To improve the R&D environment, management needs to remove barriers to personal performance. Our work has identified two aspects of optimizing human performance that will ensure that an R&D environment is an effective part of any company's improvement process. The first involves redefining the work itself and understanding how workers physically interact with their surroundings. The second aspect addresses redesigning the lab environment to fit the worker.

REDEFINING THE WORK
Over the past twenty years, corporate giants and small firms alike have been subject to enormous economic and social changes in the R&D setting. But in spite of all the rhetoric about reinventing the workplace, most laboratory work is still performed in lab environments that have hardly changed in the last two decades. What must we do to spur an improvement in human performance in the lab? A major overhaul in the purpose and design of the work is required.

The term ergonomics means "the study of work." R&D organizations should particularly study how people interact with equipment and workstations. The aforementioned cumulative trauma disorders are signposts that work design is a barrier to operator performance. To support performance, work must be designed such that:

• Workstations, scientific products, laboratory layout, optical systems, and displays match the requirements of people, in terms of height, reach, and access.
• Differences in strength and body size among different workers are accommodated for in material-handling tasks, such as moving carboys and handling compressed gas.
• Barriers to productivity and human performance are removed by focusing on and understanding lab occupant feedback.

• Force - forces applied to create movement or stability.
• Frequency - repetitive or prolonged movements necessary to complete the required job tasks.
• Postures - joint angles and range of motion.
• Duration - prolonged applications of forces and posture.

Laboratory layout. Transportation waste not only increases the time that components spend in production and testing systems, but creates ergonomic risk by introducing multiple handling of products. When R&D facilities are not designed to support multiple product-oriented work areas, material has to be moved between departments. Typically, product is loaded into containers, and a batch, or large lot size, is delivered to the subsequent area. Upon arrival, the product is removed from the bin and processed. This sequence is repeated until the testing is complete. As components and containers increase in size, operators tend to subject themselves to awkward postures during handling and transportation. When multiple handling occurs, operators use these postures more frequently. The farther away items are stored from the central work area, the more time is lost. Advance determination of product flow patterns and centralized storage locations can reduce time and effort while minimizing multiple handling.

Efficient workstations. A workstation can be tailored to coincide with human anthropometry (the study of human measurements) to minimize extreme postures, improve task efficiency, and provide a safe work environment. Its design should minimize the distances workers must cover to retrieve materials and lab equipment, store items at heights that do not increase workers' bending or overhead reaching, position workstation surfaces at heights that promote neutral postures, ensure identical instrument and component locations throughout areas, and ensure sufficient storage space for materials and room for multitasking activities.

We have developed a nine-step model, shown below, for the implementation of an effective laboratory ergonomics agenda. The basic framework of the process is provided; customization and the development of a methodology that best supports your lab and operational needs are suggested.

NINE STEPS TO SUCCESS
1. Identify your opportunity. There are four important data sources that you can use to identify process improvement opportunities: injury and illness data, technician feedback, testing and quality data, and ergonomic risk assessment.

Injury and illness data refers to reviewing the injury and illness log at your facility to help identify where mismatches have occurred in the past. Technician feedback is the gathering of information describing potential lab workstation challenges as seen from the employees' perspective. Document all feedback. Testing and quality data cover evaluating testing and process quality data to identify which quality faults are derived from human performance problems and then seeing whether there are specific barriers in the existing job or process design that contribute to these problems. Conducting an ergonomic risk assessment will determine what areas have the highest risk. This information will allow you to prioritize which issues should be addressed first.

2. Form a cross-functional team. A general understanding of where the opportunities exist should result from Step 1. Deploy a cross-functional team to address these issues. Such a team could include technicians, supervisors, maintenance personnel, engineers, and health-and-safety personnel.

3. Define specific problems within the current process. Apply ergonomic principles to investigate the possible human performance issues and problems related to particular laboratory-based ergonomics challenges.

4. Define desired outcomes. Agree on the goal. Is it to eliminate the identified problem or to limit employee exposure to an acceptable level? Once the goal is established, a measure for performance can be agreed upon.

5. Define root causes and solutions. Understand the causes of problems and develop specific solutions. Some good resources for solutions are listed in the Laboratory Ergonomics Manual (Humantech, Ann Arbor, MI, 1997).

6. Evaluate the solutions for feasibility. Develop an approximate cost for the problems identified. Using existing analysis tools, define which solutions are easy to implement and which are challenging. Develop an estimate of the needed resources to solve the problem. Rank the recommendations on the basis of severity of the problem and the cost to fix it.

7. Implement solutions and track projects to completion. Use existing project management systems to follow these projects through to completion. Of course, document the process for future reference.

8. Measure progress. Track the progress of the project by using the performance measures agreed on in Step 4. Additional measures to track include the number of job improvements completed, percentage of jobs improved, number of injuries and illnesses, and percentage of employees experiencing pain and discomfort from their job tasks.

9. Reward and recognize. Improved employee morale, productivity gains, and improved product quality can result from the application of ergonomic principles. Recognizing the contributions of teams with public praise and appropriate rewards can maintain the momentum and keep the continuous improvement process going.

As a result of this ergonomic analysis, the laboratory provided a centralized storage point for material access and used a multipoint-access benchtop across a 37-in. arc-shaped layout. This layout permitted equipment to be easily shared across benches located no more than 29 in. apart. Inter-area material transfer was facilitated with the use of self-leveling carts, thereby reducing bending and reaching motions. The perimeter of the lab also allowed precision benchwork at a height of 44 in., with alternative bench locations for light handwork at 37 in. These areas were supported with instruments such as automated pumps, three-finger definite-measure pipettes, and washing dispensers that minimized effort while maximizing precision. The fumehood systems installed were state-of-the-art and promoted seated or standing access with no reaches beyond 22 in. Computer workstations were carefully selected for ergonomic considerations such as standing and seated keyboard accessibility, input device accessibility, and glare control through the use of indirect lighting.

Our firm provided pre- and postdesign evaluations of the lab over a twelve-month period. The results indicate that employee acceptance of the design has been tremendous. The throughput rate of testing increased with a corresponding drop in errors. The cost of an excellent laboratory environment was minimized by making many of the changes in layout and working heights. Additional incremental costs under $15,000 were incurred through the purchase of support equipment. This purchase resulted in a calculated payback period of less than ten months based on the net return on investment.