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
2 PROBLEM OF WORKING POSTURES
2.1 Sitting Posture and Seats
2.2 Sitting Posture and Work Surface Height
2.3 Spatial Arrangement of Work Artifacts
3 DESIGNING INDIVIDUAL
WORKSTATIONS
3.1 Phase 1: Decisions Regarding Resources
and High-Level Requirements
3.2 Phase 2: Identification of Work System
Constraints and Requirements
3.3 Phase 3: Identification of User Needs
1 INTRODUCTION
Workplace design deals with the shape, dimensions, and
layout (i.e., the placement and orientation) of the
various material elements that surround one or more
working persons. Examples of such elements are the
seat, the working surfaces, the desk, the equipment, the
tools, and the controls and displays used during work,
but also the passages, the windows, the heating/cooling
equipment, and so on.
Ergonomic workplace design aims at improv-ing
work performance (in both quantity and qual-ity),
through (1) minimizing the physical strain and workload
of the working person, (2) facilitating task execution
(i.e., ensuring effortless information exchange with the
environment, minimization of phys-ical constraints,
etc.), (3) ensuring occupational health and safety, and
(4) achieving ease of use of the various workplace
elements.
Designing a workplace that meets ergonomics prin-
ciples is a difficult problem, as one should consider an
important number of interacting and variable elements
and try to meet an important number of requirements,
some of which may be contradictory. In fact, there is
interdependence among the workplace components, the
working person, the task requirements, the environ-
ment, and the habitual body movements and postures
that working persons adopt (Figure 1).
Consider, for example, a person working in a
computerized office (task requirement: work with a
computer). If the desk (workplace component 1) is too
low and the seat (workplace component 2) is too high
for the anthropometric characteristics of the worker
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Third Edition. Edited by Gavriel Salvendy
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
575 3.4 Phase 4: Setting Specific Design Goals 580
576 3.5 Phase 5: Design of Prototypes 581
3.6 Phase 6: Assessment of Prototypes 582
577
3.7 Phase 7: Improvements and Final Design 583
578
3.8 Final Remarks 583
579
4 ERGONOMIC LAYOUT OF
WORKSTATIONS 583
579
4.1 Generic Office Layouts 583
579 4.2 Ergonomic Method for Office Layout 584
4.3 Concluding Comments 589
579
REFERENCES 589
579
(characteristics of the working person), the worker will
lean forward (awkward posture), with negative effects
on his or her physical workload, health (particularly if
working for a long period in this workplace), and
finally, on overall performance. Furthermore, if behind
the worker there is a window causing glare on the
computer screen (characteristic of the environment), he
or she will probably bend sideways (awkward posture)
to see what is presented on the screen (task
requirement), causing similar effects. Consequently,
when designing a workplace, one has to adopt a
systemic view, considering the characteristics of the
working person, the task requirements, and the
environment in which the task will be performed.
Furthermore, the elements of the work system are
variable. In fact, the working person may be short or
tall, massively built or slim; young or elderly; with
specific needs; and so on. Also, he or she may be
refreshed or tired, depending on the time of day. The
task requirements may also be multiple and variable.
For example, at a secretarial workstation, the task may
require exclusive use of the computer for a period of
time, then the secretary may enter data from paper
forms to the computer, and then he or she may serve a
customer. At the same time, the workstation should be
oriented such that the secretary is able to watch both the
entry and the executive’s doors. Finally, the workplace
environment may be noisy or quiet; warm or cool, with
annoying airstreams; illuminated by natural or artificial
light; with all of these factors changing during the
working day.
If to the complexity of the work system and the
multiplicity of ergonomic criteria one adds financial
575
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

Body movements
Postures
Figure 1 There is interdependence between a working
person and the task requirements, workplace compo-
nents, environment, and body movements and postures.
and aesthetic issues, successful design of a workplace
becomes extremely difficult. Hence, some people
maintain that designing a good workplace is rather an
“art” than a “discipline,” as there is no standard theory
or method that ensures a successful result, the output
depending heavily on the designer’s “inspira-tion.”
Although this is true to a certain extent, good
knowledge of the characteristics of the working per-sons
who will occupy the workplace, of their tasks, and of
the broader environment, combined with an effort for
rigueur during the design process, contribute deci-sively
to a successful design.
The present chapter is mainly methodological; we
present and discuss a number of methods, techniques,
guidelines, and design solutions that aim to support
A central issue of ergonomic workplace design relates
to the postures the working person will adopt. In fact,
the decisions that will be taken during workplace design
will affect to a great extent the postures that the
working person will or will not be able to adopt. The
two most common working postures are sitting and
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
in discomfort, aching, or even irreversible injuries.
