PART 4

EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

573
 CHAPTER 22
WORKPLACE DESIGN
Nicolas Marmaras and Dimitris Nathanael
National Technical University of Athens
Athens, Greece

1 INTRODUCTION 575 3.4 Phase 4: Setting Specific Design Goals 580

2 PROBLEM OF WORKING POSTURES 576 3.5 Phase 5: Design of Prototypes 581
3.6 Phase 6: Assessment of Prototypes 582
2.1 Sitting Posture and Seats 577
3.7 Phase 7: Improvements and Final Design 583
2.2 Sitting Posture and Work Surface Height 578
3.8 Final Remarks 583
2.3 Spatial Arrangement of Work Artifacts 579
3 DESIGNING INDIVIDUAL 4 ERGONOMIC LAYOUT OF
WORKSTATIONS 583
WORKSTATIONS 579
3.1 Phase 1: Decisions Regarding Resources 4.1 Generic Office Layouts 583
and High-Level Requirements 579 4.2 Ergonomic Method for Office Layout 584
3.2 Phase 2: Identification of Work System 4.3 Concluding Comments 589
Constraints and Requirements 579
3.3 Phase 3: Identification of User Needs REFERENCES 589
579

1 INTRODUCTION (characteristics of the working person), the worker will

lean forward (awkward posture), with negative effects
Workplace design deals with the shape, dimensions, and on his or her physical workload, health (particularly if
layout (i.e., the placement and orientation) of the working for a long period in this workplace), and
various material elements that surround one or more finally, on overall performance. Furthermore, if behind
working persons. Examples of such elements are the the worker there is a window causing glare on the
seat, the working surfaces, the desk, the equipment, the computer screen (characteristic of the environment), he
tools, and the controls and displays used during work, or she will probably bend sideways (awkward posture)
but also the passages, the windows, the heating/cooling to see what is presented on the screen (task
equipment, and so on. requirement), causing similar effects. Consequently,
Ergonomic workplace design aims at improv-ing when designing a workplace, one has to adopt a
work performance (in both quantity and qual-ity), systemic view, considering the characteristics of the
through (1) minimizing the physical strain and workload working person, the task requirements, and the
of the working person, (2) facilitating task execution environment in which the task will be performed.
(i.e., ensuring effortless information exchange with the Furthermore, the elements of the work system are
environment, minimization of phys-ical constraints, variable. In fact, the working person may be short or
etc.), (3) ensuring occupational health and safety, and tall, massively built or slim; young or elderly; with
(4) achieving ease of use of the various workplace specific needs; and so on. Also, he or she may be
elements. refreshed or tired, depending on the time of day. The
Designing a workplace that meets ergonomics prin- task requirements may also be multiple and variable.
ciples is a difficult problem, as one should consider an For example, at a secretarial workstation, the task may
important number of interacting and variable elements require exclusive use of the computer for a period of
and try to meet an important number of requirements, time, then the secretary may enter data from paper
some of which may be contradictory. In fact, there is forms to the computer, and then he or she may serve a
interdependence among the workplace components, the customer. At the same time, the workstation should be
working person, the task requirements, the environ- oriented such that the secretary is able to watch both the
ment, and the habitual body movements and postures entry and the executive’s doors. Finally, the workplace
that working persons adopt (Figure 1). environment may be noisy or quiet; warm or cool, with
Consider, for example, a person working in a annoying airstreams; illuminated by natural or artificial
computerized office (task requirement: work with a light; with all of these factors changing during the
computer). If the desk (workplace component 1) is too working day.
low and the seat (workplace component 2) is too high If to the complexity of the work system and the
for the anthropometric characteristics of the worker multiplicity of ergonomic criteria one adds financial
575

Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Third Edition. Edited by Gavriel Salvendy
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
576 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

the decisions to be taken during the workplace design

Task
process. In the next section we discuss the problem of
working postures and stress the fact that there is no one

Environment
requirements best posture that can be assumed for long periods of
time. Consequently, the effort should be put on
designing the components of the workplace in such a
way as to form a “malleable envelope” that permits
Workplace Working workers to adopt various healthy postures. The two
components person other sections deal with the design of individual
workstations and with the layout of groups of
workstations in a given space.

2 PROBLEM OF WORKING POSTURES

A central issue of ergonomic workplace design relates
Body movements to the postures the working person will adopt. In fact,
Postures the decisions that will be taken during workplace design
will affect to a great extent the postures that the
Figure 1 There is interdependence between a working working person will or will not be able to adopt. The
person and the task requirements, workplace compo- two most common working postures are sitting and
nents, environment, and body movements and postures. standing. Between the two, sitting posture is, of course,
more comfortable. However, there is research evidence
that sitting adopted for prolonged periods of time results
and aesthetic issues, successful design of a workplace in discomfort, aching, or even irreversible injuries.
becomes extremely difficult. Hence, some people Figure 2 shows the most common muscu-loskeletal
maintain that designing a good workplace is rather an disorders encountered at office workstations.
“art” than a “discipline,” as there is no standard theory Studying the effects of postural fixity while sit-ting,
or method that ensures a successful result, the output Grieco (1986) found that it causes, among other things,
depending heavily on the designer’s “inspira-tion.” (1) reduction of nutritional exchanges at the spinal disks
Although this is true to a certain extent, good and in the long term may promote their degeneration;
knowledge of the characteristics of the working per-sons (2) static loading of the back and shoul-der muscles,
who will occupy the workplace, of their tasks, and of which can result in aching and cramping; and (3)
the broader environment, combined with an effort for restriction in blood flow to the legs, which can cause
rigueur during the design process, contribute deci-sively swelling (edema) and discomfort. Conse-quently, the
to a successful design. following conclusion can be drawn: The workplace
The present chapter is mainly methodological; we should permit alteration between various postures,
present and discuss a number of methods, techniques, because there is no “ideal” posture that can be adopted
guidelines, and design solutions that aim to support for a long period of time.

Neck strain Hand and wrist

tendinitis

Shoulder tendinitis
and bursitis

Tennis and Carpal tunnel

golfer’s elbow syndrome
(epicondylitis)

Swelling
(edema)
Low back pain

Figure 2 Common musculoskeletal disorders encountered at office workstations.

WORKPLACE DESIGN 577

30 cm
cm
−6070 cm

Lordotic Kyphotic
inward outward
arch arch
cm

80 −100
−40 50

Figure 3 Standing – sitting workstation.

