts degrees in mathematics and fitness from Cornell College.