Figure 2 shows the most common muscu-loskeletal
disorders encountered at office workstations.
Studying the effects of postural fixity while sit-ting,
Grieco (1986) found that it causes, among other things,
(1) reduction of nutritional exchanges at the spinal disks
and in the long term may promote their degeneration;
(2) static loading of the back and shoul-der muscles,
which can result in aching and cramping; and (3)
restriction in blood flow to the legs, which can cause
swelling (edema) and discomfort. Conse-quently, the
following conclusion can be drawn: The workplace
should permit alteration between various postures,
because there is no “ideal” posture that can be adopted
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
30 cm
cm
−6070 cm
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
tasks require long periods of continuous work (e.g.,
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,
there are postures that are more comfortable and healthy
than others. Ergonomic research aims at iden-tifying
these postures and formulating requirements and
principles that should be considered during the design of
the components of a workplace. In this way, the
resulting design will promote healthy work pos-tures
and constrain prolonged adoption of unhealthy postures.
2.1 Sitting Posture and Seats
The problem of designing seats that are appropriate for
work is far from solved. In recent decades the sitting
posture and design of seats have attracted the interest of
researchers, designers, and manufacturers, due to the
ever-increasing number of clerical workers and the
importance of musculoskeletal problems encountered by
them. This has resulted in the emergence of a science,
the science of seating, and subsequently to a plethora of
publications and design solutions (see, e.g., Mandal,
1985; Lueder and Noro, 1994).
Sitting posture poses a number of problems at a
musculoskeletal level. The most important of these is
lumbar kyphosis. When one is sitting, the lumbar region
of the back flattens out and may even assume an
outward bend. This shape of the spine, called kyphotic,
is somewhat opposite to the lordotic shape of the spine
when someone is standing erect (Figure 4). The less the
angle between the thighs and the body, the greater the
kyphosis. This occurs because of the restrained rotation
of the hip joint, which forces the pelvis to rotate
backward. Kyphosis provokes increased pressure on the
spinal disks. Nachemson and Elfstrom (1970), for
example, found that unsupported
577
Lordotic Kyphotic
inward outward
arch arch
Figure 4 Lordotic and kyphotic postures of the spine.
(From Grandjean, 1987.)
sitting upright resulted in a 40% increase in the disks’
pressure compared to the pressure when standing. There
are three complementary ways to minimize lumbar
kyphosis: (1) by using a thick lumbar support,
(2) by reclining a backrest, and (3) by providing a
forward-tilting seat. Andersson et al. (1979) found that
use of a 4-cm-thick lumbar support, combined with a
◦
backrest recline of 110 resulted in a lumbar curve
closely resembling the lumbar curve of a standing
person. Another finding of Andersson et al. (1979) was
that the exact location of the support within the lumbar
region did not influence significantly any of the angles
measured in the lumbar region. The studies of Bendix
(1986) and Bridger (1988) support Mandal’s (1985)
proposition for the forward-tilting seat.
Considering the above, the following ergonomic
requirements should be met: (1) the seats should include
a backrest that can recline, (2) the backrest should
provide lumbar support, and (3) the seat should provide
a forward-tilting option. However, as Dainoff (1994)
observes, when tasks require close attention to the
objects on the working surface or the computer screen,
people usually bend forward and the backrest support
becomes useless.
A design solution that aims to minimize lumbar
kyphosis is the kneeling or balance chair (Figure 5),
◦
where the seat is inclined more than 20 from the
horizontal plane. Besides the somewhat unusual way of
sitting, this chair also has the drawbacks of loading the
knee area, as the knees receive a great part of the body’s
load, and of constraining leg movement. On the other
hand, it enforces lumbar lordosis very close to that
adopted while standing and does not constrain the torso
to move freely forward, backward, or sideways.
578 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
Figure 5 Kneeling chair. (From www.comcare.gov.au/
officewise.html.)
There are quite a lot of detailed ergonomic
requirements concerning the design of seats used at
work. For example; (1) the seat should be adjustable so
as to fit the various anthropometric characteristics of
their users as well as to different working heights; (2)
the seat should offer stability to the user; (3) the seat
should offer freedom of movement to the user; (4) the
seat should be equipped with armrests; and (5) the seat
lining material should be water absorbent, to absorb
body perspiration. Detailed requirements will not be
presented extensively here, as the interested reader can
find them easily in any specialized handbook.