Based on this conclusion, a standing – sitting work-

station has been proposed, especially for cases where
Figure 4 Lordotic and kyphotic postures of the spine.
tasks require long periods of continuous work (e.g., (From Grandjean, 1987.)
bank tellers or assembly workstations). Such a work-
station (Figure 3) permits a worker to perform a job
alternating standing with sitting.
Despite the absence of an ideal posture, how-ever, sitting upright resulted in a 40% increase in the disks’
there are postures that are more comfortable and healthy pressure compared to the pressure when standing. There
than others. Ergonomic research aims at iden-tifying are three complementary ways to minimize lumbar
these postures and formulating requirements and kyphosis: (1) by using a thick lumbar support,
principles that should be considered during the design of (2) by reclining a backrest, and (3) by providing a
forward-tilting seat. Andersson et al. (1979) found that
the components of a workplace. In this way, the use of a 4-cm-thick lumbar support, combined with a
resulting design will promote healthy work pos-tures ◦
backrest recline of 110 resulted in a lumbar curve
and constrain prolonged adoption of unhealthy postures.
closely resembling the lumbar curve of a standing
2.1 Sitting Posture and Seats person. Another finding of Andersson et al. (1979) was
that the exact location of the support within the lumbar
The problem of designing seats that are appropriate for region did not influence significantly any of the angles
work is far from solved. In recent decades the sitting measured in the lumbar region. The studies of Bendix
posture and design of seats have attracted the interest of (1986) and Bridger (1988) support Mandal’s (1985)
researchers, designers, and manufacturers, due to the proposition for the forward-tilting seat.
ever-increasing number of clerical workers and the Considering the above, the following ergonomic
importance of musculoskeletal problems encountered by requirements should be met: (1) the seats should include
them. This has resulted in the emergence of a science, a backrest that can recline, (2) the backrest should
the science of seating, and subsequently to a plethora of provide lumbar support, and (3) the seat should provide
publications and design solutions (see, e.g., Mandal, a forward-tilting option. However, as Dainoff (1994)
1985; Lueder and Noro, 1994). observes, when tasks require close attention to the
Sitting posture poses a number of problems at a objects on the working surface or the computer screen,
musculoskeletal level. The most important of these is people usually bend forward and the backrest support
lumbar kyphosis. When one is sitting, the lumbar region becomes useless.
of the back flattens out and may even assume an A design solution that aims to minimize lumbar
outward bend. This shape of the spine, called kyphotic, kyphosis is the kneeling or balance chair (Figure 5),
is somewhat opposite to the lordotic shape of the spine ◦
where the seat is inclined more than 20 from the
when someone is standing erect (Figure 4). The less the horizontal plane. Besides the somewhat unusual way of
angle between the thighs and the body, the greater the sitting, this chair also has the drawbacks of loading the
kyphosis. This occurs because of the restrained rotation knee area, as the knees receive a great part of the body’s
of the hip joint, which forces the pelvis to rotate load, and of constraining leg movement. On the other
backward. Kyphosis provokes increased pressure on the hand, it enforces lumbar lordosis very close to that
spinal disks. Nachemson and Elfstrom (1970), for adopted while standing and does not constrain the torso
example, found that unsupported to move freely forward, backward, or sideways.
578 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

2.2 Sitting Posture and Work Surface Height

In addition to the problem of lumbar kyphosis, sitting
working posture may provoke excessive muscle strain
at the level of the back and shoulders. For example, if
the working surface is too low, a person will bend
forward too far; if it is too high, he or she will be forced
to raise the shoulders.
To minimize these problems, appropriate design of
the workplace is required. More specifically, the
working surface should be at a height that permits a
person to work with the shoulders at the relaxed
posture. It should be noted here that the working height
is not always the work surface height. The former
depends on what one is working on (e.g., the keyboard
of a computer), whereas the later is the height of the
upper surface of the table, desk, or bench. Furthermore,
to define the appropriate work surface height, one
Figure 5 Kneeling chair. (From www.comcare.gov.au/ should consider the angles between the upper arms and
officewise.html.) elbows and the angle between the elbows and wrists. To
increase comfort and to minimize the occupational
◦
risks, the first of the two angles should be about 90 if
There are quite a lot of detailed ergonomic
requirements concerning the design of seats used at no force is required, and a little bit broader if
work. For example; (1) the seat should be adjustable so application of force is required. The wrists should be as
as to fit the various anthropometric characteristics of straight as possible, to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.
their users as well as to different working heights; (2) Two other common problems encountered by peo-
the seat should offer stability to the user; (3) the seat ple working in a sitting posture are neck aches and dry
eye syndrome. These problems are related to pro-longed
should offer freedom of movement to the user; (4) the
gazing at objects placed too high: for example, when
seat should be equipped with armrests; and (5) the seat the visual display terminal or visual display unit (VDU)
lining material should be water absorbent, to absorb of a computer workstation is placed too high (Ankrum,
body perspiration. Detailed requirements will not be 1997). Research that aims at determin-ing the optimal
presented extensively here, as the interested reader can placement of such objects, considering the mechanisms
find them easily in any specialized handbook. of both the visual and musculoskele-tal systems, is still
Furthermore, these requirements became “classical” and active (for a review, see Ankrum and Nemeth, 2000).
have been transformed into regulatory documents such However, most research findings agree that (1) neck
as health and safety or design standards and legislation flexion is more comfortable than extension, with the
(see, e.g., EN 1335, ISO 9241, ANSI/HFS 100-1988, zero point (dividing flexion from extension) described
and DIN 4543 standards for office work, or EN 1729 for as the posture of the head/neck when standing erect and
chairs and tables for educational institutions, and ◦
looking at a visual target 15 below eye level; and (2)
ISO/DIS 16121 for the driver’s workplace in line- the visual system prefers downward gaze angles.
service buses). Furthermore, there is evidence that when assuming an
Although most modern seats for office work meet erect posture, people prefer to tilt their head, with the
the basic ergonomic requirements, design of their ear – eye Line (i.e., the line that crosses by the
controls does not meet usability principles. This fact, cartilaginous protrusion in front of the ear hole and the
combined with users’ knowledge of healthy sitting, ◦
often results in nonuse of the adjustment possibilities outer slit in the eyelid) about 15 below the horizontal
offered by seats (Vitalis et al., 2000). Lueder (1986) plane (Grey et al., 1966; Jampel and Shi, 1992). Based
provides the following guidelines for increasing the on these findings, many authors propose the following
usability of controls: (1) controls should be easy to find rule of thumb for the placement of a VDU: The center
◦
and interpret, (2) controls should be easily reached and of the monitor should be placed a minimum of 15
adjusted from the standard seated work position, below eye level, with the top and bottom an equal
(3) controls should provide immediate feedback (e.g., distance from the eyes (i.e., the screen plane should be
seats that adjust in height by use of a rotating pan delay facing slightly upward).
feedback because a user must get up and down Sanders and McCormick (1992) propose, in addi-
repeatedly to determine the correct position), (4) the tion, the following general ergonomic recommenda-
direction of operation of controls should be logical and tions for work surfaces: (1) if at all possible, the work
consistent with their effect, (5) few motions should be surface height should be adjustable to fit individual
required to use the controls, (6) adjustments should physical dimensions and preferences; (2) the work sur-
require the use of only one hand, (7) special tools face should be at a level that places the working height
should not be necessary for the adjustment, and (8) at elbow height, with shoulders at relaxed posture; and
labels and instructions on furniture should be easy to (3) the work surface should provide adequate clearance
understand. for a person’s thighs.
WORKPLACE DESIGN 579

