Macroergonomics dates back to 1982 in Seattle, WA, USA. A group of concerned physical ergonomics researchers concluded that increasing the physical aspects of the job was important but not enough to improve human conditions in labor settings. Thus, to improve work conditions, a new approach was necessary for evaluating the organizational context. Under this scenario, the notion of Organizational Design and Management (ODAM) emerged as an attempt to consider the organizational structure in ergonomic evaluations. Then, years later, ODAM gave birth to macroergonomics, a subdiscipline or branch of ergonomics. Since then, macroergonomics has become popular. Originally, macroergonomics addressed work and job positions from an organizational approach, yet now it has evolved and extends beyond these aspects. Nowadays, it is also interested in manufacturing systems, healthcare systems, safety systems, and sustainable systems, among others. This book proposes a macroergonomic approach to evaluating manufacturing systems, which is why both terms—macroergonomics and manufacturing systems —must be clearly established from the beginning. That said, experts such as Hendrick (1995), Hendrick and Kleiner (2002), Carayon (2012) view macroergonomics as a branch of ergonomics that is both a top-down and a bottom-up approach to sociotechnical systems. Macroergonomics encompasses organizational structures, policies, and processes that support the design of work systems and interfaces, such as the human–work, human–machine, human–software, and human–environment interfaces. Its fundamental purpose is to make sure that work systems are fully harmonized and compatible with their sociotechnical characteristics to achieve synergic improvements within a broad range of organizational effectiveness criteria (e.g., safety and health, comfort, productivity) (Carayon 2012; Zink 2014). Nowadays, macroergonomics helps organizations and companies meet international standards and norms such as the International Standard Organization (ISO) 14000 and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Such norms consider ergonomic aspects of the work system at organizational level. For instance, ISO 14000 demands organizations to maintain a favorable environment to

中文翻译：

---

前言

人体工程学可以追溯到1982年在美国华盛顿州的西雅图市。一组有关人体工学的研究人员得出结论，增加工作的体力方面很重要，但不足以改善劳动环境中的人类状况。因此，为了改善工作条件，需要一种新的方法来评估组织环境。在这种情况下，组织设计和管理（ODAM）的概念应运而生，旨在在人体工程学评估中考虑组织结构。然后，几年后，ODAM诞生了人机工程学，即人机工程学的一个子学科或分支。从那时起，人机工程学开始流行。最初，人机工程学是从组织的角度来解决工作和职位的问题，但是现在它已经发展并超越了这些方面。如今，它还对制造系统，医疗保健系统，安全系统和可持续系统等感兴趣。本书提出了一种人机工程学方法来评估制造系统，这就是为什么必须从一开始就明确确立两个术语（人机工程学和制造系统）的原因。也就是说，诸如Hendrick（1995），Hendrick和Kleiner（2002），Carayon（2012）之类的专家将宏观人机工程学视为人体工程学的一个分支，既是自上而下又是自下而上的社会技术系统方法。宏观人机工程学包含支持工作系统和界面设计的组织结构，政策和流程，例如人机，人机，人机软件和人环境界面。其基本目的是确保工作系统完全协调并与其社会技术特征兼容，从而在广泛的组织有效性标准（例如安全与健康，舒适度，生产率）内实现协同改进（Carayon 2012； Zink 2014）。如今，人机工程学可以帮助组织和公司满足国际标准和规范，例如国际标准组织（ISO）14000和职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA）。这些规范在组织级别考虑了工作系统的人体工程学方面。例如，ISO 14000要求组织保持良好的环境来 （Carayon 2012; Zink 2014）。如今，人机工程学可以帮助组织和公司满足国际标准和规范，例如国际标准组织（ISO）14000和职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA）。这些规范在组织级别考虑了工作系统的人体工程学方面。例如，ISO 14000要求组织保持良好的环境来 （Carayon 2012; Zink 2014）。如今，人机工程学可以帮助组织和公司满足国际标准和规范，例如国际标准组织（ISO）14000和职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA）。这些规范在组织级别考虑了工作系统的人体工程学方面。例如，ISO 14000要求组织保持良好的环境来