Furthermore, these requirements became “classical” and
have been transformed into regulatory documents such
as health and safety or design standards and legislation
(see, e.g., EN 1335, ISO 9241, ANSI/HFS 100-1988,
and DIN 4543 standards for office work, or EN 1729 for
chairs and tables for educational institutions, and
ISO/DIS 16121 for the driver’s workplace in line-
service buses).
Although most modern seats for office work meet
the basic ergonomic requirements, design of their
controls does not meet usability principles. This fact,
combined with users’ knowledge of healthy sitting,
often results in nonuse of the adjustment possibilities
offered by seats (Vitalis et al., 2000). Lueder (1986)
provides the following guidelines for increasing the
usability of controls: (1) controls should be easy to find
and interpret, (2) controls should be easily reached and
adjusted from the standard seated work position,
(3) controls should provide immediate feedback (e.g.,
seats that adjust in height by use of a rotating pan delay
feedback because a user must get up and down
repeatedly to determine the correct position), (4) the
direction of operation of controls should be logical and
consistent with their effect, (5) few motions should be
required to use the controls, (6) adjustments should
require the use of only one hand, (7) special tools
should not be necessary for the adjustment, and (8)
labels and instructions on furniture should be easy to
understand.
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
should consider the angles between the upper arms and
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
no force is required, and a little bit broader if
application of force is required. The wrists should be as
straight as possible, to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.
Two other common problems encountered by peo-
ple working in a sitting posture are neck aches and dry
eye syndrome. These problems are related to pro-longed
gazing at objects placed too high: for example, when
the visual display terminal or visual display unit (VDU)
of a computer workstation is placed too high (Ankrum,
1997). Research that aims at determin-ing the optimal
placement of such objects, considering the mechanisms
of both the visual and musculoskele-tal systems, is still
active (for a review, see Ankrum and Nemeth, 2000).
However, most research findings agree that (1) neck
flexion is more comfortable than extension, with the
zero point (dividing flexion from extension) described
as the posture of the head/neck when standing erect and
◦
looking at a visual target 15 below eye level; and (2)
the visual system prefers downward gaze angles.
Furthermore, there is evidence that when assuming an
erect posture, people prefer to tilt their head, with the
ear – eye Line (i.e., the line that crosses by the
cartilaginous protrusion in front of the ear hole and the
◦
outer slit in the eyelid) about 15 below the horizontal
plane (Grey et al., 1966; Jampel and Shi, 1992). Based
on these findings, many authors propose the following
rule of thumb for the placement of a VDU: The center
◦
of the monitor should be placed a minimum of 15
below eye level, with the top and bottom an equal
distance from the eyes (i.e., the screen plane should be
facing slightly upward).
Sanders and McCormick (1992) propose, in addi-
tion, the following general ergonomic recommenda-
tions for work surfaces: (1) if at all possible, the work
surface height should be adjustable to fit individual
physical dimensions and preferences; (2) the work sur-
face should be at a level that places the working height
at elbow height, with shoulders at relaxed posture; and
(3) the work surface should provide adequate clearance
for a person’s thighs.
WORKPLACE DESIGN
2.3 Spatial Arrangement of Work Artifacts
While working one uses a number of artifacts: for
example, the controls and displays on a control panel,
the various parts of an assembled object at an assembly
workstation, or the keyboard, the mouse, the visual
display terminal, the hard-copy documents, and the
telephone at an office workstation. Application of the
following ergonomic recommendations for the
arrangement of these artifacts helps to decrease
workload, facilitate work flow, and improve overall
performance:
1. Frequency of use and criticality. Artifacts that
are frequently used, or are of special importance, should
be placed in prominent positions: for example, in the
center of the work surface or near the right hand for
right-handed people, and vice versa for left-handed
people.
2. Sequential consistency. When a particular pro-
cedure is always executed in sequential order, the arti-
facts involved should be arranged according to this
order.
3. Topological consistency. Where the physical
location of controlled elements is important for the
work, the layout of the controlling artifacts should
reflect the geographical arrangement of the former.
4. Functional grouping. Artifacts (e.g., dials,
controls, visual displays) that are related to a particular
function should be grouped together.
Application of the recommendations above requires
knowledge of the work activities to be performed at the
workplace designed. Task analysis provides enough data
to apply these recommendations appropriately, as well
as to solve eventual contradictions between them, by
deciding which arrangement best fits the situation at
hand.