2.3 Spatial Arrangement of Work Artifacts particularities of the working persons). An additional
While working one uses a number of artifacts: for issue that has to be dealt with at this phase is to ensure
example, the controls and displays on a control panel, the participation in the design process of the people
the various parts of an assembled object at an assembly who will occupy the future workstations. Access to
workstation, or the keyboard, the mouse, the visual workstations where similar jobs are being performed is
display terminal, the hard-copy documents, and the also advisable. The remainder of the design process will
telephone at an office workstation. Application of the be influenced significantly by the decisions taken at this
following ergonomic recommendations for the phase.
arrangement of these artifacts helps to decrease 3.2 Phase 2: Identification of Work System
workload, facilitate work flow, and improve overall Constraints and Requirements
performance:
The aim of phase 2 is to identify the various constraints
and requirements posed by the work system that have to
1. Frequency of use and criticality. Artifacts that be considered during workstation design. More
are frequently used, or are of special importance, should specifically, during this phase one has to collect data
be placed in prominent positions: for example, in the about the types of tasks to be carried out at the
center of the work surface or near the right hand for workstation designed; the work organization (i.e., the
right-handed people, and vice versa for left-handed interdependency between the tasks to be carried out in
people. the workstation and others in the proximal
2. Sequential consistency. When a particular pro- environment); the various technological equipment and
cedure is always executed in sequential order, the arti- tools that will be used, their functions, user interfaces,
facts involved should be arranged according to this shape, and dimensions; the environmental conditions of
order. the broader area in which the workstation will be placed
3. Topological consistency. Where the physical (e.g., illumination and sources of light, level of noise
location of controlled elements is important for the and noise sources, thermal conditions and sources of
work, the layout of the controlling artifacts should warm or cold drafts); normal as well as exceptional
reflect the geographical arrangement of the former. situations in which working persons could be found
(e.g., electricity breakdowns, fire); and any other
4. Functional grouping. Artifacts (e.g., dials, element of or situation related to the work system that
controls, visual displays) that are related to a particular may interfere directly or indirectly with the workstation
function should be grouped together. designed. These data can be collected by questioning
the appropriate people as well as by observation and
Application of the recommendations above requires analysis of similar work situations. Specific design
knowledge of the work activities to be performed at the standards (e.g., ANSI, EC, DIN, or ISO), as well as
workplace designed. Task analysis provides enough data legislation related to the type of the workstation
to apply these recommendations appropriately, as well designed, should be collected and studied during this
as to solve eventual contradictions between them, by phase.
deciding which arrangement best fits the situation at
hand. 3.3 Phase 3: Identification of User Needs
The needs of future workstation occupants are identi-
3 DESIGNING INDIVIDUAL WORKSTATIONS fied during phase 3, considering the tasks to be per-
Figure 6 presents a generic process for the ergonomic formed at the workstation designed as well as the
design of individual workstations, with the various characteristics of persons who will occupy it. Conse-
phases, the data or sources of data that have to be quently, task analysis (see Chapter 14) and analysis of
considered at each phase, and methods that could be user characteristics should be carried out at this phase.
applied. It should be noted that certain phases of the Of particular importance are the characteristics of
process may be carried out concurrently, or in a the user population, which depend on their gender, age,
different order, depending on the particularities of the nationality, or particular disabilities, and concern the
workstation to design, or the preferences and experience size of body parts (anthropometry) (see Chapter 12), the
of the designers. ability and limitations of their movements (biome-
chanics) (see Chapter 13), visual and auditory percep-
3.1 Phase 1: Decisions Regarding Resources tion abilities and limitations, previous experiences and
and High-Level Requirements work practices, and cultural or religious obligations
(e.g., women in certain countries are obliged to wear
The first phase of the design process is to decide about particular costumes).
the time to spend and the people who will participate in Task analysis aims at identifying mainly the work
it (the design team). These decisions depend on the processes that will take place and the workstation ele-
high-level requirements of stakeholders (e.g., improve- ments implicated in them; the physical actions that will
ment of working conditions, increase of productivity, be carried out (e.g., fine manipulations, whole-body
innovation, occupational safety and health protection, as movement, force exertion), the information exchange
well as the money they are ready to spend), and the required (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.) and infor-
importance of the project (e.g., number of identi-cal mation sources; the privacy required; and the necessary
workstations, significance of the tasks carried out,
580 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

Decisions about
Users’ and stakeholders’
resources and
requirements analysis
high-level requirements
Design
standards and
Identification of work legislation
Work system
system constraints
analysis
and requirements
Problems
at similar
workplaces
Task and
Identification of
user characteristics
users’ needs
analysis

Aggregation of
Setting specific
requirements and
design goals
constraints

Users’ population
anthropometric
and biomechanical
Design of
characteristics
prototype(s)
Existing
design
solutions
Assessment
of prototype(s)

Improvements and
final design

Figure 6 Generic process for the ergonomic design of individual workstations.

