A 11 IQ 2 ^ 2 T 3

1

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NISTIR 88-3871

Analysis of Work

Environment Data

from Three Army Field

Stations

Belinda L. Collins and Arthur I. Rubin

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

(Formerly National Bureau of Standards)

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

October 1988

Prepared for U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command

Arlington Hall, VA 22212-5000

-QC

100

* U 5 6

#88-3871

1988

c.2

NIST1R 88-3871

( v f O I ( Oil00

,

ft wo / £

ms

Analysis of Work

Environment Data

from Three Army Field

Stations

Belinda L. Collins and Arthur I. Rubin

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

(Formerly National Bureau of Standards)

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

October 1988

National Bureau of Standards became the National Institute of Standards and Technology on August 23, 1988, when the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act was signed. NIST retains

all NBS functions Its new programs will encourage

improved use of technology by U S industry.

Prepared for U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command

Arlington Hall, VA 22212-5000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS

AND TECHNOLOGY

Ernest Ambler, Director

Abstract

Data from a detailed evaluation of environmental conditions in three U.S.

Army field stations are presented. Three field stations were evaluated:

Kunia, Hawaii; Augsburg, West Germany; and Berlin, West Germany. Results

from a questionnaire administered to over 600 people at all sites in

three job types (operator, analyst, and administrative/other) are given

which indicate major concerns with conditions such as temperature,

lighting, space, furniture, equipment functioning, and general

environmental quality. Physical data obtained from measurements of over

270 workstations indicated the presence of cold temperatures, low light

levels, reduced VDT screen contrast, glare, and distracting noises. The

report provides the basic data which support the concerns expressed by

Headquarters; namely, that field station personnel perform their jobs

under conditions likely to impair their effectiveness. Suggestions for

improving conditions are given in a companion report by Rubin and

Collins

Keywords

Automation, contrast, environmental assessment, indoor air quality,

lighting, luminance, noise, post-occupancy evaluation, temperature, VDT's

iii
Foreword

This report is the third and final report in a series of reports by the

National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of Standards and

Technology) on the evaluation of conditions in U.S. Army field stations.

It was supported by the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command

(USAINSCOM) under contract No. A73050-0134-87

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the people at the field stations and at

headquarters who cooperated with us in the course of this research.

Without their willing and enthusiastic help, this report would not have

been possible.

Disclaimer

Any commercial products or tradenames mentioned in this report are included for informational purposes only, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology or the U.S. Army.

iv
Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1 . 1 Technical Approach 1 1.2 Field Measurements 1

2. Experimental Procedures ......... 2 2.1 Questionnaire Survey ................... 2 2.2 Physical Measurements ... ....... 2

3. Results from the Questionnaire 3 3.1 Demographic Responses 3 3.2 Response to Thermal and Air Quality Conditions 10

3.3 Response to Lighting Conditions 19

3.3.1 Lighting Quality . 19

3.3.2 Lighting Quantity 31

3.3.3 Task and Work Station Issues 38

3.3.4 Response to VDT's and Lighting Conditions 38

3.4 Response to Noise .... ....... 54

3.5 General Response to the Space 54

3.6 Response to the Condition of Furnishings 76

3.7 Response to Physical Well-Being 89

3.8 Desired Changes to the Facility 104

4. Suggestions for Improvements to the Facilities and Equipment . . 110.

4.1 Suggestions for Lighting 110

4.2 Suggestions for Equipment Changes 110

4.3 Suggestions for Workspace Changes 115

5. Physical Measurement Data 118

5.1 Background Information 118

5.1.1 Temperature and Humidity Measures 118

5.1.2 Acoustic Measurements 119

5.1.3 Illumination Measurements 119

5.2 Berlin Measurement Data 120

5.2.1 Lighting Measurements 120

5.2.2 Measurements of Temperature, Humidity, and Sound

Levels 127

5.2.3 Subjective Assessments . 128

5.3 Augsburg Measurement Data 129

5.3.1 Lighting Measurements 129

5.3.2 Temperature, Humidify and Noise Measurements .... 135

5.3.3 Subjective Assessment 135

5.4 Kurria Measurement Data . 136

5.4.1 Lighting Measurements 136

5.4.2 Measurements of Temperature, Humidity, and Sound

Levels 142

5.4.3 Subjective Assessments .... 142

v
6. Conclusions 144

7. References 146

Appendix

A 147
List of Figures

Figure 1. Length of time in present facility 4

Figure 2. Length of time in present job . . : 5 Figure 3. Number of years spent in field stations. 6 Figure 4. Percentage of males and females in each job type .... 7 Figure 5. Distribution of age groups in each job type 8 Figure 6. Percentage of people in each job type on each shift

schedule 9 Figure 7. Percentage of people in each job type indicating that

their work is important 11

Figure 8. Percentage of people in each job type indicating how

accurate that their work must be ... 12

Figure 9. Degree of satisfaction for people in each job type with

their job 13

Figure 10. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of

cold temperatures on days . 14

Figure 11. Percentage of people indicating the quality of heating

in their workspaces. . 15

Figure 12. Percentage of people indicating that their workstation

is bothersome because it is hot 16

Figure 13. Percentage of people indicating that their facility is

hot 17

Figure 14. Percentage of people rating the quality of the cooling

in their workstation 18

Figure 15. Percentage of people rating the quality of ventilation

and air circulation in their workspace 20

Figure 16. Percentage of people indicating that their workstation

is too stuffy 21

Figure 17. Percentage of people indicating that there are too many

drafts at their workstation 22

Figure 18. Percentage of people rating the quality of the air at

their workstation 23

Figure 19. Percentage of people rating the quality of the lighting

in the dining room at each field station 24

Figure 20. Percentage of people rating the quality of the lighting

in the break area for the field stations 25

Figure 21. Percentage of people rating the quality of their

lighting in their restrooms 26

Figure 22. Percentage of people rating the quality of lighting in

their work areas at each field station 27

Figure 23. Percentage of people indicating that their facility

contains poorly lit spaces 28

Figure 24. Percentage of people indicating that their facility has

soft lighting 29

Figure 25. Percentage of people indicating that their facility has

bright lighting 30

Figure 26. Percentage of people rating the amount of lighting in

their workspace 32

vii
Figure 27. Percentage of people rating the brightness/dimmness of the

light at present 33

Figure 28. Percentage of people rating their overall satisfaction

with their lighting . 34

Figure 29. Percentage of people indicating the truth of the

statement that lighting hinders their job performance. . 35

Figure 30. Percentage of people rating the effectiveness of the

location of ceiling lights 36

Figure 31. Percentage of people rating their ability to adjust

light for their tasks 37

Figure 33. Percentage of people rating the bothersomeness of glare

from ceiling lights 40

Figure 34. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of

overly dim lights 41

Figure 35. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of

the brightness of the overhead lights for reading print. 42

Figure 36. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of

glare from the overhead lights for reading print .... 43

Figure 37. Percentage of people indicating that the dimness of

overhead lights is bothersome for reading print 44

Figure 38. Percentage of people rating the quality of lighting for

reading 45

Figure 39. Percentage of people using VDT's who find reading

printed tasks to be bothersome 46

Figure 40. Percentage of rating people lighting quality for using a VDT 47

Figure 41. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness for

VDT use of glare from the overhead lights . 48

Figure 42. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of

the overhead light for using VDT 49

Figure 43. The percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness

of the screen angle for using VDT's 50

Figure 44. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of

the distance of the screen for using VDT's 51

Figure 45. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of screen brightness of VDT use 52

Figure 46. Percentage of people indicating the bothersomeness of screen flicker for using the VDT's . 53

Figure 47. Percentage of people indicating that they feel that the

facility is noisy 55

Figure 48. Percentage of people indicating that noise hinders their

ability to do their job. ... 56

Figure 49. Percentage of people indicating that printer noise is

bothersome ..... ......... 57

Figure 50. Percentage of people indicating that equipment noise is

bothersome . 58

Figure 51 . Percentage of people indicating the conversations of

other poeple are bothersome .............. 59

Figure 52. Percentage of people indicating that ringing telephones

are bothersome 60

viii
Figure 53. Percentage of people expressing overall satisfaction

with their work s[ace for each job category 61

Figure 54. Percentage of people rating the way their office spaces

look 63

Figure 55. Percentage of people indicating their feelings about the

adequacy of the facility of the job they do ...... . 64

Figure 56. Percentage of people indicating that they feel their

facility is pleasant .................. 65

Figure 57. Percentage of people indicating their feelings about the

maintenance of the facility. . 66

Figure 58. Percentage of people indicating thea they feel that

their facility is better than others 67

Figure 59. Percentage of people indicating that they feel confined

in their facility 68

Figure 60. Percentage of people indicating that they feel their

facility is stimulating 69

Figure 61. Percentage of people indicating that they feel their

facility is relaxing . 70

Figure 62. Percentage of people rating the color of the walls and

partitions in their workspace. ... 71

Figure 63. Percentage of people rating the overall colorfulness of

the facility 72

Figure 64. Percentage of people indicating that the absence of a view out is bothersome 73

Figure 65. Percentage of people indicating that they miss having a view out in their job. ... 74

Figure 66. Percentage of people indicating that they would like to

know about the weather ......... . 75

Figure 68. Percentage of people indicating that people being too

far apart is bothersome 78

Figure 69. Percentage of people indicating that other people being

too close is bothersome 79

Figure 70. Percentage of people indicating that others can overhear

their conversations. .... ......... 80

Figure 71. Percentage of people rating the amount of visual privacy

at their workspaces. .................. 81

Figure 72. Percentage of people rating the amount of space

available for doing work ..... 82

Figure 73. Percentage of people rating the amount of wall and desk

space available for personal items ........... 83

Figure 74. Percentage of people rating the amount of surface area

in their workspace for doing work 84

Figure 75. Percentage of people rating the bothersomeness of the

amount of room for paper tasks ....... 85

Figure 76. Percentage of people rating the quality of the furniture

in the workspace 86

Figure 77. Percentage of people rating ther overall condition of

furniture in their workspace ...... 87

Figure 78. Percentage of people indicating that other people have

better furniture than they have. ............ 88

IX
Figure 79. Percentage of people rating the general condition of

their chair 90

Figure 80. Percentage of people rating the ease of adjusting the

back of their chair 91

Figure 81. Percentage of people indicating that their chair is

bothersome for VDT use 92

Figure 82. Percentage of people rating the overall comfort of their

chair. . . 93

Figure 83. Percentage of people indicating that the height of the

desk is bothersome for print tasks 94

Figure 84. Percentage of people indicating that they have enough

equipment to do their job 9 5 Figure 85. Percentage of people indicating that they need more time on a VDT to do their work properly 96

Figure 86. Percentage of people indicating the frequency with which

they get headaches 97

Figure 87. Percentage of people indicating that they are frequently

sleepy 98

Figure 88. Percentage of people indicating that they frequently

have sore throats 99

Figure 89. Percentage of people indicating that their eyes are frequently irritated 100

Figure 90. Percentage of people indicating that their ears are frquently infected 101

Figure 91. Percentage of people indicating that they have frequent

colds 102

Figure 92. Percentage of people indicating that they frequently

have sinus problems. ............ 103

Figure 93. Choices selected as desired changes to the facility in

berlin . . ............ 105

Figure 94. Choices selected as desired changes to the facility in

augsberg ..... 106

Figure 95, Choices selected as desired changes to the facility in

kunia, 107

Figure 96. Choices selected as desired changes by different job

categories for all sites 109

x
List of Tables

Table 1. Summary Comments About Improvements to Lighting. ... Ill

Table 2. Desired Changes to Equipment 113

Table 3. Desired Changes to Space ............... 116

Table 4. Physical Measurement Data from Berlin ... 121

Table 5. Physical Measurement Data from Augsburg. ....... 130

Table 6 Physical Measurement Data from Kunia 137

xi

1 . Introduction

Many military and civilian employees of the U.S. Army are required to

work in an office environment often unlike those experienced by most

other workers. Their working environments are characterized by windowless

spaces, highly automated equipment, and work tasks requiring utmost

concentration. These conditions have led to employee complaints

concerning lighting, air quality, thermal environmental conditions, lack

of view to the outside, and rotating work schedules that add stress to an already complex work situation.

Because the working conditions described above are believed to detract

from job performance, the U.S. Army sought assistance in identifying the

problems and developing guidelines for suggesting environmental and other

changes to ameliorate the problems. Solutions to the problems are complex, because many interdependent conditions impact the work

environment of the individual. These conditions are based on the work

performed, and environmental conditions, as well as design,

technological, ergonomic, organizational, and personal issues.

1 . 1 Technical Approach

The study was performed in two phases. The first consisted of a literature search, interviews with experts, and planning and conducting a pilot study at two field sites. Results from the initial evaluation are presented in a report by Rubin and Collins (1987). The second phase was

a comprehensive field investigation at three sites, including in-depth

interviews with personnel, a detailed questionnaire survey, and field

measurements of lighting, air quality, noise and other environmental

attributes. Two reports describe results from the study. The present

one provides physical data on the conditions at the field stations as well as the occupants' reactions to them, while a companion report by

Rubin and Collins (1988) describes the highlights of the results

presented here, as well as suggestions and recommendations for improving

conditions

1.2 Field Measurements

The environmental assessment reported in the present report involved two

major sources of data collection. The first was a determination of the user response to conditions at the field stations, while the second

involved detailed physical measurements of the same conditions. User

response data were obtained in several ways: in-depth personal interviews

with key people; responses to a detailed environmental questionnaire from

a representative sample of site personnel; and observations of working

environments and jobs. Physical data included measurements of light

levels and contrasts, noise, temperature, humidity, and (limited) air

quality, as well as observations of furniture condition, colors used in

the facilities, and noise distractions.

1
2. Experimental Procedures

Three field stations were examined in detail; Kunia, Hawaii; Berlin,

Germany; and Augsburg, Germany. The activities performed and the general

environmental settings at these locations are representative of similar

installations throughout the world. The three stations visited were all

windowless facilities, with Kunia actually being underground.

2.1 Questionnaire Survey

Detailed environmental questionnaires were distributed to a sample of the

people at all sites. (A copy of the questionnaire appears in appendix

A. ) The individuals sampled were selected on the basis of the

activities performed and their location. For convenience, three groups

of occupants were identified based on the primary tasks performed:

operators (who collect information), analysts, and administrative, (which

also includes clerical and maintenance)

A breakdown of the questionnaire sample by location is as follows:

Operators Analysts

Kunia 154 (56%) 77 (28%)

Augsburg 124 (57%) 52 (24%)

Berlin 69 (53%) 32 (24%)

Total 347 161

Physical Measurements

Admin Total

42 (15%) 273

41 (19%) 217

30 (23%) 131

113 621

Concurrent with the questionnaire survey, measurements of several

physical environmental characteristics were made. These included

lighting measures (luminance and illuminance), noise, temperature,

humidity, air flow and physical dimensions of workstations. Other

assessments included color, sound intrusiveness, chair and panel design

and quality, furnishings and wall type, carpets and personalization of

space. (The form used in collecting these data is included in Appendix

A.) While the physical data are presented in detail in section 5,

selected findings will be discussed as they relate to data obtained from

the occupants with the questionnaire.

Physical measurements were taken at a total of 279 workstations. The

breakdown of measures were as follows: 62 at Berlin, 79 at Augsburg and

138 at Kunia. An earlier set of measures from Kunia was reported in

Rubin and Collins (1987). The primary focus of these measures was on the

lighting conditions at the workstation with a major variable being the

presence or absence of VDT's. For the 279 workstations, there were 171

workstations with VDT's, and 108 without them.

2
3. Results from the Questionnaire

Responses to the questionnaire were graphed showing the percentage of

respondents (based on the total number in the sample) on the ordinate and

response to an individual questionnaire item on the abscissa. In each

figure, the responses of each of three different groups, administrators,

analysts, and operators, are compared for the three field stations. The

three graphs have been shown in a single figure for easier comparison.

Data for Berlin are always presented first, followed by those for

Augsburg, and finally those for Kunia. This presentation allows a comparison of the responses for the different job categories as well as for the different field stations.

3.1 Demographic Responses

Respondents were classified according to their response to the question,

"Which of the following best describes your job?". The administrative

category shown on the graphs includes administrative, clerical and other,

while the operator and analytical categories did not require any

combination. Typically, administrative and clerical people are located

in "conventional" offices, analysts are located in open plan offices, and

operators are located in heavily automated offices with much VDT-like

equipment. The result of this classification is to separate people doing

different types of functions into different types of spaces. (The only

exception to this is the maintenance and repair people who classified

themselves as "other" and so are included in the administrative

responses) . Using this categorization, 56% of the whole sample were classified as operators, 26% as analysts, and 18% as either

administrators, clerical, or other. This same breakdown was used for all

3 sites.

Figures 1 to 3 present data for the length of time that people had worked

in their current facility, job, or similar facility. At all 3 field

stations, about 40% of the administrators had been at the site for two or more years, 30% to 40% of the analysts had been there that long, while 60

to 70% of the operators had spent only one or more years. No clear

pattern of responses emerged for the question about the length of time in

the present job, with people having spent from 3 months to more than 2 years in their current job. The only exception is that 40% of the

operators at Augsburg and Kunia had spent 1 to 2 years in their job.

Finally more than 40% - at all sites - had spent less than 1 year in a facility like their present one.

Figure 4 demonstrates that the vast majority of the sample, 70 to 80%, was male, while figure 5 demonstrates that administrators and analysts

were generally between 20 and 30 years of age, but operators tended to be

younger, with 40 to 55% being between 20 and 25. Figure 6 presents a breakdown of the respondents' current shift. As expected, operators were

on all three shifts, although those at Kunia tended to be on days or

3
J© «8«)u«a<jod

U

o

03 Utu

=5®^^© *!«0«-8®I3 «$@ @ ^ ©6><£ ® <£< 4

i«xlO J©
Length

of

Time

in

Present

Job

Length

of

Time

in

Present

Job

Admlnlilritors,

CUrkol,

Othtr

"UIVUPV J0 5

i*4q J® 09««umj»4 («|OX

Time

B«rHi»

EZ3

Augaburg

l///\

kunla
UIUJPV •9Q)U«oj*d

Time

Berlin

l\\l

Aujeburg
Sex

of

Administrators

Sex

°1

Analysts

l«3|JafO uiujpv jo ^Isiudojed

7 *JOi«Jedo JO *8ni UJOJad • ioi

Berlin

l\\]

Augsburg

X///X

Kunie
Age

of

Administrators

Age Qf

Analysts

A

lt

In

Yoars

B«rlln

l\\l

Au|ibur|

V//X

Kunlt
Administrator

Shift

Analyst

Shift

0«7>

Strinfo

Midi
mids (overnight) 1 , while most of those at Berlin and Augsburg were on swings (afternoon) or mids. At both Augsburg and Kunia, the

administrators and analysts tended to be on days (all the analysts at

Kunia were on days, for example) while those at Berlin were most likely

to be on days or swings

.