3 DESIGNING INDIVIDUAL WORKSTATIONS
Figure 6 presents a generic process for the ergonomic
design of individual workstations, with the various
phases, the data or sources of data that have to be
considered at each phase, and methods that could be
applied. It should be noted that certain phases of the
process may be carried out concurrently, or in a
different order, depending on the particularities of the
workstation to design, or the preferences and experience
of the designers.
3.1 Phase 1: Decisions Regarding Resources
and High-Level Requirements
The first phase of the design process is to decide about
the time to spend and the people who will participate in
it (the design team). These decisions depend on the
high-level requirements of stakeholders (e.g., improve-
ment of working conditions, increase of productivity,
innovation, occupational safety and health protection, as
well as the money they are ready to spend), and the
importance of the project (e.g., number of identi-cal
workstations, significance of the tasks carried out,
579
particularities of the working persons). An additional
issue that has to be dealt with at this phase is to ensure
the participation in the design process of the people
who will occupy the future workstations. Access to
workstations where similar jobs are being performed is
also advisable. The remainder of the design process will
be influenced significantly by the decisions taken at this
phase.
3.2 Phase 2: Identification of Work System
Constraints and Requirements
The aim of phase 2 is to identify the various constraints
and requirements posed by the work system that have to
be considered during workstation design. More
specifically, during this phase one has to collect data
about the types of tasks to be carried out at the
workstation designed; the work organization (i.e., the
interdependency between the tasks to be carried out in
the workstation and others in the proximal
environment); the various technological equipment and
tools that will be used, their functions, user interfaces,
shape, and dimensions; the environmental conditions of
the broader area in which the workstation will be placed
(e.g., illumination and sources of light, level of noise
and noise sources, thermal conditions and sources of
warm or cold drafts); normal as well as exceptional
situations in which working persons could be found
(e.g., electricity breakdowns, fire); and any other
element of or situation related to the work system that
may interfere directly or indirectly with the workstation
designed. These data can be collected by questioning
the appropriate people as well as by observation and
analysis of similar work situations. Specific design
standards (e.g., ANSI, EC, DIN, or ISO), as well as
legislation related to the type of the workstation
designed, should be collected and studied during this
phase.
3.3 Phase 3: Identification of User Needs
The needs of future workstation occupants are identi-
fied during phase 3, considering the tasks to be per-
formed at the workstation designed as well as the
characteristics of persons who will occupy it. Conse-
quently, task analysis (see Chapter 14) and analysis of
user characteristics should be carried out at this phase.
Of particular importance are the characteristics of
the user population, which depend on their gender, age,
nationality, or particular disabilities, and concern the
size of body parts (anthropometry) (see Chapter 12), the
ability and limitations of their movements (biome-
chanics) (see Chapter 13), visual and auditory percep-
tion abilities and limitations, previous experiences and
work practices, and cultural or religious obligations
(e.g., women in certain countries are obliged to wear
particular costumes).
Task analysis aims at identifying mainly the work
processes that will take place and the workstation ele-
ments implicated in them; the physical actions that will
be carried out (e.g., fine manipulations, whole-body
movement, force exertion), the information exchange
required (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, etc.) and infor-
mation sources; the privacy required; and the necessary
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-
ments of the broader working environment. The more
the design team can analyze work situations similar to
the workstation designed, the more valuable the results
of the task analysis will be.
At this phase, data about performance and health
problems of persons working in similar work situations
should be collected. Ergonomic and occupational safety
and health literature may be used as the main source for
the collection of such data. Finally, as in the preceding
phase, user needs should be identified not only for
normal but also for exceptional situations in which
workstation occupants may be found (e.g., electricity
blackout, fire).
3.4 Phase 4: Setting Specific Design Goals
Considering the outputs of preceding phases, the design
team is now able to transform the generic
ergonomic requirements of workstation design into a set
of specific goals. These will guide the choices and
decisions to be made in the next phase. Furthermore,
they will be used as criteria for assessment of the pro-
totype designed and will guide its improvement. The
specific goals are an aggregation of shoulds and consist
of the requirements of the stakeholders (e.g., the work-
station should be convenient for 95% of the user popu-
lation, should cost a maximum of $X, should increase
productivity at least 10%); the constraints and require-
ments posed by the work system in which the designed
workstation(s) will be installed [e.g., the workstation(s)
should not exceed X centimeters of length and Y cen-
timeters of width, should offer working conditions not
◦
exceeding X decibels of noise and Y of wet bulb globe
temperature], user needs (e.g., the work-station should
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
users, simulating the work with a full-scale mock-up of
the designed workstation prototype(s). The assessment
should be made in conditions as close as possible to
those of the real work. Development of use scenarios of
both normal and exceptional work situations is useful
for this reason. Experimental assessment is
indispensable for the identification of problematic
aspects that are difficult, if not impossible, to realize
before having a real workplace with real users.