proximity with other workstations, equipment, or ele- ergonomic requirements of workstation design into a set
ments of the broader working environment. The more of specific goals. These will guide the choices and
the design team can analyze work situations similar to decisions to be made in the next phase. Furthermore,
the workstation designed, the more valuable the results they will be used as criteria for assessment of the pro-
of the task analysis will be. totype designed and will guide its improvement. The
At this phase, data about performance and health specific goals are an aggregation of shoulds and consist
problems of persons working in similar work situations of the requirements of the stakeholders (e.g., the work-
should be collected. Ergonomic and occupational safety station should be convenient for 95% of the user popu-
and health literature may be used as the main source for lation, should cost a maximum of $X, should increase
the collection of such data. Finally, as in the preceding productivity at least 10%); the constraints and require-
phase, user needs should be identified not only for ments posed by the work system in which the designed
normal but also for exceptional situations in which
workstation occupants may be found (e.g., electricity workstation(s) will be installed [e.g., the workstation(s)
blackout, fire). should not exceed X centimeters of length and Y cen-
timeters of width, should offer working conditions not
3.4 Phase 4: Setting Specific Design Goals ◦
exceeding X decibels of noise and Y of wet bulb globe
Considering the outputs of preceding phases, the design temperature], user needs (e.g., the work-station should
team is now able to transform the generic accommodate elderly people, should be
WORKPLACE DESIGN 581

appropriate for prolonged computer work, should facil- Table 1 Recommendations for Choosing the
itate cooperation with neighboring workstations), the Working Posture
requirement to avoid common health problems asso- Working
ciated with similar situations (e.g., the workstation Posture Task Requirements
should minimize upper limb musculoskeletal prob-
lems), and design standards and related legislation (e.g., Working person’s It is preferable to arrange for both
the workstation should ensure absence of glare and of choice sitting and standing (see Figure 3).
cold drafts). The systematic record of all spe-cific Sitting Where a stable body is needed:
design goals is very helpful for the next phases. It is • For accurate control, fine
important to note that agreement on these specific goals manipulation
among the design team, management, and users’ • For light manipulation work
representatives is indispensable. (continuous)
• For close visual work with
3.5 Phase 5: Design of Prototypes prolonged attention
• For limited headroom, low work
Phase 5 is the most demanding in the design process. In heights
fact, the design team has to generate design solutions Where foot controls are necessary
that meet all the specific design goals identified in phase (unless of infrequent or short
4. Given the large number of design goals as well the duration)
fact that some of them may be conflicting, the design Where a large proportion of the
team has to make appropriate compromises, considering working day requires standing
some goals as more important than others, and Standing For heavy, bulky loads
eventually passing by some of them. Good knowledge Where there are frequent moves
of the particularities of the task that will be performed at from the workplace
the workstation designed, as well as the specific user Where there is no knee room under
characteristics, is the only way to set the right priorities the equipment
and avoid serious mistakes. Where there is limited front – rear
A first decision to make is the working posture(s) space
that will be assumed by users of the workstation Where there are a large number of
designed. Table 1 provides some recommendations for controls and displays
this. Once the working posture has been decided, the Where a large proportion of the
design may continue to define the shape, dimensions, working day requires sitting
and arrangement of the various elements of the work- Support seat (see Where there is no room for a normal
station. To do so, one has to consider the anthropomet- Figure 7) seat but support is desirable
ric and biomechanical characteristics of the user popu- Source: Corlett and Clark (1995).
lation as well as the working actions to be performed. In
addition to the ergonomic recommendations pre-sented
previously, some additional recommendations for the
design of the workstation are the following:

1. To define the clearance, the minimum required

free space for placement of the body, one has to
consider the largest user (usually, the anthropometric
dimensions corresponding to the 97.5th percentile). In
fact, providing free space for these users, all shorter
users will also have enough space to place their bodies.
For example, if the vertical, lateral, and forward
clearance below the working desk are designed
considering the height of the upper surface of the thigh
of a sitting person, the hip width, and the thigh length
corresponding to the 97.5th percentile of the user
population (plus an allowance of 1 or 2 cm), 97.5% of Footrest
the users of this desk will be able to approach the desk
easily while sitting. Figure 7 Where there is no room for a normal seat, a
support is desirable. (From Helander, 1995.)
2. To position the various elements of the
workplace that have to be reached by users, consider the
smaller users. In fact, if smaller users reach the various
workstation elements easily, without leaning forward or various elements of the workstation that have to be
bending sideways, all larger users will also reach them manipulated (e.g., controls) (Figure 8).
easily. 4. When necessary, provide the various elements of
3. Draw the common kinetospheres or comfort the workstation with appropriate adjustability to fit the
zones for larger and smaller users, and add the anthropometric characteristics of the user
582 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

Common comfort zone

of upper limbs

Comfort zones
of lower limbs
(nonadjustable) Seat
height

Convention line
Figure 8 Common comfort zones of the hands and legs for large and small users of a driving workplace with a
nonadjustable chair.
thermore, many existing design solutions may disre-gard
important ergonomic issues. Finally, although the
population. (Care should be given to the usability of
adjustability controls.)
5. While envisioning design solutions, check con-
tinuously to ensure that the workstation elements do not
obstruct users’ courses of action (e.g., percep-tion of
necessary visual information, manipulation of controls).

It should be stressed that at least some iterations

among phases 2, 3, and 5 of the design process are
unavoidable. In fact, it is almost impossible to identify
from the start all the constraints and requirements of the
work system, user characteristics, or task require-ments
that intertwine with elements of the worksta-tion
anticipated. Another issue to deal with during this phase
is designing to protect the working person from possible
annoying or hazardous environmental factors. If the
workstation has to be installed in a harsh environment
(noisy, cold or warm, hazardous atmo-sphere, etc.), one
has to provide it with appropriate protection. Again,
attention must be paid to the design of such protective
elements. These should take into consideration the
anthropometric characteristics of the user population
and the special requirements of the task, in order not to
obstruct the processes involved in both normal and
degraded operation (e.g., mainte-nance, breakdowns).
Other important issues that have to be resolved at this
phase are workstation main-tainability, its unrestricted
evacuation, its stability and robustness, and such safety
issues as rough corners.
A search for already existing design ideas and
solutions is quite useful. However, they should be
examined carefully before adoption. In fact, although
valuable for anticipation, such design ideas may not be
readily applicable for the specific user population, the
particularities of their tasks, or the environment in
which the workplace designed will be installed. Fur-
adoption of already existing design solutions exploits
the design community’s experience and saves time, it
deprives the design team of generating their own
innovative solutions.
The use of computer-aided design (CAD) applica-
tions with human models is very helpful at this phase
(see Chapter 39). If such software is not available,
appropriate drawings and mock-ups should be devel-
oped for the generation of design solutions as well as
for their assessment (see phase 6).
Given the complexity of generating good design
solutions, the search for alternatives is valuable.
Members of the design team should not be anchored
at the first design solution that comes to their minds.
They should try to generate as many alternative ideas
as possible, gradually converging to the one or ones
that best satisfy the design goals.