Several questions were asked about overall job satisfaction and

attitudes. Figure 7 demonstrates that more than 50% of respondents from

all job categories and sites considered their work very important. (In

this figure a rating of 1 indicates that it is very true that the work is

"important", 2 that it is "somewhat important", 3 that "it is not very

true", and 4 that it is "not at all " true.) Interestingly, the feeling

that the work is important was greatest for the analysts with more than

60% rating their work as "very important". Figure 8 shows that more than

50% of the whole sample considered that their work must be "very

accurate", with more than 70% of analysts considering this statement to

be "very true". Less than 5% of the respondents considered this

statement as not true at all. Finally figure 9 demonstrates that the

majority of respondents considered their jobs to be at least somewhat

satisfying, with the analysts among the most satisfied. By contrast,

about 15% of the operators did not find their jobs to be satisfying,

while another 15 to 20% found that "it is not very true" that their job

is satisfying.

3.2 Response to Thermal and Air Quality Conditions

Figures 10 to 18 present data on the respondents' views of conditions at

their workstation, including temperature, ventilation and indoor air

quality. In particular, figures 10 to 14, which relate to temperature,

reveal that the Berlin and Augsburg field stations were generally seen as too cold - particularly in the operational areas. More than 50% of the

Berlin analysts also reported being too cold. On the other hand, more than 40% of the administrators and operators at Kunia did not find cold

temperatures (figure 10) to be at all bothersome. Figure 11 demonstrates

that more than 60% of respondents in Berlin found the heating to be poor,

as did the operators in Augsburg. Figures 12, 13, and 14 indicate that

overheating was not considered to be a problem at any field station. The

questionnaire was administered during late June and early July at the two

German field stations when the outdoor temperatures were not especially

cold. (External temperatures at Kunia in April were warmer, however,

than at the two German sites.) Personnel reported being extremely cold

during the winter - and needing to wear field jackets and gloves at work.

The measurements of temperature presented in section 5 for the three

field stations indicate that the mean interior temperature at Berlin and

Augsburg was about 70°F with a relative humidity of about 44% for Berlin

and about 53% for Augsburg. The mean interior temperature at Kunia was higher - 73.5°F with a relative humidity of about 58%. Temperatures

^Shifts include "days", typically 7am to 3pm; "swings", typically,

3pm to 11pm; and "mids", typically 11pm to 7am.

10
Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

_

Work

it

Important

Work

le

Important

HO

0%

-| ®

_

3

jemo 'U1BIPV io 11

B

ated

Troth

Btrlln

t\\l

Augafcmrg

U//X

Kumia
0) XX

•§-

-> Jg JS u

f.1 w

J=

4J c

OS u

m WU

a 3 o <->

«g S ° j=

OS b£> bO C

OS u u #

C 91 XI

01 u

U -n ii h fl 91

as c 3

a. h £

oo

asVj3

bO

Efa

©•rBi«

K\\T

Augsburg

Kfr/fl

fXunlle
Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

My

Job

le

Stfltfying

My

Job

ft

Sifltfylng

oB*M>0 *tsvuufpv JO •V«)U*o«l»d 13

R

atcdl

Truth

®*

r,,n

CS-3

Aujtburg

t///A

Kunlt
n

a> c M o

4J

00 m2c 3 •H w

ffl ^ O <d £ a e E

Em

*-•

H

£<3

«4-l

W o 01

a)c « (0

t)0 E

<0 o

4J 01 c i-i a> V u X 0) u u

Q) o 03

ft* 0Q o

<uw3

00

*-1

£t>

14

io

Bothir $

34

V.ry

Bolh.r
Workspace

Quality

-

Admin

-

AH

Sites

Workspace

Quality

-

Analysts

JO

Or

-i

0) -C to 4J a)y

<0 bo a

c w

•H

4-> S-l as o u S i-i T3 S-i C i-i

t-4 0)

®

—i C

Cl i-i O

V 00c

iH

JJ

4-1 (Q O <0 X

<0 4-1 bO O

<0 « >4 C 4J ® i-t O —

(

M <s <u 3

o'

o>

i-i 3

b£)

J#M*0 'U1U1PV J© ***> B » <o *• Ktox

15

RstBnge

B«Hln

1\M

Augsburg

X///A

Kunla
• )8Xl«UY JO »0«)U*OJ«a

4J <D

03 co JC D u 03U

m

t-4

a) U E 03 o

O CO •H u

T3 <D HHC Xu

o

0) CQ

clo

CO

0) a c

4-1 W

o to

Cfl Ol ^ 00 u

CO O

c

V

o

Vj

<u Cu

ox

U V)

Q) -C u

•U *H

Vu

3

00

•^1 u,

j«qiO *l»o|joi3 'niuipv jo jIviuMJtd •jo>«j»do jo ••«)u«oj*4 |«>ox

16

R

»>«d

Quality

Berlin

(X33

Augsburg

V7/X

Kunls
Feelings

About

Facility

Feelings

About

Facility

a^tXicuv jo oSoueojed

•U

03 J3u

aoC

4J

CO

CJ O

C

0) -w

ao u

cfl ctj j_> fc, C

0) b

CJ -H

m

OJVj3

ao

i-t ba

't«aM*t3 'uiuipv i o cfniucojed 17

CJO^tjado jo efB^uaojod i«)Oi

R

ated

Quality

Berlin

l\J

Augsburg

[///^

Kunia
Workspace

Quality -

Admin -

All

Sites

Workspace

Quality -

Analysts

Cooling

Cooling

ttaXiouv jo alatucajcj

<0

C 3 O

O' **-* u

<0 CO X i-> w wX

60

U c o

-t 3 4-> (0 l-i O' -H

<o <o X —I U

a.o c

<0

—l

Oh

60

4-1

C

O

10 o

60

O

CO

U

4JC <0 <0 X O 4J

1-1 10 u-i CU O

0)

1-1 3

60

®!

un H

777A

9jmq.»i> V

|V\] uM

J»8

a»un«8
recorded by Rubin and Collins (1987) in December 1986 for Kunia were somewhat lower - between 66 °F and 71 °F, particularly on the operations

floor. Individual temperatures at all sites were generally cooler in

operations, often between 65 and 70°F because of equipment needs.

Responses to questions about ventilation (figures 15 - 17) do not show a particularly consistent pattern among job types or field stations. Thus

figure 15 indicates that administrators and operators at all 3 sites were about evenly divided in their ratings of good, fair, and poor. Analysts

in Berlin and Augsburg tended to rate the ventilation as good while those

in Kunia saw it as poor. (In Berlin, ventilation around the latrines was particularly poor with offensive odors extremely common.)

In general, Figure 16 indicates that respondents, particularly operators,

did not find their work station to be "too stuffy", although about 35% of

the analysts at Kunia indicated that stuffiness was "very bothersome".

Too many drafts emerged as a problem for more than 40% of the operators

in Augsburg, and about 35% of the analysts in Berlin. Yet 40% of

administrators and analysts at Kunia were not bothered by drafts (figure

17). Figure 18 suggests that in Kunia, analysts found air quality poor

while the administrators found it to be good. Administrators and

operators at all three sites tended to find their air quality to be

"good" or "fair" although more than 20% at Berlin found it to be poor.

Thus, the analysts, who are often cramped for space, complain most of

stuffiness and poor air quality in their offices.

3.3 Response to Lighting Conditions

3.3.1 Lighting Quality

Figure 19 to 31 present data on lighting conditions at the three sites.

The first four figures (19 to 22) present overall attitudes about general

lighting quality in specific locations. Figure 19 indicates that

lighting quality in the dining room was judged to be "pretty good" or "excellent", with very few negative ratings. Similarly, the break areas were judged to be "pretty good", particularly by operators, for ail 3 sites. Analysts and operators were more positive about lighting quality

in restrooms, while administrators, particularly those in Berlin were somewhat more negative. Figure 22 suggests that administrators at Kunia

were quite positive about the lighting quality in their workspace with

80% considering it good or excellent. Administrators at the other 2 sites were also reasonably positive, although about 35% at Augsburg

considered their workspace lighting "not very good" or "poor" . About 50%

of the analysts at Berlin rated their lighting as "not very good" or "poor", while analysts at Augsburg and Kunia were more positive.

Finally, operators in Berlin and Kunia rated their workspace lighting

more favorably than those in Augsburg. Of the four spaces shown in

figure 19 to 22, the workspace received the fewest "excellent" and the

most "poor" ratings for lighting quality.

19
Quality

-

Admin

Workspace

Quality

-

Analysts

Ventilation

and

Air

Circulation

V.nlll.tlon

and

Air

Circulation

Excel

2

34

Poor
Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

Bothersomeness

in

Workstation

Too

Stuffy

7nnr

Too

Stuffy

<0 £4J

00c

O 3

Zl *> C

1-1 o

o

4J

<va Cfl o "

Q.

«> &c

o

14-1 *-> o w

4-1 tn « ^

b0 u

03 O

4J 3

c

V 3-i o *4

34 V

a> £ & 4J

<u

>-i 3

60

JBUtO , t*OU«l3 UtUIpV JO •fVIUBOJBd BJo^ijtdo Jo Bli)U«aj*d

21

Very

Bother
•)«Xi«uy jo tltiuMJCd

U U

03 -H

JZ V

4-> J=

00C 4-1 U

COo cn

**—! 4J T> <4-1 c <o M U. Q

a> —4 >•* a c

o <o

<U B

Du O

<4-1 O

O 4J c

9J ® O

00 V4

<8 as 4-1 4J CO C ... v cn

a> w ^ ^ p a> ^ -U

<0> Vj3

&0

jemo '!«ou»0 'UjUipv J© OJOiejedQ JO 22

tlv%ueoj*d («)oi

Very

Bother
•u

to3

O'

0) C X o U -wu

b£) <T3 C J-> —

4

tn u j* « !-i 0£ O3

0) —» 1-1 P>- iH O 01

0) J=

CU 4J

<4-1 4J 0 CO

01 U

ao i-i

CO <

u

C cu

01 X

U 4J

1-1 <0 4-1 C4 O

<VU

3

b£)

°r-4 u<

Rated

Quality

Ber,,n

EZ3

Augsburg

1

Z//A

Kurils
3 -O Or •»M

«i <

^ 4-> U cfl

o 3 o O'*

.2 g> w .5 bO 5

eieXi«uv jo ot«)u«oj»d

c

1-1

•pi Q

•U

CT3 cu cc X

u

<D *—

<

C

a. •H C

o 0

a) a. bOc

•HU

14-4 *i—

i

4J

<0 •U o pC CO b0

CU -cH T3 bO *—

4

CO a;

4-1 •H c 0) a>u •U jr

4-1 a

a) <4-1 CT3 a, O a;

Ov

*—)

0)

>-J bO

•H

fctj

c

3

a 3

AS <

C

ffi

24 0JO)«J*dO jo »l«)U*M«d |«)01 f«oueiD U{Ujpv JO OlQIUAOJAd
Lighting

Quality

-

Analysts

U

4J O

• 3

3 A

*8 <

C

41 m

e)U*puod«»bI jo «I»^u«oJ»di

to cO

« < A s/ M

*“ cQ

AJ

CQ <D os A

0)

c=“l c

to o c

0) 0

Oi

4-4 c

4J

•»*4 U

03 O •c

bO

4J on

a> T1*! t)0 "0

to «—

4

U a; c a •H

0) Cn u

«u

0)

<u <4-1 .c

04 O -u

o

CM

<u

S-I 3

&0

i-i t,

Ratings

___

Berlin

l\

XJ

Augsburg

X///A

Kunla
-*e*4*0 • \ 80IJ9I0 'Uliupv JO aSoiUSOJSd 26 •JOlliXlO J°

Excel
4=

4J u

03Q)

030 4J O' 01

<u W

03a

j-i ao <

C

i—t 4d

•U

CO 0

cd 3

<U S-i ——

i

t-t a <0 o 4=

0) U

Bj c

tw 1-1 c

O o

ao •H

<u C 4-) 60 •tH 03

CO 4J u

•U j= cn c ao

0J •H "O

CJU 0)

aj CW 1-1

Ou, O

CM

CM

<U

J-l D

ao

iu

N !»?Oi •^16 »» •B«iU03j*cj 27

*.!«. 40 i»nu«w»il

IRaMng®

Berlin

l\\J

Augsburg

XZ//A

Kunla
28

JRellad

Quality

B«Hlm

l\>J

Augsburg

tZ//A

Kunla
Feelings

About

Facility

Feelings

About

Facility

Son

U|Mln|

,

00

.

_

Son

Lighting

JO •t*)U«OJ*d

u

CQ X4J

60 ^ CiO 7? c

1 “

£

J

u

m ^

-S O

a, w

©

o «

Qi «f=i SO U

<S 5! u U, C

U Wi W "pH Lj <U

CSI u

3

ao

I-) fe

I<ii>IJ>I 3 ttituoir jo staiuauej 29 ejo^vjedo jo «V«iu*oj*j

R

ated

Quality

8,r "

r

>

1X3

Aujoburj

j///\

Kunls
30 ojo)Cj»do j© ol*)u»oj*rf
A series of questions (figures 23 to 25) dealt with general feelings

about the lighting quality in the facility. Figure 23 does not reveal

any clear attitude about the overall lighting quality with respondents

evenly divided among the 5 categories, except for the Berlin analysts.

About 50% of the latter consider their space to be poorly lit. In

general, most respondents considered their facilities to be neither

"softly" nor "harshly" lit (figure 24) and neither "bright" nor "dim"

(figure 25), with 40% or more responding neutrally to these questions.

3.3.2 Lighting Quantity

The pattern of answers is more definitive for questions directly related

to workstation lighting needs. For example, figure 26 presents responses

to a question about the amount of workstation light. In general, about

40 - 50% of the respondents believed their lighting was "good" or "excellent" . In fact almost 90% of administrators at Kunia were very

positive about the amount of light. Those at Berlin and Augsburg

considered the amount to be "good" or "fair". Operators and analysts at

all sites also tended to see the amount of light as "good". (At all

three field stations, operators had deliberately reduced lighting levels

to reduce glare on their VDT screens by removing lamps, adding paper

diffusers, or switching off sources.)

Analysis of the data for lighting levels, presented in section 5,

indicates that the mean illuminance was always highest in the

administrative areas and lowest in operational areas for all three sites,

(as good practice would suggest) . Overall lighting levels were lowest

for Augsburg, however, with the mean illuminance for (310 lux)

administrators without VDT's being 200 lux less than for the same type of

space in Berlin and Kunia. Lighting levels were much lower for operators

with means of 127 to 197 lux. The levels for analysts with VDT's were

also low with a mean illuminance of 188 lux at Berlin, 144 lux at

Augsburg, and 276 lux at Kunia. While contrasts on the VDT screens were higher at the lower light levels, contrasts on paper tasks in the same space were quite low. For the analysts who do both paper and VDT tasks,

the light levels are low enough to make it difficult to work with paper

copy, particularly computer printouts.

Figure 27 indicates that at least 40% of analysts in Berlin felt their

light was too dim - all other respondents were "neutral" on this

question. Figure 28 provides further evidence of the dissatisfaction of

the Berlin analysts with their lighting. About 65% were "less than

satisfied" with their lighting. Most other respondents, however, were reasonably satisfied, with 78% of Kunia administrators considering their

lighting to be "good" or "excellent". Operators appeared to be more satisfied than dissatisfied, although their responses were fairly evenly

distributed across the categories. Figure 29 indicates that all

respondents did not believe that lighting seriously hinders their job

performance, although at least 30% at each site thought that there was

some negative impact.

31
Workspace

Quality

-

Admin

Workspace

Quality

-

Analysts

Amount

of

Sighting

Amount

of

Light

AvolUblt

1

—

1

TO.05S

T

4Jc

3

oI

o

bO * C

bO -t

<8 4-1 u j: C bO « n* U J

L4® <4-1 Cw O

%o

CM«

1-1 8. ei*^!»uv jo tlvtutMej

(R«ilin|§

9

«r 8

tn

!l\\H

Augtbufrg

Kunlo
Amount

of

Light

Available

Amount

of

Light

Available & u

JZ c U 0)w0)

1-1 00 Oh

ca jj00

1-1 4) -) <U O « ® M-l Od n

4-JO0) (/) 00 W

CO 0) u C C «

<U -C U 00

l-i *H

0) l-i 0w 03

CM

01

1-1 3

00 u,

of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Ujhtme

Hinder.

Job

Perform.

nee

?n^^

U«htln«

Hinder.

Job

Perform.nce

0) bO X c U i-l 4J X

bO bO C

iu hJ u

03a

4J

03 oj

i-i

y

•o c c U 03

l-l E

4J 5-i c O

<u 0) 4-1 E S-i a 0) 03 o 4J CU

a) 03 0. U

X

</> on 4-io a; Ui X lU

4J 03 03 X

bO 4-1 •u

03 •U 0

tn

C 5-i aj X 03 u ±J "0

J-! 3 c

03 4)

CL.

H

X

esi

03

5-i 3

bO

i-i tu

R

ated!

Truth

Berlin

l\

\J

Augsburg

j///A

Kunli
0) <4-1 X O

4J c

to o c rj

4J

<0 0£

<0oo

-J

®

CL, iMo o 0) « •U

0)

X Q) 00

a> c —4 00 4) X a >

4J »4 00 c 4J c U »4 ou <4-f <*r«i 9) (4-1 0) Ou W u on®3

00 l)tiC|«UV JO •Sl)U»OJ«4
Workspace

Quality -

Admin

Workspace

Quality -

Analysts

Ability

to

Adjust

Light^M

Ability

to

Adjust

Light

JO

>-i

m

-A .62 V W X q

*->

H

)-i

® 4J ^ x a ao o ^ ® j

a.o

4J«3

"“i T3< ® O

60 4J

<S AJ >> C AJ U

t! Om XI<

j-i 3

60

£*<

fialid

Quality

Berlin

l\

\1

Augsburg

V'Z/A

Kunia
Figure 30 suggests that light location was good to excellent for

administrators in Kunia, but was only good to fair for administrators at

the other 2 sites. While 40% of the analysts believed that the light

location was good, another 40% believed that it was fair to poor - a pattern which is even more apparent for operators. Figure 31 presents

data on a major cause for the dissatisfaction with lighting - namely, the

ability to adjust light for the task. Respondents at all sites rated

their control over adjusting light as "very poor", with 70% of the

analysts being particularly negative.

3.3.3 Task and Work Station Issues

The next series of figures (32 to 38) deal with potentially bothersome

aspects of the lighting for the work station and task. Figure 32

indicates that the majority of at all respondents did not consider glare

reflected from their work surface to be bothersome. Figure 33 indicates

that administrators at all sites did not consider glare from ceiling

lights to be a problem. On the other hand, Berlin analysts were evenly

divided between those who believed ceiling light glare was or was not

bothersome. Similarly, about 50 to 60% of all operators believed glare

was not a problem, but 40 to 50% believed it was. Figure 34 indicates

that overly dim lights were not a particular problem. Figure 35 and 36

indicates that brightness and glare from overhead light caused a problems

in reading print for some analysts, particularly those in Berlin. Figure

37 indicates that the dimness of the overhead light was less bothersome,

although about 40% of the Berlin analysts rated dimness as being

"somewhat" or "very" bothersome. Responses given in figure 38 for the

quality of lighting for reading show a clear pattern only for

administrators and analysts at Kunia - who rated it positively.