Furthermore, this type of assessment provides valuable
insights for eventual needs during implementation (e.g.,
the training needed, the eventual need for a user’s
manual).
3.7 Phase 7: Improvements and Final Design
In phase 7, considering the outputs of the assessment,
the design team proceeds with the necessary modifi-
cations of the design prototype. The opinions of other
specialists, such as architects and decorators, which
have more to do with the aesthetics, or production
engineers and industrial designers, which have more to
do with production, materials, and robustness mat-ters,
should be considered at this phase, in case such
specialists are not members of the design team. The
final design should be complemented by drawings for
production and appropriate documentation, including
the rationale behind the solutions adopted; cost estima-
tion for the production of the workstation(s) designed;
and implementation requirements, such as the training
needed and the user’s manual, if required.
3.8 Final Remarks
The reason for conducting a user needs and require-
ments analysis is to anticipate the future work situation
in order to design a workstation that fits its users, their
tasks, and the surrounding environment. However, it is
impossible to anticipate a future work situation com-
pletely, in all its specificity, as work situations are
complex, dynamic, and evolving. Furthermore, if the
workstation designed is destined to form part of an
already existing work system, it might affect the over-all
work ecology, something that is also very difficult to
anticipate. Therefore, a number of modifications will
eventually be needed some time after workstation
installation and use. Thus, it is strongly suggested to
conduct a new assessment of the designed workstation
once users have been familiarized with the new work
situation.
4 ERGONOMIC LAYOUT OF WORKSTATIONS
Ergonomic layout deals with the placement and
orientation of individual workstations in a given space
(building). The main ergonomic requirements to meet
concern the tasks performed, the work organization, and
environmental factors. More specifically, such
requirements are as follows:
• The layout of the workstations should facilitate
the work flow.
• The layout of the workstations should facilitate
the cooperation of both personnel and external
persons.
583
• The layout of the workstations should conform
to the organizational structure.
• The layout should ensure the necessary privacy.
• There should be appropriate lighting, conform-
ing to task needs.
• The lighting should be uniform throughout the
working person’s visual field.
• There should be no annoying reflections or glare
in the working area.
• There should be no annoying hot or cold drafts
in the workplace.
• Access to the workstations should be unob-
structed and safe.
In this section we focus on the ergonomic layout of
workplaces for office work. The choice to focus on the
ergonomic layout of workstations in offices has been
made for the following reasons: First, office lay-out is
an exemplary case for the arrangement of a number of
individual workstations in a given space, encompassing
all major ergonomic requirements found in most types
of workplaces (with the exception of workplaces where
the technology involved determines to a large extent the
layout, such as workstations in front of machinery).
Second, office workplaces con-cern a growing
percentage of the working population worldwide. For
example, during the twentieth cen-tury the percentage
of office workers increased from 17% to over 50% of
the U.S. workforce, with the rest working in agriculture,
sales, industrial production, and transportation (Czaja,
1987). With the spread of infor-mation technologies, the
proportion of office workers is expected to increase
further. Third, health problems encountered by today’s
office workers are to a great extent related to
inappropriate layout of their work-places (Marmaras
and Papadopoulos, 2002).
4.1 Generic Office Layouts
There are a number of generic types of office layouts
(Shoshkes, 1976; Zelinsky, 1998). The two extremes are
the private office, where each worker has his or her own
personal closed space or room, and the open-plan office,
where all the workstations are placed in a common open
space. In between are a multitude of combinations of
private offices and open plans. Workstation
arrangements in open plans can be either orthogonal,
with single, double, or fourfold desks forming parallel
rows, or with workstations arranged in groups,
matching the organizational or functional structure of
the work. A recent layout philosophy is the flexible
office, where the furniture and equipment are designed
to be easily movable in order to be able to modify the
workstation arrangement depending on the number of
the people present in the office as well as the projects or
work schemes themselves (Brunnberg, 2000). Finally,
to respond to the current need for flexibility in
organizations and the structuring of enterprises, as well
as to reduce costs, a new trend in office management is
the free address office or nonterritorial office, where
workers do not
584 EQUIPMENT, WORKPLACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
have a proper workstation, but whenever at the office,
use the workstation they find free.
Each type of layout has strengths and weaknesses.
