Library Technical Services

Furniture Replacement Program Final Report
October 1997

The Goals

• To create a workspace which best allows staff to complete their work in a positive, ergonomically correct work setting.
• To create a more visually appealing place to work.

The Review Process

Steven's Office Interiors was contracted to devise a plan to satisfy the goals outlined above. They interviewed and observed staff from each of the CTS processing units while the staff were performing typical workday activities. The Steven's staff came to the following conclusions:

1. The computer is never used alone. Each workstation must accommodate an adequate work surface to support those materials used in conjunction with computers--flyers, labels, ready-reference, etc.

2. People are of all different sizes but the furniture in CTS is not adjustable. Work surfaces need to be adjustable not only for today's workers, but for all future staff who will need to use the same furniture.

3. Some of the chairs we have are inappropriate for the staff using them--they differentiated between bad chairs and inappropriate chairs. Some people are sitting in good chairs which are of an inappropriate shape and size for their specific body shape.

Clutter leads to tension. Here they discussed three types of clutter:

• Visual clutter: everywhere one looks, there is clutter. Not only is there a lot of library material, but the arrangement and unique nature of much of the existing furniture is erratic and visually annoying.
• Physical clutter: there is a lot of material at each workstation, in the immediate surroundings of each workstation, and around the room in general.
• Psychological clutter: staff feel closed in, and assume a protective posture, as a result of all of the clutter in the immediate surroundings. This protective posture is typically harmful to the individual's ergonomic well-being. In addition, the clutter makes it difficult to achieve a sense of accomplishment. All staff see is more and more work to be done. It never ends.

Based on the report from Steven's Office interiors, a total of four sample workstations from Steelcase and Haworth manufacturers were installed in Olin 110 for a two month review by staff from the Central Technical Services Department, the Technical Services Support Unit, Gifts and Exchanges, and a few staff from the unit libraries.

A six-member task force representing all functional areas of CTS worked with John Hoffmann and Scott Wicks to facilitate the review process of the sample workstations. These facilitators offered instruction to each user at the beginning of his/her scheduled times to ensure a working knowledge of the flexibility of the equipment, to assist with proper ergonomic positioning, and to field questions regarding the operation of the equipment as they arise during the test period.

Each staff member had been asked to fill out a survey following the four-hour trial period with an emphasis on detailing what they found helpful, a hindrance, and why.

In addition, Alan Hedge, professor, Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, and his 1997 fall semester class performed ergonomic assessments on each of the four stations.

Recommendations

Based on our interaction with Steven's Office Interiors designers, the comments from the staff reviewers, and critical evaluations from Alan Hedge and his class, we recommend that a panel-driven system of workstation be adopted for widespread use in the Central Technical Services Department.

The basic panel-based workstation includes:

• sound absorbing wall panels
• height adjustable work surfaces able to support both sitting and stand-up configurations
• height and angle adjustable keyboard trays with correct mousing accommodations
• height adjustable shelving

Accessories include:

• task light
• document holder
• footrest
• computer monitor stand

Only a portion of the staff require all of the accessories listed.

This panel-based workstation fulfills the project goals:

• It creates a positive ergonomically correct work setting as well as a visually appealing place to work.
• The station makes more efficient use of existing space allowing staff a larger work area.
• The station allows for personalized storage of materials away from the work surface, thus removing much of the existing clutter.
• The keyboard and mouse trays are very flexible accommodating individual needs.
• The work surface is both height and side adjustable to accommodate left- and right- handed individuals of any body size.
• The panel design allows for a more private and quieter work space.

During the sample workstation testing phase, it became evident that the majority of actual users found the work surface configuration awkward to use as it did not allow for easy access to a writing surface while working at a computer. In response to this expressed criticism, an L-shaped work surface was placed into one of the sample workstations. Staff have given overwhelming support to the L-shaped work surface.

As is customary with any project of this magnitude, staff response was not universally positive to a panel-based system. There is a minority who feels that the panels give the sense that everything is closed in around them. One person's preference for the added privacy is another's feeling of stifling enclosure.

• The Central Technical Services Department is in the midst of planning for reorganization in response to a new focus on elimination of the cataloging backlog. The implications of this organizational change on deployment and levels of CTS staffing is likely to warrant a review of the room layout design originally submitted to CUL by the Steven's Office Interiors staff.

Budget and Implementation

Given the impending changes within CTS, it was agreed that new furniture purchases and associated facility changes should be confined to replacement furniture for an initial seventy-five staff, a slight reduction from the current staffing levels. That number may need to be adjusted up or down later, depending on the outcome of the planning currently taking place in CTS. (These figures do not include the four managers' offices.) Depending on the level of funding available for this project, implementation can be done either in one phase (with installations over a period of a few months), or in very distinct phases spread out over a period of three fiscal years. Here are the budget breakdowns for the two scenarios proposed.

Scenario 1: Complete the full replacement of all workstations in CTS

Scenario 2: Complete the full replacement of twenty-five workstations each fiscal year for the next three fiscal years

Note: Prices listed are for budgetary purposes only. After a project budget has been established, estimates will be requested from the vendors, thus allowing for more competitive pricing. Pricing discounts will be dependent upon project size . Contingency figures are listed to cover unknowns that might be encountered with the data and power changes (e.g., in the event it will be necessary to hire an asbestos abatement contractor to provide floor access holes within the asbestos floor tile in room 110.) Window treatment has not been included in the budget since it is assumed that the current blinds will adequately address glare problems.

Memorandum of the Director

Cornell University Library
Technical Services

To: Ross Atkinson
From: Christian Boissonnas
Date: October 10, 1997
Subject: CTS Furniture Replacement Program

I would like to recommend that the Library undertake a program to replace all furniture in CTS in rooms 111, 110, and 107.

As you know, we have been working hard for the past couple of years to reduce the incidence of Repetitive Motion Injuries in CTS. It is clear, from earlier reports, that ergonomically correct furniture is part of the answer. Most of the furniture currently in CTS does not provide the minimum flexibility to ensure that risk of injury to many staff is minimized, even marginally. Indeed, from the study directed by Prof. Hedges that was made last year, we found that 23% of CTS staff were at high risk of injury and another 67% at some risk. While we have been doing working on non-furniture aspects of the problem, through education and assessments done by the RMI Team, the time has come to address the furniture issue.

Last year Sarah Thomas authorized a project to evaluate ergonomically correct furniture from two vendors. This evaluation was just completed and is described in the enclosed report and proposal from Scott Wicks and John Hoffmann.

Scott and John are recommending that new furniture be purchased for approximately 75 CTS, G&E, and Technical Services Support personnel at a tentative cost of $235,000, if the replacement is to be done at one time, or $240,000 if it is to be spread over three budget years. At this point, about only about $50,000, which I am holding in reserve and could be applied to this project, have been identified.

Specifically, I am requesting authorization to develop a detailed implementation plan and related budget.

cc: Scott Wicks, John Hoffmann, Ann Dyckman, Lee Cartmill