3.3.4 Response to VDT's and Lighting Conditions

The next series of figures present data on the effects of lighting on using VDT’s. Figure 39 indicates that reading printed copy while using a VDT was not a problem for any group. Operators, who had the lowest

measured lighting levels of the three groups, did not consider reading

print to be a problem. They are, of course, not required to work with

printed tasks as much as the other two groups. Figure 40 indicates that

most groups were neutral or positive about the impact of lighting on their ability to use a VDT. Responses to the bothersomeness of glare

from overhead lights on VDT’s, shown in figure 41, show no clear pattern.

Similarly in figure 42, only the operators consistently rated the

overhead light brightness as "not bothersome". (This is not surprising

since they had taken steps to reduce overhead light brightness to very

low levels). Figures 43, 44, and 45 indicate that screen angle,

distance, and brightness did not cause problems for any group. The

pattern of responses for screen flicker, given in figure 46, are much

less clear cut, with only the Augsburg administrators judging it as "not

bothersome at all". All other responses were divided among the rating

categories

.

38
c3

-rc

l*V

CD

0) ^

JC

n

4->

O3

(-1 60 -r4 C 0)

•r-l £ U 4-1 nj 0£ EO

44

4-1

04 -4 04 a 4i o to 04 •—4

a*

u

44o

44o w

CO

04c

0) 0) M) E

(0 o

4J U) 04 C >4 O

04 04 CO a jz 44 u u u

04

O 3

CU 0Q C/0

CM

CO

04443

60 O^BXlfUV JO 04

Very

Bother

Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

Overly

Dim Ut

htc

ox

Overly

Dim Ut

hU

©X4J

95 e x <*-1 eo

4J

as j o

->

B

T) ^ C Q «

—I

© «

ft> <w© © 93©c © ©E

as o U 93 C u © © O £ u u © ©

ft) ffl ©

J-l 3

ac

Wot

at

All ?3«

Very

Bother
Bothersomeness

For

Print

Bothersomeness

for

Print

of

Overhead)

tight

Brightne,.

of

Overht.d

LI,

hi

4) <3 X X 4-4 4-1

fa-1 OO1 O C

U

i-i

w c u w •fH

to a) 1-1 o C fa

1-1 4J T3 X 00 c 00 c

fa i-i •H

3i •o oq to

0} 0)

•—H

a) fa

a -c o 4-1 Id

0) o

fa fa fa O

tn fa (0 4J o to X a; 00 c fa

0) 04

X

00 e

to o T3 u w to C l-l 04

(0 04 J3 u X Id u 4J 04 04 o >

fa efi

O

m

fi4) S-i 3

00

•H

fa

°l

un x

Y//A

SjnqsSny

(\\|

ujiJig

Alien®
Bothersomeness

For

Print

Bothersomeness

for

Print

Glere

Prom

Overhead

Light

Clare

Prom

Overhead

Light

-co

COX

>

c

3X

ai Q) X XL u 4J

00c e u

im o C

4-i i-l •r4

to

<4-1 lM o Qm

1-) T3 <D W) c u c

(—1 ca ^4

1-1 T3

01 u

tT3 0) OS a

o Mm >M

01 O o

Ql* Mm

Cfl Mm CO u

o to X ai OO c iM

01 01 W) E

cfl O TJ U cn to c !m 01

0) 01 X

o X Sm

i-l u 01

01 o >

EM. OQ o

vOm

0) u

3

‘I«3UeiD •uiujpv j© 43 •JO)«j«do jo cl«)U*3Jad

Not

»t

All

2

3

4

Very

Bother
0) Q) x E

4J O

co 4J U CT3 a) X4J Xu

bOC

o

CQ

1-4

CO •U i-4

COo CO u

•o X

c bO

HJ

i-4 X 0)

*=“

1

“0 a

o

CO

0) AJ

(V X c

CU U

°1"4

u-i

a)>

Wi cu o 6 00

4) 4-1 c

00 o tH

03 o 4J CO 03 c CO 03 a> 0) ec u C

i-i E u

03 i-i o

a, a <4-1

co

CL) U

3

bC —1

r=Jn
Rating

of

Lighting

For

Task

Reeding

4J

to3OVX

00c

4J

cO O0

CdC

•ft

<U T3 a a) o a;

OJ Qu

UO

vm cm O

OO

(0 c

00 *M

CO 4J U X C OO

d)

M

u

X

u

(V

X

a. o

00

ro0) u3

OO

iH

&U

Ratings

rm-K

Berlin

rT" 1

Augsburg

\///\

Kunle

Ratlings

Berlln

CSZ]

Augsburg

V/7/A

Kurils
Bothersomeoess

for

VBT

Use

Bothersomeness

for

VDT

Use

01.ro

Prom

Ught

CI.r

t

from

Ov.rhe.d

light

—

—

1

70

07.

-i

—

0) <D SL U u eg

T

K

os nB/(QUV jo e8a>ueoJ*«f

O b0 U O

03 £ «

C 3

H

*2

a

o u

£.

60

0460

CO

4-1 c

a>ow

04 0-

04u

3

60

R

ttlsd

Quo8flljr

Auiiebuirc

U//A

Kunle
V 4J X X w bC

hJ bOc

T3

<u> <5 « 01 O X

»i t-i TJ 0) C

t-f £

«

•—4O.

the 0

V u-i p* 0

m in 0 in H

<0 a

c >

« ®

bo e bo a 0 c u «1 —I C )-i in

<u 0) »

V X u 4J V O O

cu CQ (4-1

CN

&U

0

bO

• )tiC|IUV JO

‘ll»OM»!D ‘UlUEpFV jo Slt)U»M»4

49

9m <•#»% WMk^se^

No

Botnar

2

34

Vary

Bother
<D

U

SL

O

U Cm

su-Clouv jo »Snuaaj«d

bOc

•u

ctf O

tHT3C0) ao4) & 0)I bOc<c

Q)

Q)Uu

CO

<D JZu

cm «4-j O O

a> crj &0 CO ca <y u C U) C QJ •» d) £ H u 0 Q U CO >

a;

CL, a; 00

~c c

a;

u

si 0 t/) H flQ 3 m

<uD

bO *M

U<

Very

Bother
Bothersomeness

for

VDT

Use

Bothersomeness

for

VDT

Use

0) oj X u u

60C

4-jO

'r4 AJ 0>

cd

u o c

•*-( 03 T3 4J C C/3 •HQ

a> a;w

i-H -* a AJ H o Q

03 Dh 4-1 > O 60c

4-! 0) •r4 o 0) C/3 a)C

0) 0) 34 oO s O

03 0 44

4J C/3 c 3-1

C

0)

a 0) o £. 0) u u

0) 0 o

a. CQ cn

<r

0)D

o0

“•H
Bothersomeness

for

VDT

Use

Bothersomeness

for

VDT

Use

x o c

0) bO 2 C c a oo u _i

zi

u

•O CQ ~ c eHao

a> a.

a)a>uo

co

4-io

*w

m

O 0)

fl) C

V 0) bO E

03

O

AJ 0) C U

0)V

O

X P -u

0) o

a. to

®

U)3Ha>

in«H3

bO <

Very

Bother
Bothersomeness

for

VDT

Use

Bothersomeness

for

VDT

Use c3*e1 r 2 3 z &c

03

0) 1-1 j: o

4J (4-!

1-1 c ai •H V*

4J

u

ctf •H U

H-t Ct, T3C c H-1

aja>

0)

'-j CJ

a

C/5 o

0) 4-4 a< o w

4-4 tn - 0 cn H

0)

Q

C >

<u <u QO e (0

<8 o JC u U) u C u

IV 0) 00 u £ c u 4-> —-4

IV o w

cu eQ 3

\0<

<vu3

oo

1-1 h

_Rated

Quality ^^

Berlin

l\\i

Augsburg

V//\

Kunla
Responses to the lighting conditions suggest that the most salient

lighting issue is the ability to adjust light for the task. All

respondents reported it to be "very poor" . Their responses suggest that

the use of local task lighting to control the amount and position of the

light would greatly ease the complaints about the lighting and improve

the ability to do visual tasks.

3.4 Response to Noise

Figures 47 to 52 deal with noise conditions. Figure 47 indicates that

most respondents considered their facility to be "noisy" , but only 10 to

30% regarded it as "very noisy". Another 20 to 40% considered it to be

somewhat noisy, while 30 to 40% were neutral. Figure 48 presents data

that indicate that respondents felt that noise hindered their job

performance somewhat, but not a lot. Thus, about 30% of all analysts and

30% of the administrators at Berlin and Augsburg believed that noise

hinders performance somewhat, but only about 5% of all respondents

indicated that it is "very true" that noise is a hindrance. Operators at

all sites were the most positive with 20 to 30% indicating that noise did

not impair their job performance. Figure 49 indicates that printer noise

was very bothersome to about 20% of the analysts, 15% of the

administrators, and less than 10% of the operators. This finding

obviously depends on nearness to the printer since high noise levels were measured only near a few printers. Similarly, Figure 50 suggests

equipment noise was "not at all" , or "not very" bothersome to 60 to 80%

of the respondents.

Data from section 5 on noise measures indicate that, in general, noise

levels were reasonable - between 60 and 65 dbA. In several locations at

all three sites, however, printers were measured at levels between 80 and

86 dbA - a level loud enough to cause annoyance and possible hearing

damage for those working near the printer, if this were a permanent work

station. A subjective assessment by the experimenter also given in

section 5 indicated that ventilation noise (particularly in operations)

,

conversations, and printers (particularly in analysis) were potentially

bothersome at all three sites. Such noise will not damage hearing but it

might interrupt trains of thought and decrease work output.

Figure 51 suggests conversations were "somewhat bothersome" to 40 to 45%

of the administrators at Augsburg and Kunia but only to 25% of those in

Berlin. Again, operators appeared to be the least bothered, with about

70% indicating that noise is "not at all" or "not very" bothersome.

Finally, figure 52 suggests that ringing telephones were bothersome to

analysts and to administrators, particularly those in Berlin, but not to

operators. (Operators are shielded from office noises by their

headphones, but are exposed to headphone noise.)

54
Feelings

About

Facility

Ratings

Berlin

l\

\l

Augsburg

W/A

Kurils
S

UUd

Truth

Auj»burg

\///X

Kuni*
Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

j-i to J=

•u

BOc

(V£o

OJUi

<D CQ

CU

CO

<4-1 o <v

CO •H

<U o

BO

<T3 U

u c 0)

<u

u o c

•H

0) cu 0,

O'

<u u3

BO

u.

R«ted

QtislHy

Ber,ln

r>7\l

Auj3burt

V//A

Kunla
Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station cmE • 2 3

2-2

jo

4J

<0 x,

60Cu

CO 0) O a •i—i o

TJ Vi C U

l-H 0) si

4) r—K

4J0 a cQ o

0) &*

is

4) 4-1 V) O HOz

0)60a

C

4> 44 c e

4)

a

u —4 4 3

10

V

a. hi O

in4) U3

60

*1-4 tfe

Very

Bother
No

Bother

2

31

4

Very

Bother
Bolhersomeness

in

Work

Station

Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

Rfinglng

?oitphtmee

Ringing

T«l#phor»H

dsmo ‘|«eM*0 'afiupv

60

sjaiuMlo J« M|Umjc4

B

oSwfl

Quality

®

ar

**n

KZ3

Awgsbuira

K

£3

Kunln
—I M —• o

0]

<4-1 u

© 0) £ s

Do M W

c

05 ^

2

o £ »

gw

tS ©

aj «C a „

o js

oj w

£U ®r-J

<M© C

O © U

60 *h a o

>i-i o

60©u

<6 u

B©o

j:u

©©

enm

©u

3

60

U*
3.5 General Response to the Space

Figures 53 to 66 present data on more general reactions to the spaces,

including impact of windowless spaces, colors, general impressions, and

overall satisfaction. Figure 53 demonstrates noticeable differences

between respondents in overall workspace satisfaction. Administrators at

Kunia and Berlin appeared to be the most satisfied with their workspaces,

with more than 60% of those at Kunia indicating they were "fairly" to

"very satisfied". Yet, in Augsburg about 35% of the administrators were

"not very satisfied". Operators viewed their spaces as "fairly

satisfactory", "neutral", or "not very satisfactory". Analysts at all

sites tended not to be satisfied, with 40 to 50% rating their spaces as "not very" or "not at all" satisfactory.

Figure 54 indicates that the majority of respondents believed the overall

appearance of their workspaces was only "fair", with 20 to 25% of all

analysts rating it as "poor" . Only the administrators in Kunia

considered it to be "pretty good". Less than 5% of all respondents

considered their space "excellent". All respondents did consider their

facility to be "adequate" rather than "inadequate", as seen by the

pattern of responses in figure 55. The next figure, 56, indicates that

people generally felt their facility was neither "pleasant" nor "unpleasant", except for Kunia administrators who tended to rate it as "somewhat pleasant". Operators viewed their facility as somewhat more "unpleasant" than "pleasant"

.

Figure 57 suggests that respondents at all sites were neutral or negative

about building maintenance, with all analysts, and administrators at

Augsburg and Berlin being more negative than positive. Figure 58 reveals

that all respondents were neutral about their facility being either

"better" or "worse" than others. Figure 59 suggests that the analysts,

particularly those in Kunia, felt their work area was especially

"confined", although less than 20% of any group rated their area as "spacious". Figure 60 indicates that virtually all analysts found their

workspaces unstimulating but very few respondents considered their spaces

stimulating. Figure 61 also suggests more respondents found their space

to be "tense" than "relaxing".

Figure 62 indicates that few people considered the color of walls and

partitions "excellent". Administrators considered wall color to be

"good" or "fair", while analysts tended to consider theirs "fair" or "poor". Operators in Berlin and Kunia considered their colors "good" or "fair", while those in Augsburg considered theirs "poor" or "fair".

Figure 63 confirms that respondents generally considered their facilities

"drab" rather than "colorful", with Berlin and Kunia analysts, and Kunia

operators particularly negative.

62
Office

Appearance

Office

Appearance

utaipv JO 63

Poor
I* «

•H JZ

01 4J X.

4-1 44

60 ° C

u *

« o ^30

•g S“°

« • t —* ®

CljS X O 4J o &

*>

4J «

i„ 3 £ or03 44 ® O

60«<»>>,

44 00 U

C C -4

0> —1 —

I

0 -1-4 4 a.1 o

0) 0) « 4 4 4

m

m

vu

3

60

ll

slxi

Quality

K3

Auftburg

V//A

KuMa
Feelings

About

Facility

‘uguutnr j©

ReSIngo

B,rlln

(\

\)

Augeburg

CZ-'//!

SCunla
Feelings

About

Facility

Feelings

About

Facility

BoOfi

UainlalnMfl

flnaarfiAirc °J

Q)e<£i«»v jio •ItiUMJej

»4 0) .c

0) 4J

60c4J

<ao

•oc

4-1o

<uucaca « ac a <D o •C »

e*

4J

4-1 3 o O

•o

Q>

Q

60« 01 4J 60 4J c c

a>U «—1 H )-i 0) u

a> 0) <B Cm Cju U<

r^- m®3

60

<*-1 fe,
4J U

m v

jz *j

4=> U

60 60C m

4J« * U 4J £

“H

fc isH ^ u

03 m £**>

o

S s

»* £

«w W

° X4J W

a) w

60 —) 0) <e a) js w «

6-4 O

o ^ c

i=s a> tg « X *c

fe w o

00

in

4)id3

60

^p4

£*->

Baled

Quail);

Berlin

L\M

Au*«bur|

Kunla
Peelings

About

Facility

Feelings

About

Facility

4J«X•U ^u

g>=Jo « « S

“• c 9 w XAJ

.-4® cr

o' a> ^ c

°r^ U_l U-| ° gu 9

60 -H

<8 9

4J 9 C b« 9O >,

Vf 9 9 X G,; 4J

CT> m93

60 •

w|

ln

l\\l

Augebuirg

V//A

Kianto
jomo l « o I -I a> t o 'Uiiupv JO e> 69

sjo^ajedo jo

fiun)(

Y///^

Ijnqslny

[~

<|i|enO

pai*H
Feelings

About

Facility

Feelings

About

Facility

iUlailnt

®*

r8lni

K3

Augsburg

t///A

Kunle
*»©«4%© ’UtlUp"? JO 71

•JO»«j*do jo «Ii)U»oj*4

B#r,,n

kAJ

Augsburg

X///A

Kunli
Feelings

About

Facility

72

§JOt9J»do jo •f«iuao<2 *^

IR

elad

QuoBOly

SX_3

Augsburg

W/X

Kunle
Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

Bothersomeness

in

Work

Station

• jo el«iu»oj«d

V ©

aj E

X. O

V wu

40 J~

•U

®r=l o

AJ CQ

<Ca CO •H

•oc 4-1 H 3O

V

5“=i > a

o

v

©

—4>

Os

<0 lw 4-1 © O

©

V O

bO c

<0 ©

4-1 w

c© <

ou ©

© x:

Os 4J

<3- >03V

J-) 3

00 -4

E*.

0

— r ”i 1 1 ^ *1 ^ a gggggggg £ 882882 ®

*u?mpv jo

73

No

BoOttr

2

3

4

V.ry

BoKhoir
Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

g

Mfiec

Havflng a

View

Shaft 8

Mite

Having a

View

Out

u x>

03

O

xn

bO

m

C

X •H iJ u

as

C

V —• •H

•o ti> « 0) a.> o

a* «e a>

bOc

<wo >a a *6

bO 0) «o m

4J ^ C B Vu >•>

t-i

V

®

X Ow <U

«n

VO«

J-l 3

bO

9trlln

Augabutrg

KZ3

Kunle
of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Wan!

To

Know

About

Weather

Want

To

Know

About

Weather 1

700% <

8)«Xi«uy jo

4J

ua> wH X u 4J

<0

a)

u

X

<a 4-1 o 4J o 3 c O

1—t Xc0

<u 3 —t o a c o X

<u cu o

4J

4) X o i-i P—1

a) 3

00 <—

CO 3 u O c 3 1VV

Ve 0) 0) a. w

vO

01u3

00

°t-4 u<
At the time that the physical measures were made, the experimenters noted

the kinds and number of colors used in the workspaces. This assessment,

given in section 5, reinforces the notion that the facilities tended to

be drab, rather than colorful. Grey, white, black and brown tended to be

the most frequently used colors for walls, furniture, and panels.

Figure 64 suggests that operators were not especially bothered by the

absence of a view out, while there was no consensus among administrators

and analysts on this question. Figure 65 indicates, however, that most

respondents missed having a view out, with the only exception being

administrators in Berlin. Finally, people especially those in Augsburg

and Kunia expressed a desire to know about the weather outside, according

to figure 66.