Private offices offer increased privacy and better control
of environmental conditions, being easily fitted to the
particular preferences and needs of their users. On the
other hand, they are more expensive to both construct
and maintain, not easily modifiable to match changing
organizational needs, and render cooperation and
supervision difficult. Open-plan offices offer flexibility
in changing organizational needs and facilitate
cooperation between co-workers but tend to suffer from
environmental annoyances such as noise and suboptimal
climatic conditions as well as lack of privacy. To
minimize the noise level as well as to create some sense
of privacy in open plans, movable barriers may be used.
To be effective, the barriers have to be at least 1.5 m
high and 2.5 m wide. Furthermore, Wichman (1984)
proposes the following specific design
recommendations to enhance the working conditions in
an open-plan office:
• Use sound-absorbing materials on all major
surfaces wherever possible. Noise is often more
of a problem than expected.
• Equip workstations with low-noise technologi-
cal devices (e.g., printers, photocopy machines,
telephones). For example, provide telephones
that flash a light for the first two “rings” before
emitting an auditory signal.
• Leave some elements of design for the work-
station user. People need to have control over
their environments, so leave some opportunities
for changing or rearranging things.
• Provide both vertical and horizontal surfaces for
the display of personal belongings. People like to
personalize their workstations.
• Provide several easily accessible islands of pri-
vacy. This would include small rooms with full
walls and doors that can be used for conferences
and private or long-distance telephone calls.
• Provide all private work areas with a way to
signal willingness of the occupant to be
disturbed.
• Have clearly marked flow paths for visitors. For
example, hang signs from the ceiling showing
where secretaries and department boundaries are
located.
• Design workstations so that it is easy for drop-in
visitors to sit down while speaking. This will
tend to reduce disturbances to other workers.
• Plan for ventilation airflow. Most traditional
offices have ventilation ducting. This is usually
not the case with open-plan cubicles, so they
become dead-air cul-de-sacs that are extremely
resistant to post hoc resolution.
• Overplan for storage space. Designers of open-
plan systems, which emphasize tidiness, seem to
chronically underestimate people’s storage
needs.
The decision as to the generic type of layout should
be made by the stakeholders. The role of the ergonomist
here is to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of each
alternative to facilitate adoption of the most appropriate
type of layout for the specific situation. After this
decision has been made, the design team should
proceed to a detailed layout of the workstations. In the
next section we describe a systematic method for this
purpose.
4.2 Ergonomic Method for Office Layout
The ergonomic method proposes a systematic way to
design workplaces for office work. The method aims at
alleviating the design process for arranging the
workstations by reducing the entire problem to a
number of stages during which only a limited number
of ergonomic requirements are considered. Another
characteristic of the method is that the ergonomic
requirements to be considered have been converted to
design guidelines (Margaritis and Marmaras, 2003).
Figure 9 presents the main stages of the method.
Before starting the layout design, the design team
should collect data concerning the activities that will be
performed in the workplace and the needs of the
workers. More specifically, the following information
should be gathered:
• The number of people who will work perma-
nently or occasionally.
• The organizational structure and the organiza-
tional units that it comprises.
• The activities carried out by each organizational
unit. Of particular interest are the needs for
cooperation among the various units (and
consequently, the desired relative proximity
between them), the need for reception of external
visitors (and consequently, the need to provide
easy access to them), as well as any other need
related to the particularities of the unit (e.g.,
security requirements).
• The activities carried out by each worker. Of
particular interest are the need for cooperation
with other workers, privacy needs, the reception
of external visitors, and the specific needs such
as for lighting.
• The equipment required for each work activity
(e.g., computer, printer, storage).
At this stage the design team should also request
detailed ground plan drawings of the space concerned,
including all elements that should be considered as
fixed (e.g., structural walls, heating systems).
4.2.1 Stage 1: Determination of Space
Available
The aim of stage 1 is to determine the space where no
furniture should be placed, to ensure free passage by the
doors and to allow the necessary room for elements
such as windows and radiators, for manipulation and
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
• Available surface
• Required surface
• Organizational units
• Already-existing
closed spaces
•…
Placement of
organizational units
• Facilitation of cooperation
(internal and external)
• Ensure working conditions
meeting task requirements
• Utilization of already existing
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
(Figure 10). Allow for an area of 50 cm in front of any
window, an area of 3 m in front and 1 m at both sides of
the main entrance door, an area of 1.50 m in front and
50 cm at both sides of any other door, and an area of 50
cm around any radiator.
4.2.2 Stage 2: Design of Workstation Modules
The aim of stage 2 is to design workstation modules that
meet the needs of workers. Each module is composed of
the appropriate elements for the working activities:
desk, seat, storage cabinets, visitors’ seats, and any other
equipment required for the work. A
free space should be provided around the furniture for
passages between workstations as well as for
unobstructed sitting and for getting up from the seat.