3.6 Phase 6: Assessment of Prototypes

Assessment of the designed prototype(s) is required
to check how well the specific design goals set at the
fourth phase have been met, as well as to uncover
possible omissions during the identification of work
system constraints and requirements and the user
needs analysis (second and third design phases). The
assess-ment can be performed analytically or/and
experimen-tally, depending on the importance of the
project. At the analytical assessment, the design team
assesses the designed workplace, considering
exhaustively the spe-cific design goals using the
drawings and mock-ups as support. Applying a
multicriteria method, the design team may rank the
degree to which the design goals have been met. This
ranking may be used as a basis for the next phase of
the design process (improvement of the prototype) as
well as a means to chose among alternative design
solutions.
The experimental assessment (or user testing) is
performed with the participation of a sample of future
WORKPLACE DESIGN 583

users, simulating the work with a full-scale mock-up of • The layout of the workstations should conform
the designed workstation prototype(s). The assessment to the organizational structure.
should be made in conditions as close as possible to • The layout should ensure the necessary privacy.
those of the real work. Development of use scenarios of
both normal and exceptional work situations is useful • There should be appropriate lighting, conform-
for this reason. Experimental assessment is ing to task needs.
indispensable for the identification of problematic • The lighting should be uniform throughout the
aspects that are difficult, if not impossible, to realize working person’s visual field.
before having a real workplace with real users. • There should be no annoying reflections or glare
Furthermore, this type of assessment provides valuable in the working area.
insights for eventual needs during implementation (e.g., • There should be no annoying hot or cold drafts
the training needed, the eventual need for a user’s in the workplace.
manual).
• Access to the workstations should be unob-
3.7 Phase 7: Improvements and Final Design structed and safe.
In phase 7, considering the outputs of the assessment,
the design team proceeds with the necessary modifi- In this section we focus on the ergonomic layout of
cations of the design prototype. The opinions of other workplaces for office work. The choice to focus on the
specialists, such as architects and decorators, which ergonomic layout of workstations in offices has been
have more to do with the aesthetics, or production made for the following reasons: First, office lay-out is
engineers and industrial designers, which have more to an exemplary case for the arrangement of a number of
do with production, materials, and robustness mat-ters, individual workstations in a given space, encompassing
should be considered at this phase, in case such all major ergonomic requirements found in most types
specialists are not members of the design team. The of workplaces (with the exception of workplaces where
final design should be complemented by drawings for the technology involved determines to a large extent the
production and appropriate documentation, including layout, such as workstations in front of machinery).
the rationale behind the solutions adopted; cost estima- Second, office workplaces con-cern a growing
tion for the production of the workstation(s) designed; percentage of the working population worldwide. For
and implementation requirements, such as the training example, during the twentieth cen-tury the percentage
needed and the user’s manual, if required. of office workers increased from 17% to over 50% of
the U.S. workforce, with the rest working in agriculture,
3.8 Final Remarks sales, industrial production, and transportation (Czaja,
The reason for conducting a user needs and require- 1987). With the spread of infor-mation technologies, the
ments analysis is to anticipate the future work situation proportion of office workers is expected to increase
in order to design a workstation that fits its users, their further. Third, health problems encountered by today’s
tasks, and the surrounding environment. However, it is office workers are to a great extent related to
impossible to anticipate a future work situation com- inappropriate layout of their work-places (Marmaras
pletely, in all its specificity, as work situations are and Papadopoulos, 2002).
complex, dynamic, and evolving. Furthermore, if the
workstation designed is destined to form part of an 4.1 Generic Office Layouts
already existing work system, it might affect the over-all There are a number of generic types of office layouts
work ecology, something that is also very difficult to (Shoshkes, 1976; Zelinsky, 1998). The two extremes are
anticipate. Therefore, a number of modifications will the private office, where each worker has his or her own
eventually be needed some time after workstation personal closed space or room, and the open-plan office,
installation and use. Thus, it is strongly suggested to where all the workstations are placed in a common open
conduct a new assessment of the designed workstation space. In between are a multitude of combinations of
once users have been familiarized with the new work private offices and open plans. Workstation
situation. arrangements in open plans can be either orthogonal,
with single, double, or fourfold desks forming parallel
4 ERGONOMIC LAYOUT OF WORKSTATIONS rows, or with workstations arranged in groups,
Ergonomic layout deals with the placement and matching the organizational or functional structure of
orientation of individual workstations in a given space the work. A recent layout philosophy is the flexible
(building). The main ergonomic requirements to meet office, where the furniture and equipment are designed
concern the tasks performed, the work organization, and to be easily movable in order to be able to modify the
environmental factors. More specifically, such workstation arrangement depending on the number of
requirements are as follows: the people present in the office as well as the projects or
work schemes themselves (Brunnberg, 2000). Finally,
• The layout of the workstations should facilitate to respond to the current need for flexibility in
the work flow. organizations and the structuring of enterprises, as well
• The layout of the workstations should facilitate as to reduce costs, a new trend in office management is
the cooperation of both personnel and external the free address office or nonterritorial office, where
persons. workers do not
584 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

