Advertisement

Allocation of Function Revisited: The Use of Animals in Productive Processes and Systems

  • David O’Neill
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

An examination of work systems outside the normal remit of ergonomics has revealed that the framework for the allocation of function should be expanded from human-machine system interactions to further include animal and environment interactions. Examples are given, mainly from agriculture, that point to the need for animal ergonomics. Brief reviews of some tasks in the security and health sectors ratify the use of animals, which is considered alongside the possible use cobots. The cases presented in this return visit to the allocation of function support the development of a sub-discipline of animal ergonomics with similar broad areas of physical cognitive and organizational factors. The review also suggests that companion and service, animals, particularly those for sensory detection, are unlikely to be displaced by cobots in the near future.

Keywords

Animal ergonomics Work output Biomechanics Sensory perception Robots 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I would like to acknowledge the inputs and influences of many collaborators and colleagues and whose indirect contributions have led to this paper. However, I am solely responsible for the content and accuracy of the data and their interpretations.

References

  1. 1.
    Whitfield DJC (1967) Human skill as a determinant of allocation of function. Ergonomics 10(2):154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fuld RB (2000) The fiction of function allocation, revisited. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52(2):217–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Winter JCF, Dodou D (2011) Why the Fitts list has persisted throughout the history of function allocation. Cogn Technol Work 16(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Campbell JK (1990) Dibble sticks, donkeys, and diesels: machines in crop production. IRRI Manila (International Rice Research Institute). ISBN 13 978-971-104-185-4Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Obuo JEP, Oryokot J, Okuni A, Okwadi J, Agobe F, Kokoi R, Wange J, Barton D, O’Neill D, Terry PJ (2001) Improving weed management in Uganda through the development of sustainable draught animal technologies. In: “Weeds 2001”, proceedings of the BCPC conference, vol 2. British Crop Protection Council, Brighton, pp 217–222Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panin A, Ellis-Jones J (1994) Increasing the profitability of draught animal power. In: Starkey P, Mwenya E, Stares J (eds) Improving animal traction technology ATNESA workshop, Lusaka, Zambia. Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bishop-Sambrook C (2003) Labor saving technologies and practices for farming and household activities in Eastern and Southern Africa. In: Labor constraints and the impact of HIV/AIDS on rural livelihoods in Bondo and Busia Districts, Western Kenya. 2003. IFAD. A joint study by IFAD and FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barwell I, Ayre M (1982) The harnessing of draught animals. Intermediate Technology Publications, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Neill DH, Kemp DC (1989) A comparison of work outputs of draught oxen. J Agric Eng Res 43:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Neill DH. Unpublished dataGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    http://www.scas.org.uk/. Accessed 27 May 2018
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Hardiman D (2010) Animal-assisted therapy in mental health. SCAS J 14–17Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/TS 15066:2016Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Mancini C (2017) Towards an animal-centred ethics for animal-computer interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 98:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dave O’Neill AssociatesBedfordUK

Personalised recommendations