This free space may be delimited in the following way
(minimum areas). Allow for an area of 55 cm along the
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
workstation; an area of 75 cm along the back side of the
desk (seat side); and an area of 100 cm along the back
side of the desk if there are storage cabinets behind the
desk.
A number of different modules will result from this
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
modules instead of by individual elements such as desks
and seats permits the designer to focus on the
requirements related to the overall layout of the
workplace, ensuring at the same time compliance with
requirements related to individual workstations.
4.2.3 Stage 3: Placement of Organizational
Units
The aim of stage 3 is to decide about the placement of
the various organizational units (i.e., departments,
working teams, etc.) within the various free spaces of
the building. There are five primary issues to be
considered here: (1) the shape of each space, (2) the
exploitable area of each space (i.e., the area where
workstations can be placed), (3) the area required for
each unit, (4) the desired proximity between units,
and (5) eventual particular requirements of each unit,
which may determine their absolute placement within
the building (e.g., the reception area should be placed
right next to the main entrance).
The exploitable area of each space is an approxi-
mation of the areas free of furniture defined in stage 1,
also considering narrow shapes where modules cannot
fit. Specifically, this area can be calculated as follows:
A A A
exploitable = total − where no modules can be placed
is the total area of each space and is the nonexploitable area,
where workstation modules should not or cannot be
placed.
The area required for each organizational unit can be
estimated considering the number of workstation
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
each other.
2. Place workstations at which external visitors
will be received near the entrance doors.
3. Place as many workstations as possible near the
windows. Windows may provide benefits in addition to
variety in lighting and a view (Hall, 1966). They permit
fine adjustment of light through curtains or venetian
blinds and provide distant points of visual focus, which
can relieve eye fatigue. Furthermore, related research
has found that people strongly prefer workstations that
are placed near windows (Manning, 1965; Sanders and
McCormick, 1992).
4. Avoid placing workers in airstreams created by
air conditioners and by open windows and 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).
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.
1. Orient workstations such that there are no
windows directly in front or behind workers when they
are looking toward a visual display unit (VDU). In
offices, windows play a role similar to that of lights: a
window right in front of a worker disturbs through
direct glare; one directly behind the worker produces
reflected glare. For this reason, ideally, VDU
workstations should be placed at right angles to
windows (Grandjean, 1987) (Figure 14).
2. To avoid direct glare, orient workstations such
that there are no direct lighting sources within
◦
±40 vertically and horizontally from the line of sight
(Kroemer et al., 1994).
3. Orient workstations to allow workers to observe
entrance doors.
Windows

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
4. Orient workstations to facilitate cooperation
between members of work teams. Figure 15 shows
alternative orientations of workstations, depending on
the number of team members and the presence or
absence of a leader (Cummings et al., 1974).
4.3 Concluding Comments
Given the complexity of workplace layout design, a
designer trying to apply the various ergonomic
guidelines in the various phases will almost definitely
encounter contradictions. To resolve them, he or she
should be able to focus on the guidelines that seem most
important for the case at hand and pay less attention
(eventually, even ignore) others. Good knowledge of
generic human abilities and limitations, the specific
characteristics of the people who will work in the
designed workplace, and the specificities of the work
that will be carried out are prerequisites for successful
decisions. Furthermore, the designer should demonstrate
an open and innovative mind and try as many solutions
as possible. A systematic assessment of these alternative
solutions is advisable to decide on the most satisfactory
solution. The participation of the various stakeholders in
this process is strongly recommended. The use of
specialized computer-aided design (CAD) tools may
prove very helpful when using the method presented,
greatly facilitating the generation and assessment of
alternative design solutions.
REFERENCES
Alder, D. (1999), Metric Handbook: Planning and Design
Data, 2nd ed., Architectural Press, New York.
Andersson, G., Murphy, R., Ortengren, R., and Nachem-son, A.
(1979), “The Influence of Backrest Inclination and
Lumbar Support on the Lumbar Lordosis in Sitting,”
Spine, Vol. 4, pp. 52 – 58.
Ankrum, D. R. (1997), “Integrating Neck Posture and Vision at
VDT Workstations,” in Proceedings of the 5th
International Scientific Conference on Work with Display
Units, pp. 63 – 64.
Ankrum, D. R., and Nemeth, K. J. (2000), “Head and Neck
Posture at Computer Workstations: What’s Neutral?” in
Proceedings of the 14th Triennial Congress of the Inter-
national Ergonomics Association, Vol. 5, pp. 565 – 568.