have a proper workstation, but whenever at the office, The decision as to the generic type of layout should
use the workstation they find free. be made by the stakeholders. The role of the ergonomist
Each type of layout has strengths and weaknesses. here is to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each
Private offices offer increased privacy and better control alternative to facilitate adoption of the most appropriate
of environmental conditions, being easily fitted to the type of layout for the specific situation. After this
particular preferences and needs of their users. On the decision has been made, the design team should
other hand, they are more expensive to both construct proceed to a detailed layout of the workstations. In the
and maintain, not easily modifiable to match changing next section we describe a systematic method for this
organizational needs, and render cooperation and purpose.
supervision difficult. Open-plan offices offer flexibility
in changing organizational needs and facilitate 4.2 Ergonomic Method for Office Layout
cooperation between co-workers but tend to suffer from The ergonomic method proposes a systematic way to
environmental annoyances such as noise and suboptimal design workplaces for office work. The method aims at
climatic conditions as well as lack of privacy. To alleviating the design process for arranging the
minimize the noise level as well as to create some sense workstations by reducing the entire problem to a
of privacy in open plans, movable barriers may be used. number of stages during which only a limited number
To be effective, the barriers have to be at least 1.5 m of ergonomic requirements are considered. Another
high and 2.5 m wide. Furthermore, Wichman (1984) characteristic of the method is that the ergonomic
proposes the following specific design requirements to be considered have been converted to
recommendations to enhance the working conditions in design guidelines (Margaritis and Marmaras, 2003).
an open-plan office: Figure 9 presents the main stages of the method.
Before starting the layout design, the design team
• Use sound-absorbing materials on all major should collect data concerning the activities that will be
surfaces wherever possible. Noise is often more performed in the workplace and the needs of the
of a problem than expected. workers. More specifically, the following information
• Equip workstations with low-noise technologi- should be gathered:
cal devices (e.g., printers, photocopy machines,
telephones). For example, provide telephones • The number of people who will work perma-
that flash a light for the first two “rings” before nently or occasionally.
emitting an auditory signal. • The organizational structure and the organiza-
• Leave some elements of design for the work- tional units that it comprises.
station user. People need to have control over • The activities carried out by each organizational
their environments, so leave some opportunities unit. Of particular interest are the needs for
for changing or rearranging things. cooperation among the various units (and
• Provide both vertical and horizontal surfaces for consequently, the desired relative proximity
the display of personal belongings. People like to between them), the need for reception of external
personalize their workstations. visitors (and consequently, the need to provide
• Provide several easily accessible islands of pri- easy access to them), as well as any other need
vacy. This would include small rooms with full related to the particularities of the unit (e.g.,
walls and doors that can be used for conferences security requirements).
and private or long-distance telephone calls. • The activities carried out by each worker. Of
• Provide all private work areas with a way to particular interest are the need for cooperation
signal willingness of the occupant to be with other workers, privacy needs, the reception
disturbed. of external visitors, and the specific needs such
• Have clearly marked flow paths for visitors. For as for lighting.
example, hang signs from the ceiling showing • The equipment required for each work activity
where secretaries and department boundaries are (e.g., computer, printer, storage).
located.
• Design workstations so that it is easy for drop-in At this stage the design team should also request
visitors to sit down while speaking. This will detailed ground plan drawings of the space concerned,
tend to reduce disturbances to other workers. including all elements that should be considered as
• Plan for ventilation airflow. Most traditional fixed (e.g., structural walls, heating systems).
offices have ventilation ducting. This is usually
not the case with open-plan cubicles, so they 4.2.1 Stage 1: Determination of Space
become dead-air cul-de-sacs that are extremely Available
resistant to post hoc resolution. The aim of stage 1 is to determine the space where no
• Overplan for storage space. Designers of open- furniture should be placed, to ensure free passage by the
plan systems, which emphasize tidiness, seem to doors and to allow the necessary room for elements
chronically underestimate people’s storage such as windows and radiators, for manipulation and
needs. maintenance purposes. Following are suggestions for
WORKPLACE DESIGN 585

Inputs
(data and requirements) Ergonomic requirements

• Walls
• Easy access
• Columns
to: Doors
• Doors Determination of
Windows
• Windows space available
Radiators
• Radiators
…
• ….

• Desk
• Fitting the workstation
• Chairs
Design of workstation to its users and tasks
• Computer
modules • Easy access to
• Lockers workstations
• ….

• Cooperation
• Facilitation of cooperation
• Available surface (internal and external)
• Required surface
Placement of • Ensure working conditions
• Organizational units organizational units meeting task requirements
• Already-existing • Utilization of already existing
closed spaces closed spaces
•…

• Facilitation of cooperation
• Organizational units (internal and external)
• Cooperation • Ensure working conditions
• Lighting needs Placement of the meeting task requirements
• Privacy needs workstation modules • Easy access to
• External visitors workstations
• Structural elements • Ensure required privacy
• …. •…
• Facilitation of cooperation
(internal and external)
• Cooperation • Ensure appropriate
• Doors Orientation of lighting conditions
• Windows workstation modules • Easy access to
• Supervision workstations
•… • Facilitation of supervision
•…
Figure 9 Main stages of a method for office layout meeting ergonomic requirements.

determining spaces that to remain free of furniture free space should be provided around the furniture for
(Figure 10). Allow for an area of 50 cm in front of any passages between workstations as well as for
window, an area of 3 m in front and 1 m at both sides of unobstructed sitting and for getting up from the seat.
the main entrance door, an area of 1.50 m in front and This free space may be delimited in the following way
50 cm at both sides of any other door, and an area of 50 (minimum areas). Allow for an area of 55 cm along the
cm around any radiator. front side of the desk or the outer edge of the visitor’s
seat; an area of 50 cm along the entry side of the
4.2.2 Stage 2: Design of Workstation Modules workstation; an area of 75 cm along the back side of the
The aim of stage 2 is to design workstation modules that desk (seat side); and an area of 100 cm along the back
meet the needs of workers. Each module is composed of side of the desk if there are storage cabinets behind the
the appropriate elements for the working activities: desk.
desk, seat, storage cabinets, visitors’ seats, and any other A number of different modules will result from this
equipment required for the work. A stage, depending on the particular work requirements
 where Atotal
A
where no modules can be placed
586 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

0.50 0.50
0.50

150
0.50

300
100

0.55

150
100

0.50

0.50

Figure 10 Determining the available space.

55 cm
55 cm

100 cm

Figure 11 Workstation modules.