Figures 67 to 75 deal with perceptions of the available space. Figure 67

suggests that most respondents felt that their office arrangement was

"good" or "fair", with those from Kunia rating their space as "good", and

Berlin administrators and analysts and Augsburg operators rating their

workspace as only "fair". Figure 68 indicates that about 90% of all

respondents did not believe that people being "too far apart" was at all

bothersome, while figure 69 suggests that about 30 to 40% of the sample

felt that people being "too close together" was "somewhat" or "very

bothersome". Another 30 to 40%, however, did not believe that was "at

all bothersome". Figure 70 indicates that all respondents felt people

"overhearing conversations" was a problem, with more than 80% of the

analysts in Kunia finding this statement to be "very true".

Similarly, the majority of the respondents (figure 71) thought that their

visual privacy was only "poor" or "fair". Figure 72 indicates mixed

attitudes about the amount of available space. In general,

administrators at Kunia and Berlin felt they had "good" or "excellent"

amount of space, but those at Augsburg believed they only had a "fair"

amount. Responses of analysts were evenly divided among "good", "fair",

and "poor" , with those at Berlin and Kunia tending more toward "poor"

.

Operators rated the amount of space as "good" or "fair". Figure 73

indicates operators, analysts, and Berlin administrators believed the

amount of space for personal items was "poor" or "fair". Only 5%

believed it was "excellent". Figure 74 indicates Berlin analysts and

Augsburg operators felt the amount of surface area for work was especially "poor", but more than 70% of all analysts and operators rated

surface area as "fair" or "poor". Administrators at Kunia were somewhat

more positive while those at Berlin were more negative. Figure 75

suggests that "lack of room to spread out paper tasks" was "very

bothersome" to about 40% of the analysts in Berlin but less so to other

groups. The other respondents rated the amount of room for paper tasks

as "good" or "fair".

3.6 Response to the Condition of Furnishings

Figures 76 to 85 present data on the perception of furniture quality.

Figure 76, which presents attitudes toward furniture quality in general,

indicates that fewer than 5% of the analysts and operators considered

their furniture to be excellent quality. Over 40% of Berlin analysts

76
0) aj X, C

AJ 0)E

y

B0 BO c

C OM

AJ U « <

0£ y

y

°M V am

AM a o

o

0) y

Qu J= X AJ O

Am

*3 Am O O <M

<n y m -C y AJ V c

SO y B0

<0 > c

aj •M C AJ 0

a; O T3 u y u am M

0) am O

a, U am

AO

0)M

3

BO

Cm
4J

03 Si 03 u s

o

b0

c/l u

C 03

•*4 s: u u

03 o

CJ CQ

1-J T3 U

C M h-t 03O03 <

r**4 o.o

03

u

03 4-» P* Oo

M-4 u

O

bOc

03 •r^ b0 <D

03 SI u

C 03

03 .—i u CL u 0

03 0) O. o<

'X* v£>

03U

3

b£)

Du

OOQOOOO O

r- ^ r> m —

ijoi uedo

3 *

=ny

IOO|J©t3 UIUUPV at a) uaojad
J»u*0 UIUJPV JO •l«JU«OJ9d 79

IJO)IJSdO jo af«)U93J«d
4J« C X O

W

aftwfl

Vrufilto

HWi i

AugeHnaro

i///X

Kunfla
Workspace

Quality

-

Admin

Workspace

Quality

-

Analysts

Vlaual

Privacy

^

Vliual

Privacy

4JK

3

O waa

a.

as w Xu >uo

60 3

a

a,o

a

D-r

(4-1 O

u

£5

o

03>

u-llu Ou V

b0 —

i

« (S 4J p

C

<Uy > su

93 <4-1 Du O

<U

3u3

60

«r4

araXiauv jo afaruaajarf
c3

OI

a) i-i jr o

4-> 3

bO bO c c

1-4 l4

4J 0

<0 a

OS w

«J o

(4-1 a

o

<u <—

4

0) CL -O

<4

<4-i 1-4 O a)>

a> <

bO

<0 a> ij o c o

a) a

u Vi

ki

a> 4-f cu 0

CM

r-V

L

3

bO

i-l

Cfe

•tifWURV jo •JO)«j«do jo •l«)u*oj«d

82
Workspace

Quality

-

Admin

Workspace

Quality

-

Analysts

Wall/Desk

Space

for

Peraopal

lUmi

Wall/Deek

Space

for

Personal

Item*

—

1

?o

or,

-i T

KsK

O8

T

K

o

8

T

K K

o

6

C O 3 <4-1 OJ ®

4- _i

.

<0 60 > C <

4J

CO e£ vy

Q

.2 «

o'« 01 CU VQ

O o

c

® 33 60

U

CD (4-1 Cl, o

03E

<0c

o

03U

O

0-

cl

r~«u

3

BO

1-4

Cfe

jo ata^uaoje^

J»<no ‘unupY jo a9«)uaouaj i«do jo a9«)uaojad

83

Berlin

f\

XJ

Augsburg

\//ZX

Kunla
°f «ei<go(© "utujp^ j© e>»®i«a«sM®<4

4J Vi C O 3 <4-1 0

1 s

«

0) o.

Vi

b> W.

0) **

a. c o

a> cv eg

M «H

at <w o

a, O Q

O’r-a

Vi3

60

Cb

E88*R82° gggggggg

i»<c #• •*•»’ 84

Ratlnge

B»rHm

1\NI

Auj«burg

X///}.

Kunln
Bothersomeness

for

Print

Bothersomeness

for

Print

Boom

for

Peper

T..k»

Room

for

Paper

Teelce

isja

X o

*-> o

OS

40 <4-4

® C

QS s

o

a m

o x

4) w

a,

4-1O

4-1 CO O (0

co co

IV « c

0) 0) H

40 E Le

£0 O V u co a

e u eg 9i 0) O X

CL, U -U W

0) 0 O

CL, 0Q 4-1

ui

rv

4)

Ui3

40

itaXiaav jo

aamo *I»OIJ«10 'UIUJPV jo alatuaojtd uaiaudo 40 «»«>»i»d

85

Ro

Bother

2

3

4

Very

Bother
4J

8

n

a

3

O' o>o

0) to X pu

4J VI X

60 u

C O3

JJ

<0 0) OS J=

0) •—< c a

o

<u ai tu u

3

4-1 4> O c

IV 4

60 3

0) U- C <u

<V X

O 41 4

0) 44

Cu O

vOr*

0>Jj3

60

•rH t.

a)«X(«uv jo •V«iu»aj«d

jc(4)0 '|«o|jeo 'uiujpv jo i*do jo •l«tu«aj*d

86

B

»l«i3

Qu»IHjr

„„

Bflln

i\\i

Augsburg

1

Y//A

Kunlo
K

—* V

—> o

® 03 v- a,

<0 M

C

« C

0)u

3

CL. u

o i-4 V c

CL, u

3

fa. o tw V

O

tsO e

03 o D •rH c u

V ^1 a T3

Cl c

(V o

a. o

r-~

v

>-l 3

bO

Cb

• XiCituv jo • »»»u»oj»d

87

R

ated

Quality

Berlin

l\

\1

Aufsbur*

X///X

Kunla
Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Other®

(Sett

Belter

furniture

Other®

Get

Better

furniture j

?0

0%t

*j e

as <0 X X

bo £ 3 3 •H jj s E c

1-1 1-1 « «

4J

a

® o *

ft-

®

«s

<4-1 JC 0 • ® o. won as 4' >

4J Oh <0 C X

4)

U

y o >i u x v ® 4J X

ftO 4-1

00®

4-3

00 1

Trua *34

Mol

True
considered theirs "poor", and about 60 to 70% of ail analysts considered

their furniture "fair" or "poor". Operators tended to rate their

furniture quality as "good" or "fair", although some 15 to 25% considered

it "poor". Administrators at Kunia rated their furniture as "good" or "excellent", with none rating it "poor". Augsburg administrators were

more negative, with about 60% rating their furniture as "fair" or "poor",

while Berlin administrators rated theirs as "good" or "fair".

Figure 77 presents data on furniture condition. This figure suggests

some striking differences among the groups in their perception of

furniture condition. The administrators, in particular, were split;

about 60% in Kunia considered their furniture condition to be "good" , 45%

in Augsburg considered theirs "fair", and 45% in Berlin "good" or "fair".

Analysts judged their furniture condition as "good", "fair", or "poor",

with about 45% in Berlin considering theirs "poor". Operators had

similar opinions, regardless of site, about 40% regarding their furniture

"fair", another 30% "good", and 20% "poor". Fewer than 10% of any group

judged their furniture quality as "excellent". Figure 78 suggests that

only 10 to 25% of all respondents believed the statement "others in the

facility get better furniture" is "very true".

Figure 79 does not present any striking findings about overall perception

of chair quality, although operators at Kunia and analysts in Berlin were

more likely to rate their chair as "fair" or "poor". Figure 80

indicates, however, that the inability to adjust the back of the chair

was seen as a problem by almost all respondents, with 40 to 55% rating

this ability as "poor" . The only exception was operators in Berlin who

had recently received an equipment upgrade which included chairs. Figure

81 indicates that the chair was not "particularly bothersome" for VDT

use, with fewer than 30% rating this as "somewhat" or "very bothersome".

Similarly, chair comfort was typically rated as "good" or "fair" (figure

82). Operators in Kunia tended to rate it as "good", "fair", or "poor",

while operators at the other two sites were much more positive, with 50%

rating chair comfort as "good".

The subjective assessment performed during the physical measures by the

experimenters indicated that as many as 80% of the chairs in operations

at Kunia were not considered to be in "good" condition, whereas about 70%

of the chairs in administrative and analytical areas could be considered

to be in "good" condition.

Figure 83 suggests that desk height caused relatively few problems, with

fewer than 15% of respondents rating it as "somewhat" or "very

bothersome". Figure 84 indicates that most people, except Berlin

administrators, believed they had enough equipment. Personal interviews

with people, however, often indicated major problems with equipment

functioning. Finally, figure 85 suggests that "needing more time on a terminal" is not viewed as a problem, although again, interview data

suggested the need for better and more terminals. Interview data are presented in the Appendix to the report by Rubin and Collins (1988).

89
Canoral

Condition

Canoral

Condition

gggggggg , -r- ,

R 88 SR 8 S

0

je sMtuaMM

i r t ^ > t > > > gggggggg R88SR82® °S®®M®S2 3 «m9V

CQU

4)c

a> a

4) X.

boc

•H

iJ u

OJ -4

a: a

«> u h

a u

o

0) «

e- x4J

<4-1 O M-lo

0) bO C

m o

4J *4 C -U « -4

cr

Ui3

ec

^=*4 fa.

gggggggg i i i i i i Rg8SR82 e

90

Ration

i«rlli>

LWI

Au|ibur$

Kunla
o

MtX|«UV JO •fltusojaj

<V0) w u

1-1 V S3

60 U

C i-i -H 0>

<4-1 0) © a .si o u

a> «

Sa flS

<4-1 4) O Xu

0) 60 60

<0 c

4-> i-l c «

ft) « U 3

U

a; -o a> < o

CO

<vu

3

60

u.

1 1 1 1 l ^1 ^ ^ 1

1 ' ' ggggggggI

S 8838 S3 S

0

4tMtO 'UIUIPV JO unu»4o jo o*»»«joojoj

91

^

Rellng

Berlin

l\

\J

Augsburg

U//X

Kunls
jo> «9«tuooj*^

03 £. <U 4J M3

W)

H

•HC

Q

;>

4-> « U « o

T3MC njBO m « * H

BL « O 4*^ 2 *e Oh O

co

4-i

mU

4) *H

40 03 « J= U U cV u Ou cu « JC

Oh 4J

4)U3

60
Workspace

Quality-Admin

Workspace

Quality -

Analysts

r^

Chair

Comfort 0) Xu

60ca

OS

U

ai ax Cl U 0a u

01 *4a

64

X

O

u

a 44

60

O

a

U c )4 a o u 44

>4 E a O

C4

u

CM

ooau3

60

93

Ratings

BtrSin

f\

\l

Augsburg

X///A

Kunl*
Bothersomeness

For

Print

Bothersomeness

for

Print

fl.ilht

of

Dock

B.lt

h>

of

n

U 0) « E X O

4J O)u

g>J=

•5 £

o

•o ^

c

a:

OJ m U

J5 O

a

o a> ® J=

Ou ±j 0) (U<U^

o o 0)«

VU V u

« £ O

&. U

attXiivy jo •louiuaj

94

B

Me<a

Quolldy

__

9«Ht«8

l\\l

Au«oS>ur8

{///X

Kunlo
Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

JobI

Hivi

Enough

Equipment ,u_ ,_ 1

H»v#

Enough

Equipment 9 —I X IV « X4-1 60

•o £ C c _ Ia a> ta —• 3

Cl CT o w

a. £

4=1O

603Oc

IV 0) 60 (V m >

4-1 OS c X

IVo

IV 0) X cu 4-1

eoV

V43

60

»4

u.

95

R

ated

Truth

Berlin

INN

AU|eburg

\///X

Kunle
Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

Truth

of

Statement

for

Job

BM

Mor#

V#rmln#B

Tim# I

Nt*d

llor#

Terminal

Tim#

•U

O

a) ”0 X« -o

e»0 2

ai

J 4J 2 C Z uVaou0- XVjo 0) u y ^ -h

»-i

yy

y

XX o* JJ JJ m

eoy

j-i 3

bO

fa90

BerDfiffB

fVNl

Aujetouirp

t///A

Kunfin
Frequency

of

Symptoms

Frequency

of

Symptoms

9) to X 0) U X

<0 00 T3 C to

4)

V

X

mV 4-1 1-1 0) T3 00 c

l-H (0 X

<D 4J ax0 u

a> •^1 a X3

(4-1

X o 4J i43

0)00 >» ® u

4J

C c IV

a> 3 u cr b 0)

<V

u

a b.

\D

00V

1-4 3

00

•H

lu

97 ^^

Ra&flnge

Berlin

l\

\)

Augsburg

V//7X

Kunls
Frequency

of

Symptoms

Frequency

of

Symptoms

aiMpiiiMC

!—

pln»M 4-> 0) JC

c.>3n 1 a T g g g s I gs

bOCau

r4c »0)

P. bw ° iT £3** cv

u-i 3 o CT

4)U

a) Uo bOa a) 4J w c « 0) Ou at « X Pm 4-1

raoO

l-i 3

bO

j<s of«tu«ajej

98 ..,.

ieMngo

__

#«rB8ire ll\

\l

Augoburg

X///A

Kunlla
Frequency

of

Symptoms

Frequency

of

Symptoms
Frequency

of

Symptoms

Frequency

of

Symptoms

IrrIUHon

By.

IrrIUtton •3a 3

to T3

J= OJ U U

OJ oo i-i C -H H la U la tO M 0H >> T3 rH C 1-1 W C0) 01 3

»-i cr o. <u S*Pa -

a)

U-I la O to

o>

m

00 O) to O', u w eV la O "H

|a <D 0) 4=

Pa

U

O'

00V

la3

00

ctclliuv jo oBo«uooa«4
Frequency

of

Symptoms '

Frequency

of

Symptoms

4J

<8

a3x• 3 a <

jo o9«iuoojo<i

AJ

T3 bO 0) C u i-i o 4J

a) cd (4-1 u C

1-4 •oc >%

HH

4-1 0) c

<*=4

V

Q.O 3

cr

0> O.

4)fa

fa.

U-l « o fa

<0

a)

w

60 fa (5 to u W C

<u fa o •H

fa «

tt)

X

04 4J o

O'

0)fa3

60

101

mamwiiiBsaa

"•»" *3*

AI«.y.
toc

<0o

•Dc-1 0) •O

Cu® c

<03

iw cr o v

)-i lu «

00 4) M >

4-> a C £

a

o ^ >-i m « x.

Ok 4J

«

li3

00

(b

v.rr
Frequency

of

Symptoms

Frequency

of

Symptoms

4-> «

J=

c £

-D «

O O a-

«*=4 "O M

C 3 ^ C

V

tn

0)

>>

iw —i ° C

0) 0) 3

60 cr

ss 0) jj hi C fa- 0) o

hi (0 <u X

fa- 4->

CM

O'

0) hi3

60

Cfc.

’t»ow«Q -unupv jo •JOtutdo jo «9«^uoaj*cg

103
3.7 Response to Physical Well-Being

Figures 86 to 92 deal with the physical well-being of the personnel.

Figure 86 indicates that frequent headaches were common with 50 to 70%

reporting headaches "sometimes" or "always". Sleepiness was also a problem, with 40 to 70% of the sample reporting being sleepy "sometimes"

or "always" (Figure 87). In fact, 30 to 40% of the operators indicated

they were "always" sleepy, while another 40% were "sometimes" sleepy. Of

interest, 60% of the administrators in Kunia also reported being sleepy

some of the time even though they all worked a day shift. The sleepiness

may reflect an indoor air quality problem. Figure 88 suggests that sore throats were "never" a problem for 35% to 50% of the respondents. Yet

about 45% of Berlin administrators reported sore throats "sometimes", as did about 25-30% of all analysts and operators. Figure 89 indicates that

eye irritation was more of a problem than sore throats with 40 to 60%

reporting it occurring either "sometimes" or "always". Ear infection

never occurred for 60 to 85% of the respondents, according to figure 90.

Figure 91 indicates that the frequency of colds appears to be fairly

evenly divided among "never", "rarely", and "sometimes", with only 5 to

15% indicating that colds are "always" a problem. Figure 92 indicates

that sinus problems were a problem for Berlin administrators and Kunia

analysts. Nonetheless, only 10 to 20% of all respondents indicated they

always have sinus problems.

3.8 Desired Changes to the Facility

Some of the most interesting results are shown in Figures 93 to 95 which

present data on the changes that people would like to make to their

space. They were asked to list the 4 changes they would most prefer, and

give reasons for their choices. Each figure presents data for each of

the three groups at a site. The percentage of people in an individual

group picking a given choice is shown on the ordinate; the choices are given on the abscissa. Data for the first, second, third and fourth

choice are combined into a single bar, although the percentage of each

choice is indicated by a different stripe code.

Examination of figure 93 for Berlin indicates that a better year round

temperature was the most desired change. It was the most frequently

occurring first choice, and was picked by 55 - 65% of each group as one

of the four choices. For administrators, other choices selected by 30%

or more respondents included less noise, better break area, adjustable

task lighting, and improved air circulation. Analysts chose color of

furnishings and walls, adjustable task lighting, and improved lighting.

^One problem with the data on health issues may be the scale used to assess frequency of occurrence. Categories of "never", "rarely",

"sometimes", and "always" were used. A five point scale inserting

"frequently" between "sometimes" and "always" would probably have been a more sensitive indicator of people's health.

