Labmanager Logo
Man at his desk stands and stretches

iStock, martin-dm

Six Ways to Consider the Costs of Ergonomics in the Lab

A multi-factor approach is most effective

| 4 min read
Share this Article
Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
4:00

When you hear the word “ergonomics,” what comes to mind? An office worker slouching at the desk and developing back or wrist pain? A writer typing on a strange “ergonomic keyboard” that’s split into two halves and has peculiar wavy keys, looking like it was lifted off the set of Star Trek? Or a lab worker bending down and twisting to lift up a heavy carboy, instead of crouching and lifting with their legs?

All those situations illustrate ergonomics, good or bad. But ergonomic considerations aren’t limited to lifting boxes or data entry. There are many lab operations that could be optimized for greater ergonomics.

Lab manager academy logo

Get training in Employee Engagement and Wellbeing and earn CEUs.

One of over 25 IACET-accredited courses in the Academy.

Certification logo

Employee Engagement and Wellbeing course

Similarly, the costs associated with ergonomics aren’t just buying height-adjustable stools or paying for medical claims. While those expenses are necessary, there are other, more cost-effective ways to invest in your lab’s ergonomics and comfort.

Here are six dichotomies to examine and assess the costs associated with ergonomics for your lab:

People vs equipment

The common saying, “Fit the task to the worker,” concisely captures the purpose of ergonomics. Well-designed environments built with ergonomics in mind adapt to the user, rather than forcing the worker to adapt to arbitrary restrictions posed by the environment. This serves to enhance comfort and minimize the risk of injury. It also minimizes the unconscious, but still impactful, cognitive load that a poorly designed environment may foster, decreasing user error and enabling employees to work more efficiently. Ultimately, ergonomics is about people—not environment or machines.

Whether you’re outfitting a new lab or retrofitting your current lab, consider whether you’re investing in people or equipment. If you’re focused only on the technical specifications of the equipment and neglecting to consider usability and the unique needs of your staff members, you could be setting up your lab for problems down the road. Some helpful questions to ask include:

  • Does the new equipment demand strong forces from users?
  • Does the new equipment require frequent movements (e.g., twisting, pinch grip, high stretches)?
  • Do users have to sit or stand in awkward positions to use the equipment (e.g., bending low, cramped access, monitor below eye level)?
  • Does the equipment lack height-adjustable features?

A “yes” answer to any of the above questions should result in a reassessment of the equipment because it may not meet the unique needs of the workers.

Interested in Lab Leadership?

Subscribe to our free Lab Leadership Digest newsletter.

Time vs production

They say time is money. So, don’t waste either of those on equipment that could hurt your staff members’ health or lower their productivity.

Promoting well-being benefits not only staff, but the organization at large.

Equipment with a quality ergonomic design is not only healthier, but also easier and faster to use. Ergonomic design and intuitive design go hand-in-hand, so users will learn how to use the intuitive equipment more quickly than poorly designed equipment.

Remember: lab instruments are tools, and a good tool always makes work easier for its user, which in turn can increase productivity. Focusing on technical specifications, alone, without accounting for human factors typically results in poor outcomes for the worker and the science.

Well-being vs medical issues

Promoting well-being benefits not only staff, but the organization at large. “A gram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure,” as the adage goes. Many well-being initiatives, such as stretches, mental breaks, and yoga lessons come at low costs, especially on a per-employee basis. The costs that do exist are easily justified by the fact that the company won’t have to pay for as many injury compensation claims.

Furthermore, the gradual escalation of small annoyances and discomfort caused by bad ergonomics can erode company morale. If staff members complain to each other about finger pain associated with frequently grabbing lab instruments, for example, the negative effects on morale are high and can have long-lasting consequences for your lab.

Culture vs compliance

Culture is a group’s behaviors, habits, rituals, and traditions. It’s malleable and created organically.

Compliance relates to rules, regulations, and mandates. It’s inflexible and forced into existence.