75 cm 55 cm
(e.g., secretarial module, head of unit module, client
service module) (Figure 11). Layout by workstation and (5) eventual particular requirements of each unit,
modules instead of by individual elements such as desks which may determine their absolute placement within
and seats permits the designer to focus on the the building (e.g., the reception area should be placed
requirements related to the overall layout of the right next to the main entrance).
workplace, ensuring at the same time compliance with The exploitable area of each space is an approxi-
requirements related to individual workstations. mation of the areas free of furniture defined in stage 1,
also considering narrow shapes where modules cannot
4.2.3 Stage 3: Placement of Organizational fit. Specifically, this area can be calculated as follows:
Units
A A A
The aim of stage 3 is to decide about the placement of exploitable = total − where no modules can be placed
the various organizational units (i.e., departments, is the total area of each space and is the nonexploitable area,
working teams, etc.) within the various free spaces of
the building. There are five primary issues to be where workstation modules should not or cannot be
considered here: (1) the shape of each space, (2) the placed.
exploitable area of each space (i.e., the area where The area required for each organizational unit can be
workstations can be placed), (3) the area required for estimated considering the number of workstation
each unit, (4) the desired proximity between units, modules needed and the area required for each module.
Specifically, to estimate the area required for each
organizational unit, Arequired, one has to calculate the
sum of the areas of the various workstation modules
of the unit. Comparing the exploitable area of the
various spaces with the area required for each unit, the
candidate spaces for placing the units can be defined.
Specifically, the candidate spaces for the placement of a
particular unit are the spaces where
A A
exploitable ≥ required
Once the candidate spaces for each unit have been
defined, final decisions about the placement of orga-
nizational units can be made. This is done in two steps.
In the first step the designer designates spaces for
eventual units which present particular placement
requirements (e.g., reception). In the second step the
designer positions the remaining units, considering their
desirable relative proximity plus additional cri-teria,
such as the need for natural lighting or the reception of
external visitors. To facilitate placement of the
organizational units according to their prox-imity
requirements, a proximity table and proximity diagrams
may be drawn.
WORKPLACE DESIGN 587

A proximity table represents the desired proximity of

each unit with any other unit, rated using the following
scale:

9 The two units cooperate fully and should be

placed close together. Enl Pe Se
3 The two units cooperate from time to time, and it
would be desirable to place them in proximity.
1 The two units do not cooperate frequently, and it
does not matter if they are placed in proximity. EnlI RD Ma Di

Figure 12 is the proximity table of a hypothetical

firm consisting of nine organizational units. At the right
bottom, the total proximity rate (TPR) has been Sa Co
calculated for each unit as a sum of its individual
proximity rates. The TPR value is an indication of the Proximity rate = 9
cooperation needs of each unit with all the others. The Proximity rate = 3
designer should try to place the units with high TPRs at
a central position.
Proximity diagrams are a graphical method for the
relative placement of organizational units. They Figure 13Proximity diagram.
facilitate the heuristic search for configurations that
minimize the distance between units that should • Place the unit with the highest TPR value at the
demonstrate close cooperation. Proximity diagrams are central point.
drawn on a sheet of paper with equidistant points, such
as the one shown in Figure 13. The various units • If there is more that one unit with the same TPR
alternated at different points, in an attempt to locate value, place first the unit that has the closest
arrangements in which the units that require close proximity rates (9’s).
cooperation will be as close to each other as possible. • Continue placing units that have the higher
The following rules may be used to obtain a first proximity rates with those that are already
configuration: positioned.
• In cases where more than one unit has a
proximity rate equal to that of a unit already
positioned, place the unit with the higher TPR
value first.
Direction
• Continue in this manner until all the units have
9
been positioned.
Secretariat 3
1 3 More than one alternative arrangement may be
obtained in this way. It should be stressed that prox-
Accounting 1 1 imity diagrams are drawn without taking into account
3 1 1 the area required for each unit and the exploitable area
of the spaces in which the units may be placed. Conse-
R&D 1 1 3
quently, the arrangements drawn cannot be transposed
9 1 1 9 to the ground plan of the building without modifi-
Engineers I 9 9 3 3 cations. Drawing proximity diagrams is a means to
facilitate decisions concerning the relative positioning
9 1 9 3 32
between organizational units. As a method it becomes
Engineers II 1 3 3 30 20 useful in cases where the number of units is important.
1 3 3
4.2.4 Stage 4: Placement of Workstation
Sales 3 3 32 Modules
9 3 28 Once the areas where the various organizational units
Marketing 3 28 will be placed have been determined, placement of
3 28 workstation modules for each unit can begin. The
42 following guidelines provide help in meeting the
Personnel ergonomic requirements:
24
1. Place the workstations in a way that facilitates
Figure 12 Proximity table of a hypothetical firm.
cooperation between co-workers. In other words,
588 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

workers who cooperate closely should be placed near 1. Orient workstations such that there are no
each other. windows directly in front or behind workers when they
2. Place workstations at which external visitors are looking toward a visual display unit (VDU). In
will be received near the entrance doors. offices, windows play a role similar to that of lights: a
3. Place as many workstations as possible near the window right in front of a worker disturbs through
windows. Windows may provide benefits in addition to direct glare; one directly behind the worker produces
variety in lighting and a view (Hall, 1966). They permit reflected glare. For this reason, ideally, VDU
fine adjustment of light through curtains or venetian workstations should be placed at right angles to
blinds and provide distant points of visual focus, which windows (Grandjean, 1987) (Figure 14).
can relieve eye fatigue. Furthermore, related research 2. To avoid direct glare, orient workstations such
has found that people strongly prefer workstations that that there are no direct lighting sources within
◦
are placed near windows (Manning, 1965; Sanders and ±40 vertically and horizontally from the line of sight
McCormick, 1992). (Kroemer et al., 1994).
4. Avoid placing workers in airstreams created by 3. Orient workstations to allow workers to observe
air conditioners and by open windows and doors. entrance doors.
5. Place workstation modules to form straight
corridors leading to doors. The corridor width allowing
for one-person passage should be at least 60 cm, and for
two-person passage, at least 120 cm (Alder, 1999). Windows
6. Leave the necessary space in front and to the
sides of electric switches and wall plugs.
7. Leave the necessary space for waiting visitors. In
cases where waiting queues are expected, provide at
least a free space of 120 cm width and n × 45 cm length,
where n is the maximum expected number of waiting
people. Add to this length another 50 cm in front of the
queue.

4.2.5 Stage 5: Orientation of Workstation

Modules
The aim of stage 5 is to define the direction of the
workstation modules for each unit so as to meet the
ergonomic requirements. This stage can be carried out
either concurrent with or following the preceding phase.
The following guidelines support this phase and should Workstations with VDUs
be applied judiciously, as it may not always be possible Figure 14 Workstations with VDT ideally should be
to satisfy all of them. placed at right angles to windows.