104
Changes

to

the

Work

Environment

Berlin

Analysts

c

o

0) A

S)«X(«UY JO

C 1-1

VA44o

4J

a)>4 -

-d- m cs C

O o •^4 <4 - « *r^ <4 O 44

• 60 44 A 44 01

01 • c <4 O 3

31 31 1-4 *4 z •>—

i

vO 14 "0 U 3 31 c T3

un 3 *t4 «r cj -4 »—4 <4

^=) 44 0] 00 14 43 CJ &» <4 44 •H t4 <4 z O

14 3 o 44 44 c 31 O u • o a T3 >4 o 03 z e 0 31 •*4 <44 60 13 p 31 44 > <4 a c <

3 44 O 0 -4 o 0! 14 T3 o A

A 14 01 a 31 01 U

01 31 31 a > 31 1“4 s

44 O *i4 O Vi C u o

31 <4 A

Ou

01 44

>4 3

31 O <44 S

14 O a a

a

O

4J O

4J su

= A >4 O

44 60 3

<44 C O O u 3 « A <U 60 -4

= -t* > C -4

14 l4 = Efc, ^4 4)

01

3)60C

<4 A

u

"O

0114 -4 C

01 -4

0) -4 a >4

<u 0Q

>40 c

<44 *i4

01 4J

31 -4 O -4

14 A

O’ re „ 31 . “ 01

33 cd O A 44 O Vi - 44 ^4

CJ

<4 o s o -H * 31 01

<44 Q. 03 <44 31 A 33 O e

31 a > <44 01 44 31 44 A 31 31 -t4 O --4 V V cn CO

44 14 H 14 o 3 33 -

CJN -4 a 34 e <44 (—4 O

» <4 A X 0<5 4J

0) C - 31 44 01 31 33 01 u

O' c >4 u 01 > 31 H s 3

i 0 *“4 0 c 31 0 V 3 <D CO -4 a i4 ^4 a A i-4 O' 44 <4 - > C&4 01 O <3 V o o O 60 s

. 31 *i4 44 o 44 44 44 c

60 3 <44 <—4 °r4 • o o* -r-i z o z z z c

<44 o > o 31 31 A 33 •H

31 31 Vi 01 > 14 31 ct3 c X CV 04 o z s SO ^-4 •C

1-4 44 CO = 44 - = - u CJ

o

£H

Cro

cn

J# MtO l«3U»0 U1UJPV JO «l«)U*OJ*d sJoiiJBdo JO el«^u»3j«d

105

Desired
Changes

to

the

Work

Environment

Changes

to

the

Work

Environment

Au|tburg

Adminlitntog-e

^

M

Augsburg

Analysts

Ou

0) b0c

<C x

u

o

a)u

<nva

wm

•o

4) U

uy

*“5y

co

60U

yx

w

603<

C

m y

y y

y u« 0 y X jC O u

a.yu

3

60

°*=^ E»<

IPP1-

1 W/222~ »W/

N

s - p1mSs' 11

i11

W7A1IZS’

m. £££££-

-11KWWW^-

c

4) E

c

eu

>C

X l

} O

£

600) B0G

ee £

B2

*7

., wm^/Av

9

at0

b $ V

1. 0 mv\.

w//,\.

6. mv,S- «/ nm\. B s’

N - 1^*

i -

V-

( ^

^A\\\\\\\\\\\ £ i

J««no 'ieou9|3 uiujpv jo eR«)U*oj*j ejet«j»<|Q jo

206
o

•u

\- £

o M 5 c ME',-i *

£ 1 1

c

ou 1

v- £ ' ” G > HHE7" c /- £ C

w mmv7 1 |

J*

£-. ?£

m77 i‘5 |

Si m > c 2 7 V % mhm/awmsN -5

11

-C * W

\. S T= ^ Z

g ow S' 3

4

Cfl

Clr (EE

O)

QX) c S-i

C3 XI S' £

CJ El 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 g g g § § O O

= g s s s

° -

I 0

oi«iC|8uy jo •f«»u»oj«d

<uMlC

CO -Co

n

<1) i-l 1-H cn

0) a

co cn ij

Cfl c

3

•o

0) c 4J 1-1 o

0) u

0} •y-4 cn

i-l cn a

a> ctf CJ Cj-i i-io a) s: o u

in

O'

0)

J-i 3M•fl Cu

. c

o

c

o

!_>cw .

o x : u

O C s 1

a> £ s

cn

OJon

co J=U

MMW////M

iHEW I 2-

*Wr

lWAW

mi177777, WWW

\ KIE7mIEEmmMWWA////W

iW W/'"

,ss\\y^WWW

j«ino 'i«o|j«io 'ujuipv jo •V«)U*oJ«d

c

O)£c

ou

>

C

u

a

!

u

“ O £ £ ;

O

2 f I

cn

aj

ati c

co £

O

WMiZ. ss- HI:Am^///

tMil

wfrmm///W

mm /

t m;IIM

m'/.\v

I 1/MlNv

m«//Nv

E/AW\v

ME /'/ s, \ \

•jo)«j*do jo •f«)U»oj*d

107

Tmp

Prv

Out

Clr

Lite

Nae

Air

Mv»

Chr

Brk

Pm

Ctn

TakLChAd

Vue

Othr
Finally, operators wanted a better break area, improved task lighting,

less noise, and improved lighting. Administrators and operators also

selected "other" with many comments related to improving equipment.

Figure 94 presents the choice data for Augsburg. At this field station,

temperature was also the first choice for each group, but a greater

percentage of administrators (almost 50%) and operators (almost 65%)

picked this as one of the four, perhaps as a result of the generally

colder temperatures. Only 35% of the analysts included this as their

first choice. Administrators in Augsburg also wanted more privacy,

improved lighting, less noise, and better break area, although about 25%

also opted for view out and a more comfortable chair. The analysts'

choices were less clear cut, with 30 to 35% expressing a desire for

better temperatures, task lighting, less noise, better break areas, view

out, and improved colors. Operators in Augsburg clearly felt most

strongly about improving room temperature, followed by break area, other,

noise, task lighting, general lighting, and view out. Again, most of the

"other" comments related to improving equipment performance.

Finally, data given in figure 95 for Kunia indicated that temperature was

not the most frequent first choice. Administrators picked improved air

circulation, operators wanted access to the outside, and analysts

selected privacy as their first choices. Administrators at Kunia also

picked color, access to the outside, privacy, better break area, and view

out as desired changes. Analysts named improved air circulation, color, access to the outside view out, and less noise as their choices.

Finally, operators picked better break area, chair comfort, and lighting

as their most desired choices. Operators also expressed a desire for

improved temperatures, better air circulation, task lighting and view

out. It is interesting to note that access to the outside and view out

emerged as frequent choices at Kunia (40%) but were rarely selected at

the other sites. Kunia is the only truly windowless site; the cafeteria

and main break areas at Berlin and Augsburg have windows. At Kunia,

however, it is a 10-minute walk through the tunnel to the outside.

Private conversations suggested that the desire for a view out and access

to outside was quite strong at Kunia. Where schedules permitted, people

made arrangements to run or jog over lunch and simply lengthened their

work day. This option, however, was not available to operators, who

often ate meals on position, and who were restricted by their shift

schedules

.

Figure 96 presents another way of looking at the choice data. Here, the

choices of each type of group are combined for all sites. The number of

administrators, analysts, or operators for all sites is given on the

ordinate; choice was again given on the abscissa. This figure suggests

that temperature is the first choice for administrators and operators

while color is the first for analysts. Administrators at all sites also

picked privacy, color, noise, air circulation and break area, while

analysts selected temperature, privacy, task light, view out, noise, and

air circulation. Finally, operators cited break area, task lighting and

general lighting as their choices for improving their workspace.

108
^ tn J3 01

C

6c

ou

>

cw . ^ S>

(W

0)DOC

<e £

U

1 7/A'-S

1 ' 1 : 1

: -i

>. £ "

£

m'/

1

i

* :-S

WA

‘f

1

1

>

1

H1

Air

Un

Chr «

YZ&

I

• 7AAA 3

^z. '* 5

- 3

V. t »//////\\\^\\- E ggsassss® i i i t i I ,

a

3*

• 3

• 3 a <

±J

cn 1-1

01 co ooc pH

(0 *H

J= CO u Hi TJ o

0) CM

l-i "H tn

(0 9)

01 =H a U

o

(0 00

0) HI •o CO

4) CJ

hiU J3

0) o

pH n

QJ CO HIc

tn <u

0) Hi u 01 -H u~l 0 <HI X °H u Q

O

o>

0)

V-i 3

oo

• )«^t«uy jo j*quinM |«)ox

c

&s

c

ou

>

cw I ^ 5 u

o£

4! O £ c w | a

3

era ajSOC

£8 jz

u

—rzK&ti

1 /AW

^\\v - '/A- m§¥/////,AA1 3 5

.. Cln^

c

0>£

C

ou

>£ % w i X 5 c £ o =

S:

'

o

CU ® pC i

Cfl

043 c

co £

CJ

iW777,

*

V/'- iWVP7P77N\v -

Sttip>-

\\v *

N\v

W///A

7,r

J«M)0 «iwoi-*«IO 'UlUipv jo j»quin«

nuapuodaty ;o J*qtu n n t«>ox

109

Chr

irk

Pm

an

TrldChAd

Vu*

Othr
4. Suggestions for Improvements to the Facilities and Equipment

4.1 Suggestions for Lighting

Each person was given a chance to list changes that they would make to

improve the lighting, the workspace, and the equipment. Unlike the

question about desired changes, these three questions were open-ended,

allowing people to express themselves freely. Their responses are categorized and summarized in tables 1-3.

Table 1 presents a summary of the suggested changes to lighting.

Comments for administrative personnel are presented first, followed by

those for operators and for analysts. Data for Berlin, Augsburg and

Kunia are presented for each type of personnel. The number of personnel

commenting on a given change varies, because not all respondents answered

all of the open-ended questions.

Table 1 indicates that for administrative personnel, issues related to

control of lighting such as adjustable lighting, task lighting, and

amount of light, were the most frequently mentioned changes at Berlin and

Kunia. At Augsburg, however, maintenance issues (including flicker) were listed by 43% of those responding. For operators, control over lighting

was important at all three sites, with people mentioning the need for

better placement of lights and control of glare as needed changes in

addition to changes in task lighting, adjustable lighting and light

levels. People also mentioned light color and expressed a desire for more incandescent lamps and fewer fluorescent lamps. At Augsburg, 45%

mentioned the need for better maintenance and less flicker. Comments by

the analysts at all sites stressed the need for control over lighting

through the use of task lights and adjustable lighting. Analysts at

Augsburg did not raise the issue of better maintenance.

4.2 Suggestions for Equipment Changes

Table 2 presents data on suggested changes to equipment at the three

field stations. Comments by administrative personnel related to the need

to modernize and maintain equipment, improve lighting, chairs and

furniture, and obtain new word processors and computers. Operators at

Berlin stressed the need to increase reliability of equipment, modernize

and maintain equipment, including printers and computers, speed up

systems, organize systems ergonomically, and inventory and maintain a stock of spare parts. In addition to these issues, operators in Augsburg

raised issues related to copy machines, placement of the computer,

storage space, and test equipment. For operators in Kunia, the major

issue was that of modernizing equipment, including keyboards, VDT's,

printers, and software. The need for improvements in space, chairs,

noise, as well as the use of ergonomic considerations in designing

equipment were also listed. Finally, 59% of the analysts in Berlin

stressed the need to modernize equipment, with other issues related to

speed and reliability of equipment. In Augsburg the major equipment

110
Table 1. Summary Comments About Improvements to Lighting

Question 14

Administrative, Clerical, Other Responses

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

COMMENT Percent COMMENT Percent COMMENT Percent

light, adj 37.5% light, maintain 16.7% light, less 28.6%

light, task 31.3% light, adj 13.3% light, more 21.4%

light, glare 12.5% light, more 13.3% light, task 14.3%

light, more 6.3% light, less 10.0% light, placemen 7 . 1%

light, rem fluor 6.3% light, rem fluo 10.0% light, bench 7.1%

light, less 6.3% light, flicker 6.7% light, adj 7.1%

light, vary 6.7% light, diffuser 7.1%

light, color 3.3% light, maintain 7.1%

light, hum 3.3% * light, bench 3.3%

light 3.3%

light, uniform 3.3%

light, placemen 3.3%

light, VDT inte 3.3%

Total Admin 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Operator Operator Operator

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment % Comment Comment %

light, adj 23.1% light, less 19.2% light, less 29.3%

light, task 13.5% light, task 19.2% light, task 22.0%

light, less 11.5% light, more 19.2% light, more 17.1%

light, soft 9.6% light, adj 11.5% light, adj 9.8%

light, placement 9.6% light, flicker 7.7% light, glare 9.8%

light, glare 7.7% light, maintain 5.1% light, elim flu 4.9%

light, color 5.8% light, glare 5.1% light, cover 2.4%

light, incan 3.8% light, rem fluo 3.8% see sun 2.4%

light, maintain 3.8% light, placemen 2.6% light, diffuser 2.4%

light, uniform 1.9% light, incandes 2.6%

light, daylight 1,9% light, daylight 1.3%

light 1.9% light, indirect 1.3%

light, rem fluor 1.9% see sun 1.3%

light, snack bar 1.9%

light, rack 1.9%

Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

111
Analyst Analyst Analyst

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment Comment Comment

light, task 33.3% light, task 33.3% light, task 32.5%

light, glare 22.2% light, less 22.2% light, adj 22.5%

light, color 11 . 1% light 11 . 1% light, less 17.5%

light, placement 11.1% light, adj 11.1% light, more 10.0%

light 5.6% light, glare 11 . 1% light, overhead 5.0%

light, soft 5.6% light, indirect 11 . 1% light, glare 5.0%

light, indirect 5.6% light, soft whi 2.5%

light, rem fluor 5.6% skylight 2.5%

light, incan 2.5%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

112
Table 2. Desired Changes to Equipment Question 22

Administrative. Clerical. Other

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment % Comment % Comment %

Modernize 25.0% equip, maintain 12.0% phones 13.6%

WP, modernize 25.0% chair 8.0% WP, more 13.6%

Test equip, mode 12.5% computer, new 8.0% furniture 9.1%

Light 6.3% space 8.0% noise, printer 9.1%

Light, desk 6.3% VDT, more 8.0% test equip, mod 9.1%

Maintain 6.3% WP , improve 8.0% tools, improve 9.1%

Maintain, comp 6.3% color 4.0% cabinets, elim 4.5%

Printer, moderni 6.3% computer, place 4.0% equip, ergon 4.5%

Test equip, more 6.3% dup mach 4.0% equip, moderniz 4.5%

equip, auto 4.0% IBM for Wang 4.5%

equip, incr rel 4.0% test equip, mor 4.5%

equip, modern 4.0% test equip, rac 4.5%

furn, adj 4.0% VDT, modernize 4.5%

light 4.0% VDT, more 4.5%

partitions 4.0%

space, stor 4.0%

temp , var 4.0%

WP , more 4.0%

0.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Operators

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment Percent Comment Percent Comment Perci

Increase reliabi 19.5% dup mach 37.2% modernize 39.2%

Modernize 19.5% computer, place 10.6% space 7.8%

Maintain 17.1% color 7.1% keyboard, adj 5.9%

Systems, speed u 9.8% test equip, imp 5.3% organize, ergon 5.9%

Organize, ergono 7.3% equip, incr rel 3.5% chair 3,9%

Printer, moderni 4.9% space, stor 3,5% equip, elim old 3,9%

Spare parts, inv 4.9% equip, maintain 2.7% equip, ergon 3,9%

VDTs, more 4.9% furn , adj 2.7% noise 3.9%

Computer, modern 2.4% keyboard, adj 2.7% printer, new 3.9%

Data equip , auto 2.4% equip, des ergo 1.8% software, updat 3.9%

Light, placement 2.4% equip, stock sp 1.8% VDT, modernize 3.9%

Provide authoriz 2.4% microfiche, imp 1.8% dirty 2.0%

WP, modernize 2.4% temp, cold 1.8% hardware, integ 2.0%

VDT, improve 1.8% light, task 2.0%

chair 0.9% maintain 2.0%

113
Operators

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment Percent Comment Percent Comment Percent

chair, adj 0.9% noise , printer 2.0%

env, dep 0.9% partitions 2.0%

env, maintain 0.9% VDT, color 2.0%

equip, auto 0.9%

equip, calibrat 0.9%

equip, org ergo 0.9%

equip, too sens 0.9%

light 0.9%

noise 0.9%

privacy 0.9%

space , desktop 0.9%

space, storage 0.9%

tools, improve 0 9%

VDT , less 0.9%

windows 0.9%

workbench 0.9%

WP , improve 0.9%

0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Analysts Analysts Analysts

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment % Comment % Comment %

Modernize 47.1% copy mach. 36.1% furniture 18.6%

Computer, modern 11.8% furniture 8.3% VDT, more 11.6%

Increase reliabil .11.8% space, desktop 8.3% chair 9.3%

Systems, speed up 11.8% color 5.6% modernize 7.0%

Organize, ergonom . 5.9% computer, place 5.6% storage, file 7.0%

Provide authoriz 5.9% space, storage 5,6% space 4.7%

VDTs , more 5.9% break area, smo 2.8% VDT, color 4.7%

computer, maint 2.8% VDT, modernize 4.7%

computer, new 2.8% carpet 2.3% env control, It 2.8% color 2.3%

equip, incr rel 2.8% CPU, modernize 2.3%

NOT, black & wh 2.8% CPU in office 2.3%

space 2.8% data storage 2.3%

space, stor 2.8% dirty 2.3%

tel, more 2.8% equip, accessib 2.3%

VDT , new 2.8% equip, excellen 2.3%

View, sim 2.8% equip, standard 2.3%

keyboard, adj 2 . 3%

noise, printer 2.3%

partitions 2.3%

printer, access. 2.3%

printer, control 2.3%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

114
issue was that of copying machine reliability and accessibility , as well

as the need for new computers and VDT's. The need for more space and

better furniture was also raised. At Kunia, the major equipment issues

actually related to improving the physical workspace with 58% of the

comments relating to furniture, space, chairs, and cleaning. Other

comments related to the need for more VDT's, more modern equipment and

accessible printers.

4.3 Suggestions for Workspace Changes

Two separate questions related to the need for changes in the workspace.

The first question was not open-ended but rather asked people to select

the four changes that they would most like to have made to their overall

work environment from a list of 16 possible changes. These data are presented in figures 93-96 and discussed in section 3.8. The second

question, which was open-ended, asked people to list any changes that

they would make to their work space.

Table 3 presents the data for the open-ended question about desired

changes to the workspace. This table indicates that for administrators

at all sites, the most desired change is more space for work and for

storage. Privacy, better furniture, and task lights were also important

issues. People at Kunia raised the issue of the need for conference

rooms and more phones. The need for more space (including greater

privacy) was also raised by operators at all three sites, with operators

at Augsburg mentioning the need for storage space, better organized

space, and space for writing at their station. Operators at Berlin and

Augsburg mentioned the need for more modern equipment and computers as well as for better lighting and chairs. Operators in Augsburg also

mentioned the cold temperatures, need for a conference room, feelings of

being confined and a desirq to personalize their space. At Kunia, better

lighting and chairs were major issues, as well as the lack of maintenance

to the workspace and the need for break areas for non-smokers. Finally,

analysts also raised the need for more working and storage space, as well

as for better organization of the space available. Analysts also

mentioned the need for better lighting and furniture, less noise, and

greater privacy. Those at Kunia commented on the need for better air

quality and more partitions, as well.