Labs need both—but which of those would be more pleasant to work under?

Good ergonomics aren’t usually mandated by regulations. Rather, they are a product of a healthy culture and intentional consideration for worker well-being—an attribute that will carry over to other aspects of the lab.

So, just as you should fit equipment to staff’s physical ergonomic needs, you also should fit your lab’s overall safety culture to their psychological needs. Pay attention to the group norms that naturally emerge and adapt lab processes to fit those norms. Compliance with regulations is mandatory, but a strong culture, including through ergonomics, can help reduce regulatory pressure among staff.

Hard vs soft costs

Hard versus soft costs are unique in this list because they are less of a dichotomy and more a complementary pairing. Hard costs are explicit monetary values, while soft costs are more loosely defined and arise from issues around efficiency, staff time, etc. Both types of cost can be useful in assessing how a lab should be revamped for better ergonomics.

For instance, hard costs can be allocated for purchasing ergonomics equipment (ergonomic computer mice, lab stools, etc.), completing renovations to improve the overall ergonomics of the lab environment, and paying off medical claims.

So, just as you should fit equipment to staff’s physical ergonomic needs, you also should fit your lab’s overall safety culture to their psychological needs.

Meanwhile, soft costs can be used proactively in assessing risk, determining ergonomic needs, and more. They may be consumed due to the effects of poor ergonomics that give rise to inefficiencies, low morale, medical leave, and more.

Pre- vs post-work

Pre-work approaches should include conducting risk assessments for ergonomic hazards. It’s most efficient and effective to do this during initial lab set up (or with a new process). Assess the physical human factors: force, frequency, flexion (out of neutral position), finishing (time/duration), and fit (fitness or how it fits operators).

A post-work focus often deals with fixing people and processes after they’re damaged or retrofitting equipment once harm is observed. However, once the damage is done, the costs of worker treatment, equipment re-engineering, or process revisions are often much greater in time and money compared to pre-work approaches.

Worker well-being controls costs

Savvy lab managers will recognize that the six conflicts we note above are not always clear cut when it comes to ergonomic strategies. But generally, a holistic approach to ergonomics that promotes worker well-being results in healthier staff and serves to control costs. Focus on worker needs in every aspect of the lab’s design and workflow before any negative incidents occur.

Staff well-being can catalyze and maintain a culture of safety. Make sure to factor in both hard and soft costs when making decisions around well-being. Time is money, so make your staff’s time well-spent by making it easy to thrive productively.

About the Author

  • Jonathan Klane headshot

    Jonathan Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CSP, CHMM, CIT has enjoyed an EHS and risk career spanning more than three decades in various roles as a consultant, trainer, learning professional, professor, embedded safety director for two colleges of engineering, writer, and storyteller. He is Business Development, Sr. Manager | Advisor for Draeger, Inc. where he provides consulting services to customers. He is also a PhD candidate in human and social dimensions of science and technology at Arizona State University where he studies our risk perceptions and the effects of storytelling.

  • Holden Galusha headshot

    Holden Galusha is the associate editor for Lab Manager. He was a freelance contributing writer for Lab Manager before being invited to join the team full-time. Previously, he was the content manager for lab equipment vendor New Life Scientific, Inc., where he wrote articles covering lab instrumentation and processes. Additionally, Holden has an associate of science degree in web/computer programming from Rhodes State College, which informs his content regarding laboratory software, cybersecurity, and other related topics. In 2024, he was one of just three journalists awarded the Young Leaders Scholarship by the American Society of Business Publication Editors. You can reach Holden at hgalusha@labmanager.com.

Related Topics

Loading Next Article...
Loading Next Article...

CURRENT ISSUE - November 2024

The Blueprint for Lab Safety Success

Protecting your lab's greatest asset: its people

Lab Manager November 2024 Cover Image
Lab Manager Lab Health & Safety eNewsletter

Stay Connected with Lab Health & Safety News

Click below to subscribe to Lab Health & Safety eNewsletter!

Subscribe Today