Ia Ib Ic

IIa IIb IIc

Figure 15 Alternative orientations of workstations, depending on the number of team members and the presence or
absence of a leader. Ia, Ib, and Ic: arrangements with a leader; IIa, IIb, and IIc: arrangements without a leader.
WORKPLACE DESIGN 589

4. Orient workstations to facilitate cooperation Dainoff, M. (1994), “Three Myths of Ergonomic Seating,” in
between members of work teams. Figure 15 shows Hard Facts About Soft Machines: The Ergonomics of
alternative orientations of workstations, depending on Seating, R. Lueder and K. Noro, Eds., Taylor & Francis,
the number of team members and the presence or London.
absence of a leader (Cummings et al., 1974). Grandjean, E. (1987), Ergonomics in Computerized Offices,
Taylor & Francis, London.
4.3 Concluding Comments Grey, F. E., Hanson, J. A., and Jones, F. P. (1966), “Postural
Given the complexity of workplace layout design, a Aspects of Neck Muscle Tension,” Ergonomics, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 245 – 256.
designer trying to apply the various ergonomic Grieco, A. (1986), “Sitting Posture: An Old Problem and a
guidelines in the various phases will almost definitely New One,” Ergonomics, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 345 – 362.
encounter contradictions. To resolve them, he or she Hall, E. T. (1966), The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday, New
should be able to focus on the guidelines that seem most York.
important for the case at hand and pay less attention Helander, M. (1995), A Guide to the Ergonomics of Manu-
(eventually, even ignore) others. Good knowledge of facturing, Taylor & Francis, London.
generic human abilities and limitations, the specific Jampel, R. S., and Shi, D. X. (1992), “The Primary Position of
characteristics of the people who will work in the the Eyes, the Resetting Saccade, and the Transverse
designed workplace, and the specificities of the work Visual Head Plane,” Investigative Ophthalmology and
Visual Science, Vol. 33, pp. 2501 – 2510.
that will be carried out are prerequisites for successful Kroemer, K., and Grandjean, E. (1997), Fitting the Task to the
decisions. Furthermore, the designer should demonstrate Human: A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics, 5th ed.,
an open and innovative mind and try as many solutions Taylor & Francis, London.
as possible. A systematic assessment of these alternative Kroemer, K., Kroemer, H., and Kroemer-Elbert, K. (1994),
solutions is advisable to decide on the most satisfactory How to Design for Ease and Efficiency, Prentice-Hall,
solution. The participation of the various stakeholders in Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
this process is strongly recommended. The use of Lueder, R. (1986), “Work Station Design,” in The Ergonomics
specialized computer-aided design (CAD) tools may Payoff: Designing the Electronic Office, R. Lueder, Ed.,
prove very helpful when using the method presented, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
greatly facilitating the generation and assessment of
Lueder, R., and Noro, K. (1994), Hard Facts About Soft
alternative design solutions. Machines: The Ergonomics of Seating, Taylor & Francis,
REFERENCES London.
Mandal, A. (1985), The Seated Man, Dafnia Publications,
Alder, D. (1999), Metric Handbook: Planning and Design Klampenborg, Denmark.
Data, 2nd ed., Architectural Press, New York. Manning, P. (1965), Office Design: A Study of Environment by
Andersson, G., Murphy, R., Ortengren, R., and Nachem-son, A. the Pilkington Research Unit, University of Liverpool
(1979), “The Influence of Backrest Inclination and Press, Liverpool, Lancashire, England.
Lumbar Support on the Lumbar Lordosis in Sitting,” Margaritis, S., and Marmaras, N. (2003), “Making the
Spine, Vol. 4, pp. 52 – 58. Ergonomic Requirements Functional: The Case of Com-
Ankrum, D. R. (1997), “Integrating Neck Posture and Vision at puterized Office Layout,” in Proceedings of the 15th Tri-
VDT Workstations,” in Proceedings of the 5th ennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Associ-
International Scientific Conference on Work with Display ation and the 7th Conference of the Ergonomics Society
Units, pp. 63 – 64. of Korea/Japan Ergonomics Society.
Ankrum, D. R., and Nemeth, K. J. (2000), “Head and Neck Marmaras, N. and Papadopoulos, S. (2002), “A study of
Posture at Computer Workstations: What’s Neutral?” in Computerized Offices in Greece: Are Ergonomic Design
Proceedings of the 14th Triennial Congress of the Inter- Requirements Met?” International Journal of Human-
national Ergonomics Association, Vol. 5, pp. 565 – 568. Computer Interaction. Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 261 – 281.
Bendix, T. (1986), “Seated Trunk Posture at Various Seat Nachemson, A., and Elfstrom, G. (1970), “Intravital Dynamic
Inclinations, Seat Heights, and Table Heights,” Human Pressure Measurements in Lumbar Disks,” Scandina-vian
Factors, Vol. 26, pp. 695 – 703. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, Suppl., p. 1.
Bridger, R. (1988), “Postural Adaptations to a Sloping Chair Sanders, S. M., and McCormick, J. E. (1992), Human Fac-tors
and Work-Surface,” Human Factors, Vol. 30, pp. 237 – in Engineering and Design, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
247. York.
Shoshkes, L. (1976), Space Planning: Designing the Office
Brunnberg, H. (2000), “Evaluation of Flexible Offices,” in Environment, Architectural Record Books, New York.
Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, Vol. Vitalis, A., Marmaras, N., Legg, S., and Poulakakis, G. (2000),
1, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Diego, “Please Be Seated,” in Proceedings of the 14th Triennial
CA, pp. 667 – 670. Congress of the International Ergonomics Association,
Corlett, E. N., and Clark, T. S. (1995), The Ergonomics of Vol. 6, San Diego, CA, pp. 43 – 45.
Workspaces and Machines, Taylor & Francis, London. Wichman, H. (1984), “Shifting from Traditional to Open
Cummings, L., Huber, G. P., and Arendt, E. (1974), “Effects of Offices: Problems and Suggested Design Principles,” in
Size and Spatial Arrangements on Group Decision- Human Factors in Organizational Design and Manage-
Making,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. ment, H. Hendrick and O. Brown, Jr., Eds., Elsevier,
3, pp. 460 – 475. Amsterdam.
Czaja, S. J. (1987), “Human Factors in Office Automation,” in Zelinsky, M. (1998), New Workplaces for New Work Styles,
Handbook of Human Factors, G. Salvendy, Ed., Wiley, McGraw-Hill, New York.
New York.