115
Table 3. Desired Changes to Space Question 27

Administrative. Clerical. Other

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment Percent Comment Percent Comment Percent

space 20.0% privacy 15.2% space 25.0%

privacy 13.3% furniture 12.1% phones , more 9.4%

test equip, imp 13.3% space 12.1% privacy 9.4%

air circ 6.7% space, storage 12.1% color 6.3%

furn, color 6.7% space, writing 12.1% light, task 6.3%

furn, wood 6.7% space, organize 9.1% space, storage 6.3%

light, task 6.7% light 6.1% storage, person 6.3%

noise 6.7% carpet 3.0% temp, cold 6.3%

partitions 6.7% color 3.0% chair 3.1%

space , organize 6.7% conf room 3.0% crowded 3.1%

space, storage 6.7% env , dep 3.0% dirty 3.1%

light, adj 3.0% get out 3.1%

phone, accesib 3.0% space, aisles 3.1%

windows 3.0% space , maintain 3.1%

space , org 3.1%

view, simulated 3.1%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Operators Operators Operators

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comments % Comments % Comments %

space , desktop 14.9% space, storage 14.3% space 13.4%

equipment, organ 8.5% space, writing 8.3% light 10.4%

equipment, relia 8.5% temp, cold 7,1% light, less 6.0%

light 8.5% equip, moderniz 6,0% space, desktop 6.0%

computer, modern 6.4% space 6.0% break area 4.5%

carpet 4.3% light 4.8% chair 4.5%

chair 4.3% chair 3.6% color 4.5%

dirty 4.3% conf room 3.6% furniture 4.5%

furniture 4.3% furniture 3.6% space, storage 4.5%

privacy 4.3% space, equip 3.6% temp, cold 4.5%

space 4.3% space , organize 3.6% chair, adj 3.0%

space, storage 4.3% carpet 2.4% dirty 3.0%

temp , var 4.3% crowded 2.4% organize , ergon 3.0%

air circ 2.1% equip, organize 2.4% paint 3.0%

equipment, moder 2.1% light, task 2.4% storage, person 3.0%

furniture, adj 2.1% organize, ergo 2.4% clutter 1 5%

go out 2.1% personalize 2.4% env, dep 1 .5%

116
Operators Operators Operators

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comments % Comments % Comments %

light, adj 2.1% privacy 2.4% equip, moderniz 1.5%

light, soft 2.1% smokings 2.4% light, adj 1.5%

light, task 2.1% space, aisle 2.4% light, daylight 1.5%

paint 2.1% break area, lar 1.2% light, glare 1.5%

VDT, improve 2.1% env, dep 1.2% light, task 1.5%

equipment, acce 1.2% noise 1.5%

heaters, pers 1.2% partitions 1.5%

interruptions 1.2% phone, accessib 1.5%

light, less 1.2% privacy 1.5%

light, rem fluo 1.2% space, aisles 1.5% move around 1.2% space, org 1.5%

paint 1.2% space, rack 1.5%

partitions 1.2% temp, hot 1.5%

phone, improve 1.2%

VDT, more 1.2%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Analysts Analysts Analysts

Berlin Augsburg Kunia

Comment % Comment % Comment %

space 12.5% space 38.5% space 23.8%

space, storage 12.5% space, organize 15.4% space, storage 14.3%

furniture 8.3% chair 7.7% air qual 8.3%

light 8.3% equip, moderniz 7.7% space, org 8.3%

noise 8.3% noise 7.7% partitions 6.0%

privacy 8.3% partitions 7.7% privacy 6.0%

temp, cold 8.3% privacy 7.7% chair 4.8%

carpet 4 . 2% see out 7.7% light 4.8%

crowded 4.2% furniture 3.6%

furniture, adj 4.2% color 2.4%

light, adj 4.2% noise 2.4%

paint 4.2% break area 1.2%

phones, relocate 4.2% chair, adj 1.2%

space, desktop 4.2% env, dep 1.2%

window 4.2% get out 1.2%

light, adj 1.2%

light, less 1.2%

paint 1.2%

phones, more 1.2%

plants 1.2%

temp , var 1.2%

VDT, improve 1.2%

VDT, more 1.2%

window 1.2%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

117
5. Physical Measurement Data

5.1 Background Information

A battery of physical measurements was taken at numerous locations in

each field station. These included illuminance, luminance, temperature,

humidity, air flow rates, sound levels, and subjective assessments of

color, furniture condition, and major noise sources. A limited set of

measurements was also taken of the workstations dimensions.

Measures were not taken at every location because of the similarity of

conditions within a room. Most operators and analysts were located in

large open-plan areas so noise levels at one workstation were the same as those nearby. Generally, the levels throughout the facility were quite

uniform. They seldom varied more than four or five dBA from place to

place, except near major noise sources such as high speed printers.

Consequently, a limited number of locations indicated the likely

environmental impact, with questionnaire data supplying subjective

information. In addition, the overall ambient levels on the working

floor (typically about 60-65 dBA) were well below those that could cause any hearing damage to personnel. Even in the vicinity of major noise sources such as printers or generators, the levels usually did not

present any major health problem. However, in several instances, noises were sufficiently loud and intrusive (between 80-85 dBA when a printer

was operational) to create a major annoyance.

Temperature and humidity levels likewise were relatively uniform within

major areas of the facilities, although they varied from area to area and

from time to time. Consequently, a limited number of readings were sufficient to indicate the general working conditions.

The one environmental topic dealt with in substantial detail was lighting. It had been identified as a major problem area which

"triggered" the initial investigation. Furthermore, the variability of

lighting at all sites elicited many unfavorable comments by people

performing a variety of tasks in different locations. The analysis

revealed considerable variation in overall light levels, light source

position, and task contrast (particularly for VDT's).

5.1.1. Temperature and Humidity Measures

Measurements of temperature, humidity, and air speed were made using a Solomat^ multi-channel modumeter (2016)

.

The device automatically cycles

from temperature to air speed to humidity and back to temperature. A

platinum thermohygrometer measured temperature and humidity while a hot

wire anemometer was used to measure air speed.

^ Brand names are provided for identification purposes only, and do

not constitute endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology or the U,S. Army.

118
Using a stand constructed for the probes of the Soiomat, measures were

taken at individual workstations by placing the system at typical working

positions. The readings recorded were those of the third cycle, to

permit the measurements to stabilize. The equipment was calibrated prior

to the field visits. (Air speed readings were very variable, depending

on location and therefore are not covered in any detail in the report.)

5.1.2 Acoustic Measurements

Acoustic measurements were made with a Quest^ model 155 precision handheld sound level meter and a standard 1/2 inch condenser microphone with

an OB- 145 octave band filter attached. The equipment was calibrated

before use at each field station. Ambient sound levels were measured on

the dBA scale, slow reading (1000 msec time constant). Octave band

analyses were made after the ambient measures. Fast responses (125 msec

time constant) were taken when the noise sources were variable, primarily

when measuring headset output.

Acoustic measurements were made at workstations and in the vicinity of

major noise sources, such as high speed printers, teletypewriters, fans,

and blowers.

5.1.3 Illumination Measurements

A hand-held Minolta^ photometer with a cosine-corrected diffuser and a photopic response filter was used to measure illuminance (the amount of

light falling on the work surface). Illuminance was measured at the

primary task location - the position where the person normally workedwith the chair occupied. Measurements were made at the center of the

working area, where a standard target was positioned. When a VDT was present, illuminance was also measured at the screen and keyboard, with

the room lights and monitor in their customary setting. In several

cases, additional measures were taken with the room lights altered from

their normal setting (either to on or off.)

A portable Minolta^- luminance meter with a one degree spot size was used

to measure luminance (the light reflected from a surface). Measures were

taken for a standard target containing white, gray, and black surfaces,

the ceiling between luminaires, and for the brightest and darkest

surfaces in the field of view. Where a VDT was present, luminance measures were taken at the center, left, right, top, and bottom of the screen as well as of two individual characters. While the spot size of

the luminance meter covered the entire character, it also covered a small

amount of surrounding screen area, so the measurement includes character

and background. This procedure appears appropriate for making relative

brightness comparisons of screen characters for different types of

equipment and light sources.

Other lighting related data recorded were the type of overhead luminaire

and its position relative to the workstation as well as any switching

119
controls available. The presence, type, illuminance, and luminance of

any task lighting were also recorded. Finally, observations were made

concerning the presence or absence of visible reflections on the VDT

screen.

5.2 Berlin Measurement Data

5.2.1 Lighting Measurements

Data from the battery of measurements made at 61 workstations in the

Berlin Field Station are presented in Table 4. The data consist of means

and standard deviations for the entire sample, followed by those for

operational, analytic, and administrative areas both with and without

VDT's. There were 21 work stations without VDT's - 7 administrative, 7 analytical, and 7 operational - and 40 workstations with VDT's - 5 administrative, 9 analytical, and 26 operational.

Inspection of Table 4 reveals that the overall mean illuminance in Berlin

was quite low, about 282 lux. Generally speaking workstations with VDT's

had lower illuminances (234 lux) than those without VDT's (370 lux).

Operators and analysts with VDT's had much lower levels (197 lux and 188

lux) than did administrators with VDT's (572 lux), however.

As a result, mean task luminances were quite low as well, with a mean of

60 cd/mz for white tasks, 7.2 cd/m^ for black tasks, and 20.2 cd/m^ for

grey tasks. This resulted in overall black - white contrasts of 0.90 for

the whole sample, 0.91 for those without VDT's and 0.89 for those with

VDT's. Grey - white contrasts were 0.68, 0.69 and 0.67 for the same

areas. The brightest area in the field of view was always the luminaire,

with a mean luminance of 2381 cd/m^ , but a very large range of about 25

cd/m^ to over 5600 cd/m^ depending on the position of the light source relative to the workstation. Overall ceiling luminance without the

luminaire tended to be quite low, around 30 cd/m .

Luminaires were generally louvered with either cool white or warm white

fluorescent lamps (often in the same fixture). In administrative and

analytical areas, 2 lamps were typically illuminated in a fixture (that

often originally used 4 lamps) . The operations floor had just been

relamped with 4x4 crossed lamp fixtures with 2" deep cell parabolic

louvers. Generally, only 1 lamp was illuminated, and in several cases

this lamp supplied blue light. The blue lamp was used because some operators thought it helped them see better. (Before relamping, a number

of operators had placed blue plastic sheets over their luminaires to

reduce glare on their VDT screens.) Two areas with blue lamps were measured, and found to have very low illuminances (11 - 17 lux) and low

lamp luminances (58 - 264 cd/m^) . The blue lamps also caused white and

fluorescent objects to fluoresce, suggesting the presence of significant

amounts of ultraviolet light in their spectrum. The very low light

120
Table 4. Physical Measurement Data from Berlin

ID Illum-PS Lum-W Lum-Bk Lum-G Contrast Contrast Ratio Ratio

lux cd/m A 2 cd/m A 2 c d/m A 2 B-W G-W B-W G-W

Full Samel e N = 62

Avg 282.2 60.4 7.2 20.2 0.90 0.68 0.90 0.68

Std 270.1 62.7 8.9 22.1 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10

All Workstations with a VDT N=40

Avg 234.6 47.0 5.8 16.2 0.91 0.69 0.91 0.69

Std 247.4 55.8 8.0 20.2 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.11

Admin

Avg 572.2 150.4 18.0 53.2 0.88 0.65 0.88 0.65

Std 263.7 29.0 7.0 12.7 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Analysis

Avg 187.8 32.3 3.2 9.1 0.91 0.69 0.91 0.69

Std 104.9 23.3 2.3 8.1 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.11

Operations

Avg 184.0 30.9 4.2 11.2 0.92 0.70 0.92 0.70

Std 226.9 44.5 7.4 16.1 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.12

All Workstations without a VDT N=22

Avg 370.6 84.6 9.8 27.3 0.89 0.67 0.89 0.67

Std 287.6 67.2 9.9 23.6 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07

Admin

Avg 676.0 149.0 21.3 54.1 0.86 0.64 0.86 0.64

Std 184.6 49.0 8.2 17.8 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02

Analysis

Avg 238.9 68.8 4.6 15.9 0.91 0.70 0.91 0.70

Std 177.9 55.9 3.3 11.6 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.11

Operations

Avg 196.9 36.0 3.4 12.0 0.91 0.67 0.91 0.67

Std 204.1 35.5 3.8 11.5 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

Means for Each Job Cateeorv

Admin 632.75 149.60 19.93 53.71 0.87 0.64 0.87 0.64

Anal 210.19 48.27 3.81 12.07 0.91 0.69 0.91 0.69

Ops 186.82 32.06 4.06 11.34 0.92 0.69 0.92 0.69

121
Table 4 Continued

ID Lum-Cel Lum-Lite Lum-Dk VDT Kb VDT-Scrn VDT-C VDT-L VDT-R

cd/m A 2 cd/mA 2 cd/m A 2 lux lux cd/m A 2 cd/m A 2 cd/m A 2

Full Sampl e N = 62

Avg 11.9 2380.7 3.91 244.1 137.3 1.8 1.2 1 .

1

Std 10.2 1705.5 6.19 266.5 142.5 3.2 2.3 2.5

All Workstations with a VDT

Avg 9.8 2333.7 3.21 244.1 137.3 1.8 1.2 1.1

Std 9.7 1882.8 6.26 266.5 142.5 3.2 2.3 2.5

Admin

Avg 28.0 4032.4 10.95 671.0 360.6 8.5 5.5 6.1

Std 6.7 1157.4 4.90 228.3 123.3 3.6 2.8 3.6

Analysis

Avg 5.1 2204.1 0.77 104.1 71.3 1.0 0.4 0.4

Std 3.1 2014.7 0.72 102.4 51.9 1.3 0.8 0.8

Operations

Avg 7.8 2028.3 2.52 167.1 90.6 0.7 0.6 0.3

Std 7.4 1763.8 6.45 172.5 93.6 1.6 1.3 0.8

All Workstations without a VDT

Avg 15.7 2465.8 5.17

Std 10.1 1321.4 5.86

Admin

Avg 25.7 3510.7 9.28

Std 9.3 917.2 7.01

Analysis

Avg 9.3 2222.2 2.41

Std 5.1 1245.7 1.88

Operations

Avg 12.0 1664.4 3.82

Std 6.4 1025.8 4.89

Means for Each Job Cateeorv

Admin 26.62 3728.06 9.98 671.00 360.60 8.50 5.52 6.09

Anal 6.94 2212.00 1.49 104.14 71 . 30 1.00 0.37 0.36

Ops 8.74 1946.17 2.81 167.08 90 59 0.70 0.59 0.28

122
Table 4 Continued

ID VDT-T VDT-B LRTB LRTB VDT VDT Char

.

Ch 1 Ch 2

Full Sample

cd/m A 2

s N = 62

cd/mA 2 Avg Std Ch 1 Ch 2 Avg C-Con C-Con

Avg 0.9 1.4 1.12 1.12 7.5 6.6 7.05 0.87 0.88

Std 1.8 2.7

All Workstations with a VDT

2.10 2.10 8.8 9.1 8.69 0.17 0.17

Avg 0.9 1.4 1 . 12 1.12 7.5 6.6 7.05 0.87 0.88

Std 1.8 2.7 2.10 2.10 8.8 9.1 8.69 0.17 0.17

Admin

Avg 3.5 6.1 5.32 5.32 23.2 23.9 23.53 0.61 0.54

Std 2.5 2.6 2.18 2.18 10.3 13.2 11.24 0.08 0.32

Analysis

Avg 0.6 0.4 0.43 0.43 10.2 7.5 8.86 0.91 0.90

Std 1.5 1.0 1.02 1.02 7.7 5.3 6.03 0.09 0.08

Operations

Avg 0.4 0.7 0.51 0.51 3.3 2.9 3.10 0.91 0.91

Std 1.2 2.1 1.16 1.16 3.0 2.9 2.89 0.16 0.18

All Workstations without a VDT

Avg

Std

Admin

Avg

Std

Analysis

Avg

Std

Operations

Avg

Std

Means for Each Job Category

Admin 3..55 6.. 12 5.,32 5, 32 23. 18 23. 88 23.,53 0..61 0 .,70

Anal 0 .,59 0 ,,41 0 , 43 0 43 10 20 7. 53 8 , 86 0..91 0 .,90

Ops 0.,41 0 ,, 75 0 ,.51 0, 51 3,, 33 2. 86 3.. 10 0 ,.91 0 .91

123
Table 4 continued

ID Ch .AVG Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch . AVG SndA SndB SndC

C- Con AVG -Con AVG!-Con AVG -Con Phone Conv Printer

Full Sample N = 62

Avg 0.87 0.93 0.93 2.05 2.71 2.60

Std 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.72 0.67 0.54

All Workstations with a VDT

Avg 0.87 0.93 0.93 2.04 2.69 2.68

Std 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.79 0.77 0.55

Admin * Avg 0.62 0.76 0.72 0.77 2.33 3.00 2.00

Std 0.09 0.04 0.17 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00

Analysis

Avg 0.91 0.97 0.97 0.97 2.00 2.60 2.60

Std 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.49 0.49

Operations

Avg 0.90 0.95 0.95 2.00 2.67 2.82

Std 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.92 0.88 0.51

All Workstations without a VDT

Avg 2.07 2.73 2.47

Std 0.57 0.44 0.50

Admin

Avg 2.20 2.60 2.40

Std 0.75 0.49 0.49

Analysis

Avg 1.80 2.80 2.20

Std 0.40 0.40 0.40

Operations

Avg 2.20 2 80 2.80

Std 0.40 0.40 0.40

Means for Each Job Category

Admin 0.62 0.76 0.72 0.77 2.25 2.75 2.25

Anal 0 91 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.90 2.70 2.40

Ops 0.90 0.95 0.95 2.04 2.70 2.82

124
Table 4 continued

ID

Full Samol

SndD

Equip

e N = 62

SndE SndF

Vent Outside

SndG

Music

Temp

.

Humid AirFlow Noise

dBA

Avg 2.30 2.60 1.03 2.00 71.16 44.20 -0.15 60.53

Std 0.46 0.49

All Workstations with a VDT

0.16 1.07 3.20 3.96 11.76 8.03

Avg 2.36 2.68 1.00 2.16 71.91 43.57 1.38 61.71

Std 0.48 0.47 0.00 1.08 3.57 4.40 13.28 8.74

Admin

Avg 2.00 2.67 1.00 1.00 69.92 49.38 -4.32 52.90

Std 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.51 1.53 2.88 5.48

Analysis

Avg 2.40 2.60 1.00 2.40 69.54 44.97 0.81 63.56

Std 0.49 0.49 0.00 1.20 3.62 3.91 11.23 6.29

Operations

Avg 2.41 2.71 1.00 2.29 73.26 41.76 2.84 63.02

Std 0.49 0.46

All Workstations without a

0.00

VDT

1.02 3.23 3.64 14.95 9.02

Avg 2.20 2.47 1.07 1.73 69.99 45.51 -3.28 58.22.