Bendix, T. (1986), “Seated Trunk Posture at Various Seat
Inclinations, Seat Heights, and Table Heights,” Human
Factors, Vol. 26, pp. 695 – 703.
Bridger, R. (1988), “Postural Adaptations to a Sloping Chair
and Work-Surface,” Human Factors, Vol. 30, pp. 237 –
247.
Brunnberg, H. (2000), “Evaluation of Flexible Offices,” in
Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, Vol.
1, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Diego,
CA, pp. 667 – 670.
Corlett, E. N., and Clark, T. S. (1995), The Ergonomics of
Workspaces and Machines, Taylor & Francis, London.
Cummings, L., Huber, G. P., and Arendt, E. (1974), “Effects of
Size and Spatial Arrangements on Group Decision-
Making,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 17, No.
3, pp. 460 – 475.
Czaja, S. J. (1987), “Human Factors in Office Automation,” in
Handbook of Human Factors, G. Salvendy, Ed., Wiley,
New York.
589
Dainoff, M. (1994), “Three Myths of Ergonomic Seating,” in
Hard Facts About Soft Machines: The Ergonomics of
Seating, R. Lueder and K. Noro, Eds., Taylor & Francis,
London.
Grandjean, E. (1987), Ergonomics in Computerized Offices,
Taylor & Francis, London.
Grey, F. E., Hanson, J. A., and Jones, F. P. (1966), “Postural
Aspects of Neck Muscle Tension,” Ergonomics, Vol. 9,
No. 3, pp. 245 – 256.
Grieco, A. (1986), “Sitting Posture: An Old Problem and a
New One,” Ergonomics, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 345 – 362.
Hall, E. T. (1966), The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday, New
York.
Helander, M. (1995), A Guide to the Ergonomics of Manu-
facturing, Taylor & Francis, London.
Jampel, R. S., and Shi, D. X. (1992), “The Primary Position of
the Eyes, the Resetting Saccade, and the Transverse
Visual Head Plane,” Investigative Ophthalmology and
Visual Science, Vol. 33, pp. 2501 – 2510.
Kroemer, K., and Grandjean, E. (1997), Fitting the Task to the
Human: A Textbook of Occupational Ergonomics, 5th ed.,
Taylor & Francis, London.
Kroemer, K., Kroemer, H., and Kroemer-Elbert, K. (1994),
How to Design for Ease and Efficiency, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lueder, R. (1986), “Work Station Design,” in The Ergonomics
Payoff: Designing the Electronic Office, R. Lueder, Ed.,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lueder, R., and Noro, K. (1994), Hard Facts About Soft
Machines: The Ergonomics of Seating, Taylor & Francis,
London.
Mandal, A. (1985), The Seated Man, Dafnia Publications,
Klampenborg, Denmark.
Manning, P. (1965), Office Design: A Study of Environment by
the Pilkington Research Unit, University of Liverpool
Press, Liverpool, Lancashire, England.
Margaritis, S., and Marmaras, N. (2003), “Making the
Ergonomic Requirements Functional: The Case of Com-
puterized Office Layout,” in Proceedings of the 15th Tri-
ennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Associ-
ation and the 7th Conference of the Ergonomics Society
of Korea/Japan Ergonomics Society.
Marmaras, N. and Papadopoulos, S. (2002), “A study of
Computerized Offices in Greece: Are Ergonomic Design
Requirements Met?” International Journal of Human-
Computer Interaction. Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 261 – 281.
Nachemson, A., and Elfstrom, G. (1970), “Intravital Dynamic
Pressure Measurements in Lumbar Disks,” Scandina-vian
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, Suppl., p. 1.
Sanders, S. M., and McCormick, J. E. (1992), Human Fac-tors
in Engineering and Design, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Shoshkes, L. (1976), Space Planning: Designing the Office
Environment, Architectural Record Books, New York.
Vitalis, A., Marmaras, N., Legg, S., and Poulakakis, G. (2000),
“Please Be Seated,” in Proceedings of the 14th Triennial
Congress of the International Ergonomics Association,
Vol. 6, San Diego, CA, pp. 43 – 45.
Wichman, H. (1984), “Shifting from Traditional to Open
Offices: Problems and Suggested Design Principles,” in
Human Factors in Organizational Design and Manage-
ment, H. Hendrick and O. Brown, Jr., Eds., Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Zelinsky, M. (1998), New Workplaces for New Work Styles,
McGraw-Hill, New York.