Std 0.40 0.50 0.25 1.00 1.26 2.36 6.71 5.78

Admin

Avg 2.20 2.40 1.20 1,80 70.56 46.00 -3.21 58.50

Std 0.40 0.49 0.40 0.75 0.82 2.63 5.92 4.45

Analysis

Avg 2.00 2.20 1.00 2.00 67.88 47.18 -5.30 57.80

Std 0.00 0.40 0.00 1.26 0.39 1.17 1.80 6.01

Operations

Avg 2.40 2.80 1.00 1.40 69.98 43.53 -1.67 58.25

Std

Means for

0.49

Each Job

0.40

Catecorv

0.00 0.80 0.41 0.99 9.26 6.83

Admin 2.13 2.50 1.13 1.50 70.29 47.41 -3.68 56.17

Anal 2.20 2.40 1.00 2.20 68.95 45.76 -1.37 61.50

Ops 2.41 2.73 1.00 2.09 72.58 42.13 1.91 61.96

125
levels, combined with the possible ultraviolet light hazard, suggest that

the use of the blue lamps is not an effective means of lighting the space

and controlling glare.

Switching control in the field station was typically by means of an on-off switch for an entire room. As a result, if people wished to

reduce illuminance selectively for certain areas only, they had to

disable lamps. They had no means of increasing illuminance other than

replacing burnt-out lamps.

Additional measurements were taken for areas with VDT's. As can be seen

from table 4, mean keyboard illuminance was 244 lux (with 671 lux for

admin, 104 lux for analysis, and 167 lux for operations) while mean

screen illuminance was 137 lux (360, 71, and 91 lux for the 3 groups,

respectively) . It is important to note the very low illuminances

obtained for analysts, who typically must do both paper and VDT tasks.

The luminance of the VDT screens was measured for 35 workstations for

the center, right, left, top, bottom, and two characters of each VDT

screens. Average screen luminance was then calculated for the right,

left, top, and bottom measures. Contrast could then be determined

between the screen character and the average or center screen luminance.

Average screen luminance was slightly lower (1.12 cd/m^) than center

luminance (1.79 cd/m^) , with much higher values (5.32, 8.50 cd/m^)

observed for the few administrative locations with VDT's. Calculations

of contrast indicated lower mean contrasts for the administrative areas

(0.62 for center, and 0.77 for average) than for analysis (0.91 for

center and 0.97 for average) or operations (0.90 for center and 0.95 for

average) . The difference is understandable when the much higher

illuminances measured in the administrative areas were considered (750 versus 190 lux)

.

These data reinforce the validity of the operators' contention that light

levels are too high and cause screen glare. Certainly, at all 3 field

stations, operators have modified their lighting by disabling lamps,

adding homemade paper diffusers, and where possible, switching off

luminaires. The result is lower light levels, but increased contrast on

the VDT screen. Other problems arose because luminaires were frequently

positioned behind an operator, causing reflections on the screen.

The lighting situation is very difficult for those who do paper tasks in

the operational area, however. The illuminances are too low for reading

poor quality copies, printouts, pencil, and detailed instruction manuals.

Furthermore, in analytical and administrative areas, lowering the light

levels is usually not appropriate, because the primary visual tasks

involve paper and interaction with personnel. The solution for lighting

these areas lies in proper positioning of the light sources relative to

the VDT screens, use of better luminaires (designed to control glare on VDT screens), careful selection of light levels, and use of individually

controlled task lighting.

126
5.2.2 Measurements of Temperature, Humidity, and Sound Levels

As noted earlier, a portable instrument was used to measure temperature,

humidity and air flow for each work station. Measurements were made in

late June with outside temperatures in the upper 60 's to low 70' s. The mean inside temperature was 70°F, (70 - 73°F for those with VDT's and 68

- 70°F for those without VDT's). The range of temperatures was from 67°F

to 79°F, depending on location. Mean humidity was 44% with a range of 36

to 52. Air flow varied from about 6 to 62 cfm, with tremendous variation

depending on location.

Another way of examining the temperature data is to look at the variation

in temperature in a given space by groups. The following breakdown can

be made:

Admin Analysis Operational

Temp Number Temp Number Temp Number

57-68 0 57-68 10 57-68 4

69-71 12 69-71 4 69-71 10

71+ 0

’ 71+ 0 71+ 15

This evaluation indicates that the analytical and administrative areas were definitely colder than the operational areas (which were undergoing

an upgrade at the time of the measurements) . The analytic area was particularly cold with no temperatures within the ASHRAE guidelines for

interior temperatures in summer (73-79° F) , and most temperatures below

the guidelines for winter interior temperatures (68-74. 5°F). These data

indicate some of the reasons for the complaints about being cold from the

analysts and administrators seen in figures 10 and 11. Operators

reported, however, that temperatures in the operational area had been

much colder before the recent upgrade.

At the same time, noise levels were recorded with a portable sound level

meter. Mean sound level for all work stations was 60 dBA, but again

there was considerable variability depending on location and number of

people in the office. For example, most measurements for the areas without VDT's were made when offices were unoccupied (to minimize

disruptions) so that the mean level was very low - about 58 dBA. On the

other hand, 3 areas in operations had levels in excess of 80 dBA

associated with printers. In particular, one area had a printer whose

level was 86 dBA. This printer would be active 25 - 30 times a shift and

increased the noise level from 75 dBA to 86 dBA. This area was also

characterized by excessive heat levels upon occasion, sometimes over 85°F

in summer. Printers were definitely the loudest and most annoying noise

source particularly in crowded offices. Several analysts commented,

however, that the piped- in classical music was difficult to deal with,

because they had a tendency to listen to it, rather than their work. It

became a distraction because of its content.

127
5.2.3 Subjective Assessments

The next series of measures were less precise but were an attempt by the

experimenters to quantify aspects of the space such as color, chair

comfort, sound sources, and similar characteristics. The number and kind

of colors observed as an experimenter examined a workstation were

recorded. A total of 172 colors were observed for 54 workstations.

White and grey occurred most frequently (about 20% of the time) , followed

by blue and brown (about 12%) , black and orange (about 8%) , and then

yellow, beige, red and green (at 3 to 5%). The most colorful area was operations because each rack was often brightly colored, although because

light levels were quite low, colors did not appear vivid. Wall colors

tended to be white, beige, or light blue in the facility. Very little

wall or desk personalization was observed for the field station as a whole, although the operators and analysts had almost none.

For people without VDT's, chairs tended to be conventional office chairs,

while people with VDT's typically had ergonomic chairs with 5 legs and

adjustable seats and backs. Since the operations area had recently been

refurbished, many chairs were relatively new although problems with

sprung seats, broken or missing arms, and excessive tippiness were

observed. Subjective assessments of chair quality were made by the

experimenter following the lighting measurements. Chairs were judged to

be "good" or "poor", with "poor" chairs suffering from broken arms and

backs, tippiness, sprung seats, broken reclining mechanisms and similar

defects. Categorizing chairs in this manner revealed that about 72% of

the chairs in the administrative and analytical areas were in "good"

condition, while only about 50% of the chairs in the operational areas could be considered "good", although most of the problems related to

miss.ing or broken arms, rather than sprung seats.

Supplementary task lights were observed in only 2 areas without VDT's and

7 with VDT's. Some equipment racks in operations had supplementary

lighting built in, but these were often modified by operators by being

painted, taped over or turned off, to decrease illuminance and remove bright spots. Incorporating task lighting into the equipment would have

been effective if the light position and brightness could have been

controlled more easily. Operators in one area commented that the general

lighting had gone out recently, forcing them to rely on the emergency

lighting - a 75 watt incandescent spotlight mounted about 6 feet behind

the racks. This resulted in minimal screen glare and fewer complaints.

The experimenters also assessed the types and annoyance of noise sources

in the offices, using a 4-point rating scale where 1 meant "none", 2 meant "very little", 3 meant "some" and 4 meant "a lot" (See Table 4.)

Conversations, printer noise and ventilation hum were the most intrusive

sources, while outside noise was never a problem. Telephones, music and

general office equipment were rarely overly intrusive.

128
5.3 Augsburg Measurement Data

Table 5 presents summary measurement data from 79 work stations at the

Augsburg field station. Again, the data are categorized by the presence

or absence of a VDT and then by occupational category - administrative,

analytical, and operational. There were 25 work stations without VDT's14 administrative, 6 analytical, and 5 operational - and 54 work stations

with VDT's - 8 administrative, 12 analytical, and 34 operational.

5.3.1 Lighting Measurements

Mean illuminances at the primary work surface were quite low throughout,

with a mean of 235 lux for those without VDT's and 140 lux for those with

VDT's. The administrators without VDT's had the highest mean

illuminance, 310 lux, with a range of 62 to 706 lux, followed by the

analysts at 150 lux and the operators at 127 lux. Administrators with

VDT's had a mean illuminance of 230 lux followed by analysts at 144 lux

and operators at 114 lux. Average black and white contrasts ranged from

0.86 to 0.90, while grey and white contrasts ranged from 0.61 to 0.67.

The illuminances measured at the Augsburg field station were among the

lowest for any field station, and suggest the real potential for problems

doing paper tasks in all areas, not just operations.

Luminaires were generally prismatic with either cool white or warm white

fluorescent lamps (often in the same fixture). In all areas, 2 lamps were typically illuminated in a fixture (that often originally used 4

lamps). About 19 of the 54 work stations had task lights, usually 15"

movable fluorescent lights. Only 4 areas with VDT's had task lights.

Detailed measures of illuminances and luminances were taken for 52 work

areas with VDT's. These included illuminance at the keyboard and screen,

as well as luminance for the display itself. Screen luminance was measured for the center, top, bottom, right and left sides - to create an average background luminance - and for two characters - which were also

averaged. In this way, summary measures of screen contrast could be

calculated. This procedure has its deficiencies since the character

luminance often included some background luminance, but it provides a means of comparing the relative contrast for VDT's in a given situation.

Examining the lighting measures at areas with VDT's indicates that

overall mean illuminance at the keyboard was lower than the primary work

location at the workstation. For those with VDT's, mean keyboard

illuminance was 96 lux while mean screen illuminance was 59 lux.

Operators had mean illuminances of 71 lux at the keyboard and 48 lux at

the screen, analysts had 124 and 70 lux, and administrators had 128 and

87 lux, respectively. Screen luminance, at the screen center and

averaged for five readings at the screen edge was greater for operators,

2.0 and 2.6 cd/m^ (center and average) but lower for analysts (1.0 and

0.8 cd/m^) and administrators (1.6 and 1.5 cd/m^) . Average character

luminance followed a slightly different pattern - 5.3 cd/m^ for

129
Table 5. Physical Measurement Data from Augsburg

Total Sample

ID Illum-P Lum-W Lum-Bk Lum-G Contrast Contrast Ratio Ratio

lux cd/m A 2 cd/m*2 cd/m^2 B-W G-W B-W G-W

Avg 161.1 34.7 4.8 12.2 0.86 0.63 0.14 0.37

Std 146.6 37.8 5.5 12.6 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.07

All Workstations with VDT N=54

Avg 125.1 24.0 3.5 9.1 0.84 0.61 0.14 0.37

Std 121.7 27.9 4.5 10.4 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03

Admin With VDT N=8

Avg 230.5 50.8 6.8 19.2 0.87 0.61 0.13 0.39

Std 215.4 52.1 8.1 18.9 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03

Analysis With VDT N=12

Avg 144.5 30.0 3.9 11.2 0.87 0.63 0.13 0.37

Std 63.3 16.0 2.2 6.2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Ops With VDT N=34

Avg 90.1 15.5 2.4 6.0 0.86 0.62 0.15 0.39

Std 81.2 15.8 3.3 6.2 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

All Workstations without VDT ' s N=25

Avg 235.1 58.0 7.7 18.9 0.13 0.35

Std 164.2 45.1 6.4 14.3 0.05 0.12

Admin No VDT N=14

Avg 310.2 80.7 10.7 24.8 0.86 0.67 0.14 0.33

Std 178.4 48.1 7.0 16.2 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.13

Anal No Vdt N=6

Avg 149.6 31.1 4 0 11.7 0.86 0.61 0.14 0.39

Std 87.9 18.0 2.1 6.5 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.18

Ops No

Avg

VDT

127.4 26.9 3.5

N=5

10.8 0.90 0.65 0.10 0.35

Std 75.7 15.9 2.4 6.8 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.12

Mean Data

Admin

for Each

281.2

Job Type

69.8 9.3 22.8 0.86 0.65 0.14 0.35

Analyst 146.2 30.3 3.9 11.4 0.87 0.62 0.13 0.38

Operator 95. 2 17.0 2.6 6.6 0.86 0.62 0 14 0.38

130
Table 5. Continued

Total Sample

ID Lum-Cel Lum-Lite Lum-Dk VDT Kb VDT-Scrn VDT-C VDT-L VDT-R

cd/ra

A 2 cd/m A 2 cd/mA 2 lux lux cd/mA 2 cd/m A 2 cd/m A 2 Avg 7 .

3

1829.2 2.4 98.0 60.7 2.6 4.7 3.0

Std 5.6 1563.2 3.4 71.4 39.2 6.2 16.3 9.4

All Workstations

Avg 6 .

1

with VDT

1486.2 1.9 96.4 58.7 1.7 2.1 1.6

Std 4.5 1222.5 3.3 73.2 39.5 3.9 9.3 6.1

Admin

Avg 10.4 2472.8 3.2 128.4 87.0 1.6 1.4 1.5

Std 6.3 1505.0 4.8 97.3 63.2 1.5 1.4 1.2

Analysis

Avg 6 .

7

1661.3 2.8 123.8 70.5 1.0 0.6 0.6

Std 3.3 792.4 3.5 52.8 23.6 0.5 0.4 0.4

Ops

Avg 4 .

8

1192.3 1.3 71.0 48.6 2.0 2.8 2.1

Std 3.6 1137.0 2.6 59.6 34.1 4.9 11.8 7.8

All Workstations

Avg 10.1

without

2634.5

VDT's

3.6 124.3 93.2 26.7 71.4 38.8

Std 6.8 1935.9 3.1 11.3 8.8 4.0 15.6 9.5

Admin

Avg 11.6 3300.7 4.7

Std 00 CM 2369.2 3.8

Anal

Avg 9.7 2272.0 2.2

Std 5.3 1363.0 1.7

Ops

Avg 7.2 1470.4 2.9 124.3 93.2 26.7 71.4 38.8

Std 4.0 597.0 1.8 11.3 8.8 4.0 15.6 9.5

Mean Data for Each Job Type

Admin 11.1 2969.6 4.10 128.40 87.03 1.60 1.40 1.48

Analyst 7.7 1864.9 2.57 123.82 70.49 0.97 0.60 0.63

Operator 5 .

1

1228.0 1.53 75.73 52.57 3.43 6.88 4.24

131
Table 5. Continued

Total Sample

ID VDT-T VDT-B LRTB LRTB VDT VDT Avg

cd/m A 2 cd/mA 2 AVG STD Ch 1 Ch 2 Char

Avg 1.2 0.8 4.0 1.1 4.67 5.40 5.13

Std 1.4 0.7 12.8 3.4 3.68 5.27 4.13

All Workstations with VDT

Avg 1.2 0.8 2.0 0.5 4.67 5.40 5.13

Std 1.4 0.7 7.7 1.6 3.68 5.27 4.13

Admin

Avg 1.6 1.5 1.5 0.4 6.0 7.5 6.72

Std 1 .

1

1.2 1.1 0.3 5.2 8.7 6.70

Analysis

Avg 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.3 3.7 3.8 3.74

Std 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.6 1.52

Ops

Avg 1.1 0.7 2.6 0.6 4.72 5.48 5.27

Std 1.6 0.6 9.8 2.0 3.69 4.80 3.77

All Workstations without VDT's

Avg 55.1 16.3

Std 12.5 3.1

Admin

Avg

Std

Anal

Avg

Std

Ops

Avg 55.1 16.3

Std 12.5 3.1

Mean Data for Each Job Type

Admin 1.63 1.48 1.50 0 40 5.97 7.46 6.72

Analyst 1.34 0.61 0.79 0.34 3.68 3.81 3.74

Operator 1.12 0.72 5.67 1 . 54 4.72 5.48 5.27

132
Table 5. Continued

Total Sample

ID Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch . AVG Ch 1 Ch 2 Ch . AVG SndA SndB

C . Con. C . Con. C . Con. AVG C AVG C AVG C Phon Conv

Avg 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.79 0.8 0.8 2.1 2.9

Std 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3

All Workstations with VDT

Avg 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.79 0.79 2.1 2.9

Std 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.3 0.3

Admin

Avg 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.72 0.69 0.71 2.00 2.80

Std 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.40

Analysis

Avg 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.75 2.00 2.60

Std 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.49

Ops

Avg 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.83 0.83 0.83 2.1 3.0

Std 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.3 0.2

All Workstations without VDT's

Avg 2.2 3.0

Std 0.4 0.0

Admin

Avg 2.2 3.0

Std 0.4 0.0

Anal

Avg 2.0 3.0

Std 1.0 1 . 5

Ops

Avg 2.0 3.0

Std 0.0 0.0

Mean Data for Each Job Typ e Admin 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.72 0.69 0.71 2.14 2.93

Analyst 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.75 2.00 2.64

Operator 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.83 0.83 0.83 2.12 2.97

133
Table 5. Continued

Total Sample

ID SndC SndD SndE SndF SndG Temp

.

Humid AirFlow BkgrdNoise

Print Equip Vent Outs Music dBA

Avg 2.8 2.6 2.7 1.0 1.7 69.9 53.2 7.7 61.6

Std 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.8 2.6 3.7 19.6 9.4

All Workstations with VDT

Avg 2.8 2.6 2.8 1.0 1.6 70.0 53.4 11.0 61.2

Std 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.7 2.2 3.8 21 .

1

8.7

Admin

Avg 2.60 2.20 2.60 1.00 2.00 70.96 52.50 4.24 61 . 19

Std 0.49 0.40 0.49 0.00 1.26 2.13 3.23 17.35 7.94

Analysis

Avg 3.00 2.50 2.60 1.00 1.80 71.18 51.05 17.03 56.09

Std 0.00 0.50 0.49 0.00 0.75 1,84 3.75 22.83 3.87

Ops 68.9

Avg 2.8 2.7 2.8 1.0 1.5 69.2 54.6 10.4 63.1

Std 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.6 2.0 3.5 20.6 9.4

All Workstations without VDT ' s Avg 2.8 2.7 2.7 1.0 2.0 69.5 52.5 -3.4 62.7

Std 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 1.0 3.5 3.0 3.6 10.9

Admin

Avg 2.4 2.4 2.6 1.0 1.6 69.5 52.4 -5.0 58.6

Std 1.1 0.7 0.5 0,0 0.8 4.3 3.3 1.2 9.1

Anal

Avg 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 70.6 50.5 -3.2 73.5

Std 2.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 25.3 3.0 13.5

Ops

Avg 3.3 3.7 3.0 1.0 3.0 69.1 53.8 0.3 69.5

Std 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 4.6 6,0

Mean Data for Each Job Type

Admin 2.50 2.36 2.57 1.00 1.71 70.11 52.43 -0.67 59.63

Analyst 3.09 2.45 2.64 1.00 1.91 71.10 50.97 14.14 58.77

Operator 2.85 2.76 2.82 1.00 1.64 69.22 54.50 9.25 64.14

134
operators, 3.7 cd/m^ for analysts and 6.7 cd/m^ for administrators.

Calculations of contrasts were made using the average screen and

character luminances. These indicate higher contrast for operators

(0.83) than administrators (0.74) or analysts (0.72). As noted earlier

in 5.1, the contrast was higher for operators because of the lower

lighting levels on the operations floor.

5.3.2 Temperature, Humidity and Noise Measurements

Temperature, relative humidity, and air flow were recorded for most work

stations. For the whole field station the mean temperature was 70°F with

a relative humidity of 53 percent. The range of temperatures was from

57°F to 76°F, with a mean of 69°F in operation and slightly higher in the

administrative and analytical areas.

As in Berlin, the distribution of temperatures in the different areas was tabulated for specific temperature ranges. This analysis reveals the

following pattern:

Admin Analysis Operational

Temp Number Temp Number Temp Number

57-68 3 57-68 1 57-68 13

69-71 12 69-71 8 69-71 17

71-76 4 71-76 5 71-76 5

Unlike Berlin, all areas of the field station were in a temperature range

that is often perceived as uncomfortably cold, with certain areas in

operations being even colder.

Air flow varied substantially from about 6.7 to 67.2 depending on location. The mean air flow rate for those without VDT's was about 3.4

cfm with a standard deviation of 3.6, but the mean for those with VDT's

was 61.2 cfm with a standard deviation of 8.7. These measures are given

to provide the reader with some idea of the presence of high air flow

rates (often perceived as drafts) , but should not be taken as absolute

measures due to the difficulty of measuring a constantly changing air

flow. Nonetheless, they do indicate the extent of variability in air

flow at the field station. The mean noise level was 61.6 dBA, with a range of 40 to 87 dBA, with 40 being an essentially unoccupied

administrative office and 87 dBA occurring for an analytic work station

near a printer. Conversations with personnel indicated that this

particular printer was very annoying and could be heard all over the

analytical work area.

5.3.3 Subjective Assessment

While the physical measures were recorded, the most commonly occurring

colors in the space were noted. These included the color of the walls,

135
panels, desk, chair, carpet, and equipment. In all areas, the most common colors were brown, grey, white, beige, and blue. A total of 174

colors were recorded on 63 work stations, with grey and white occurring

about 30% of the time, and other colors occurring less than 10%.

Occasionally orange, yellow, and/or red were observed. By far the most common colors were neutral, with dark blue and green often being used as wall colors. This reduced wall reflectance and probably contributed to

the overall low light levels.

As in Berlin, subjective assessments of chair quality were made by the

experimenter following the lighting measurements. Chairs were judged to

be "good" or "poor", with "poor" chairs suffering from broken arms and

backs, tippiness, sprung seats, broken reclining mechanisms and similar

defects. Categorizing chairs in this manner revealed that about 64% of

the chairs in the administrative and analytical areas were in "good"

condition, while about 76% of the chairs in the operational areas could

be considered "good". At the time of the site visit, some of the

equipment in the operational area was being upgraded, with new chairs as well as new furniture.

Major noise sources were evaluated by the experimenter using the rating

scale described in 5.2.3. Review of these ratings (shown in table 5) for

the field station in indicated conversations and printers were rated as somewhat intrusive, followed by ventilation, while outside noise was never a problem. In analytic areas, printer noise emerged as a problem

"a lot"

,

but otherwise the rankings tended to be the same for the field

station.

5.4 Kunia Measurement Data

5.4.1 Lighting Measurements

Summary data from the measurements made at 122 workstations at Kunia

Field Station are presented in Table 6. Of the 83 locations with VDT's,

13 were administrative, 22 were analytical, and 48 were operational. Of

the 39 locations without VDT’s, 10 were administrative, 16 were

analytical, and 13 were operational. This breakdown does not include

measurements from 33 locations given in the initial report by Rubin and

Collins (1987).

136
Table 6. Physical Measurement Data from Kunia

Total Sample N=122

ID I llum-P Lum-W Lum-Bk Lum-G Ratio Ratio Contrast Contrast

Lux cd/m~2 cd/m A 2 cd/mA 2 B-W G-W B-W G-W

Avg 221.7 50.9 9.9 17.2 0.86 0.67 0.86 0.65

Std 220.2 53.5 24.0 17.9 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.09

All Workstations with VDT's N=83

Avg 158.2 35.5 4.6 12.9 0.89 0.67 0.89 0.64

Std 169.0 42.0 6.6 16.5 0.09 0.15 0.09 0.08

Admin W/VDT N=13

Avg 408.9 *99.8 15.1 47.5 0.82 0.59 0.82 0.59

Std 187.3 45.1 10.0 11 .

1

0.23 0.08 0.23 0.08

Analysis N=22

Avg 276.5 67.2 9.0 25.0 0.87 0.64 0.87 0.62

Std 177.3 41.6 5.9 16.7 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.04

Operations N=48

Avg 76.9 14.7 1.5 4.3 0.91 0.69 0.90 0.66

Std 69.1 16.9 1.7 4.3 0.06 -0.16 0.05 0.08

All Workstations without VDT's N=39

Avg 368.3 86.3 21.8 25.6 0.81 0.67 0.81 0.67

Std 252.2 59.8 39.8 17.6 0.21 0.12 0.21 0.12

Admin No VDT N=10

Avg 496.0 120.0 15.3 42.8 0.88 0.65 0.88 0.65

Std 171.9 46.0 7.1 18.0 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03

Analysis No VDT N=16

Avg 312.7 75.4 10.1 26.6 0.87 0.65 0.87 0.65

Std 129.3 30.7 5.5 13.0 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.07

Operations No VDT N=1

3

Avg 338.5 73.8 41.2 11.2 0.68 0,71 0.68 0.71

Std 361.0 82.3 64.0 5.9 0.32 0.18 0.68 0.71

Mean Data for Each Job Type

Admin (23) 452.5 109.9 15.2 44.5 0.85 0.63 0.85 0.63

Analyst (38) 292.6 70.9 9.5 25.7 0.87 0.64 0.87 0.63

Operator (61 123.5 25.2 8.6 5.7 0.87 0.69 0.86 0.67

137
Table 6 Continued

Total Sample

ID Lum-CeilLum-LiteLura-Dk VDT VDT-C VDT-L VDT- R VDT-T

c d/mA 2 cd/nT2 cd/mA 2 Lux cd/mA 2 cd/m A 2cd/m A 2 cd/mA 2

Avg 26.7 1339.8 11.4 141.9 2.4 1.6 1.7 2.1

Std 160.2 1139.4 55.4 162.0 3.2 2.4 2.5 3.4

All Workstations with VDT's

Avg 31.6 1219.7 12.8 145.1 2.2 1.5 1.6 2.0

Std 184.7 1069.4 62.4 161.8 3.2 2.4 2.4 3.4

Admin

Avg 6.1 2142.5 36.7 394.5 5.4 4.0 2.9 5.9

Std 5.3 923.1 15.1 162.8 4.4 4.0 2.8 5,8

Analysis

Avg 102.2 1345.1 35.9 243.2 3.4 2.5 2.9 3.3

Std 359.6 824.9 129.7 153.4 2.9 2.2 2.6 3.0

Operations

Avg 12.6 1054.9 2.1 70.8 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.8

Std 80.4 1091.3 6.8 85.6 2.3 1.3 2.0 1.8

All Workstations without VDT's

Avg 12.2 2048.7 6.4 102.2 5.0 2.7 4.0 4.3

Std 8.9 1037.2 9.2 158.6 2.7 • 1.4 2.2 1.8

Admin

Avg 9.1 2859.3 39.0 419.6 8.9 4,4 7.2 6.6

Std 4.0 455.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0

Analysis

Avg 17.0 1886.7 6.7

Std 8.4 689.8 7.2

Operations

Avg 4.5 1886.3 1.8 38.7 3.7 2.1 2.9 3.6

Std 4.9 1478.9 2.0 77.5 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.4

Mean Data for Each Job Type

Admin (23) 7.3 2418.2 36.9 397 0 5.7 4.0 3.2 5.9

Analyst (38) 63.3 1585.8 22.5 243.2 3.4 2.5 2.9 3.3

Operator (61 230.8 1163.3 2.0 67.9 1.3 0.8 1.0 1.0

138
Table 6 Continued

Total Sample

ID VDT-B LRTB LRTB VDT Ch. Ch. Ch. Sounds

cd/mA 2 AVG STD cd/mA 2 C-Con Avg Ringing Conver

.

Avg 1.6 1.75 0.51 9.22 0.75 0.83 1.8 3.0

Std 2.3 2.45 0.95 9.61 0.37 0.25 0.7 0.5

All Workstations with VDT's

Avg 1.6 1.67 0.50 9.21 0.79 0.85

Std 2.3 2.45 0.96 9.76 0.21 0.15

Admin

Avg 3.6 4.11 1.83 18.03 0.66 0.76

Std 2.9 3.29 1.88 13.44 0.23 0.11

Analysis

Avg 2.7 2.84 0.45 15.33 0.76 0.78

Std 2.7 2.61 0.40 9.27 0.17 0.17

Operations

Avg 0.8 0.80 0.24 5.44 0.82 0.89

Std 1.3 1.53 0.44 6.19 0.20 0.13

All Workstations without VDT's

Avg 3.3 3.57 0.82 9.65 -0.12 0.24 1.9 3.0

Std 1.3 1.57 0.39 5.12 1.26 0.80 0.7 0.4

Admin • Avg 4.7 5.73 1.20 15.11 0.41 0.62

Std 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Analysis

Avg

Std

Operations

Avg 2.8 2.85 0.69 7.83 -0.29 0.12

Std 1 .

1

1.10 0.37 4.66 1.41 0.89

Mean Data for Each Job Type 1 . 7 3.1

Admin (23) 3.7 4.22 1.79 17.82 0.65 0.75 1.7 2.6

Analyst (38) 2.7 2.84 0.45 15.33 0.76 0.78 2.0 3.1

Operator (61 0.8 0.89 0.26 5.55 0.77 0.86 1.7 3.0

139
Table 6 Continued

Total Sample

ID Sounds

Print Equip Vent Outside Music Temp. Humid.

Avg 2.7 2.6 3.2 1.0 1.0 73.3 58.8

Std 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.3

All Workstations with ¥01'* s

Avg

Std

Admin

Avg

Std

Analysis

Avg 73.3 62.9 2.1

' Std 1.4 3.9 10.7

Operations

Avg 73.1 55.6 2.3 75.6

Std 1.5 3.3 5.1 2.1

All Workstations without VDT^

Avg 2.6 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 73.6 61.9 0.9 77.4

Std 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 5.2 7,8 5.8

Admin * Avg

Std

Analysis

Avg 73.6 63.8 1.5 74.8

Std 1.3 3.8 8.5 4.5

Operations

Avg 73.7 54.4 1.5 84.0

Std 1.8 2.7 2.7 2,0

Mean Data fo 2.8 2.7 3.3 1.0 1.0 73.2 57.4 2.2 74.9

Admin (23) 2.4 2.3 2.4 1.0 1.0

Analyst (38) 2.7 2.5 2.7 1.0 1.0 73.5 63.4 1.7 73.4

Operator (61 2.8 2.8 3.6 1.0 1.0 73.2 55.5 1.9 76.5

Air Flow Ambient

Noise

1.8 75.6

7.2 3.9

140
Inspection of Table 6 reveals a familiar pattern of results. Overall mean illuminance is greatest for administrative workstations without

VDT's (496 lux), and least for operational locations with VDT's (77 lux).

Analytical areas were in between with 276 lux for those with VDT's and

313 lux for those without. Operational areas had a mean illuminance of

76.9 lux for areas with VDT's and 338.5 lux for areas without VDT's. The

high illuminances for the latter is due to two drafting locations with

illuminances of 1100 lux. Without these two areas, the mean illuminance

for operational areas without VDT's was about 195 lux. The mean

illuminance for the site was 222 lux, similar to other field stations,

but quite low by IESNA guidelines for offices where detailed or low

contrast tasks are done.

The pattern of mean luminance for white paper follows that for mean

illuminance and varies from a low of 15 cd/m^ for operational areas with

VDT's to a high of 120 cd/m^ for administrative areas without VDT's.

Black and white contrasts varied from .68 to .90 for these same areas. Ceiling luminances were generally low (about 10 cd/m4

) , while the mean

luminance of all light sources was about 1300 cd/m^ but that for

administrative areas was much higher - about 2400 cd/m .

Measurements of illuminance at the keyboard and screen for locations with

VDT's confirmed that this measure was quite low. A mean of 71 lux

occurred for screens in operational areas, while means of 243 and 395 lux were found for screens in analytical and administrative areas. The

average screen luminance was 4.1 cd/m^ for administrative areas, 2.8

cd/m^ for analytical areas, and 0.8 cd/m^ for operational areas. Luminance at the screen center was 5.4 cd/m^ , 3.4 cd/m^ , and 1.2 cd/m^

for the same areas. Average luminance in the same areas for screen

characters was 18.0 cd/m^ , 15.3 cd/m^ , and 5.4 cd/m^ . This resulted in

calculated contrasts of 0.76 0.78, and 0.89 for administrative,

analytical and operational areas. These findings suggest that the higher

illuminances in the administrative areas reduce VDT screen contrast.

This was borne out by the many clerical personnel who had added homemade

shields to screens, or bought screens designed to reduce glare on VDT's.

In operational areas personnel deliberately reduced the illuminance

itself. In the earlier report by Rubin and Collins (1987), measurements

with and without the room lights in operations indicated that screen contrast was higher with reduced room light levels.

Luminaires at the site were quite mixed, with troffered louvers in most

administrative areas, prismatic louvers in analytical areas, and

troffered louvers in operational areas. In a few cases, deep cell

parabolic louvers had been added to minimize screen glare. In

administrative and analytic areas, 2 lamps were typically illuminated in

a fixture (some were originally 4 lamp fixtures), while in operations

only 1 lamp (if any) would be illuminated. Reflections from the overhead

lights were visible in about half the workstations.

141
5.4.2 Measurements of Temperature, Humidity, and Sound Levels

The same instrument used in Berlin and Augsburg was also used at Kunia to measure temperature, humidity and air flow at selected (about 28) work

stations. Measurements were made in April with outside temperatures in

the upper 70 's to low 80' s. The mean temperature for the field station

was 73.5°F, with a mean relative humidity of about 58%. As noted in the

companion report, fewer complaints were made about cold temperatures at

Kunia; the interior temperature was higher. Measured temperatures

reported in the earlier report were lower - typically between 66 and 71°

F, and mean relative humidities of 68-63%. These measures had been taken

in December, which may account for the lower interior temperatures.

Individual areas at Kunia were sometimes too warm (the warmest

temperature, 75°, was observed in analysis) or too cold (the coldest

temperature, 69° was observed in operations), but not to the extent seen

at the other stations visited. Relative humidities were often higher,

however, the mean for analysis being 63%. Mean noise levels were quite

high - around 76 dBA for the field station, with 77 dbA for those without

VDT's and 75 dBA for those with VDT's. These averages included four

printers in excess of 81 dBA (range 81-86 dBA) .

5.4.3. Subjective Assessments

The next series of measures involved the experimenter's subjective

assessment of aspects of the station such as chair comfort, color, sound

sources and degree of annoyance. The first issue was the number and

variety of colors within the workstations. Again, the experimenter

looked around the space and recorded the major colors of furnishings,

walls, and equipment. A total of 263 colors was observed for 94

workstations. As at Augsburg, there were very few bright colors. The

most frequently occurring color was gray for 24% of the sample followed

by white, brown, beige and blue (18%, 16%, 13%, and 10%). The

frequencies for green, black, and yellow were all less than 6%, with red

and orange occurring less than 1% of the time. Unlike Berlin, the

operations area did not have brightly colored equipment racks; rather the

dominant colors were gray, white, and blue or black. Administrative

areas tended to be furnished in browns and beiges with wood furniture,

while analytic areas had a great deal of gray metal furniture and carpets

in very poor condition. There was greater desk personalization such as pictures or cartoons in administrative and analytic areas, but only

limited use of either in operations. In analysis and operations, the

walls had little personalization (other than working aids) , while in

administrative areas some pictures were observed on the walls.

Chair color varied greatly with a number of red green, orange, and blue

chairs found in operations, but relatively few "ergonomic" chairs.

Again, subjective assessments were made of chair condition when the

experimenter sat to take lighting measurements. This assessment

indicated about that 70% of the chairs in both administration and

analysis were in "good" condition, but only about 20% of those in

142
operations. Of course, the chairs in operations receive 24 hour a day use with 3 different people using a chair each day. Many chairs in

operations were wobbly, had broken backs and/or arms, or did not recline

properly (these latter would throw one out of the chair if one leaned

back too far)

.

A subjective analysis of the kinds and bothersomeness of sounds in the

individual workstation was also made. This analysis suggested that

ventilation noise and conversations were the most intrusive types of

sounds followed by printers and equipment. Outside noise and music were

not a problem at the time the assessments were made.

#

143
6. Conclusions

The detailed analysis of the questionnaire and measurement data confirms

that the physical conditions at the three field stations were less than

ideal for those who work in them. Almost every physical measure is at or below the lower limit of acceptability for good design.

For example, for lighting, the IESNA (1987) recommends levels of 500 to

1000 lux for performing tasks of medium contrast (such as a #3 pencil or

a printout with a poor ribbon) , and levels of 200 to 500 lux for tasks of

high contrast (such as printed or typed copy). Yet, mean illuminances

for all sites were below 300 lux and below 160 lux at Augsburg. Even the

administrative areas at Augsburg were only about 350 lux. These data

suggest that people performing difficult visual tasks (including pencil

tasks) are likely to find the light levels somewhat inadequate.

The lighting problem is complicated, however, because of the widespread

use of VDT-type screens. Here, reflections from the light sources obscure characters on the screen, while high light levels tend to reduce

the contrast between character and background. Correcting these problems

requires careful positioning of the light source relative to the task, use of specialized luminaires to direct the light down rather than out,

and, in some areas, use of lower light levels (the IESNA recommends 50 to

100 lux for exclusively VDT-type tasks). Resolving the conflicting goals

of lighting for mixed visual tasks such as both VDT's and paper tasks

requires careful attention to the placement of both the working surfaces

and the light sources, and the use of flexible task lighting for paper

tasks

.

Temperature and humidity measures were another area in which conditions

tended to be at the lower range of the acceptability criteria. Thus,

according to the thermal comfort standards used in the U.S. (ASHRAE

Standard 55-1981), "80% of all adults dressed for winter indoor

conditions find temperatures acceptable between 68 °F and 74.5° F (20-

23.5 °C) , a relative humidity of 30-60%, and the air velocity at 0.15-

0.25 m/sec. Acceptable summer indoor temperature is between 73 and 79 °F

(20-26.5 °C)." Meyer (1983, p.27) pointed out that "extensive

experimentation has shown that for an average, sedentary, lightly clothed

person, this [thermal comfort] occurs most readily when the air in a standard room has a temperature of 24.5 °C (76.1 °F) , a relative humidity

of 40%, and an air velocity of 0.25 m/sec".

As with lighting, temperatures at the site tended to be outside the

guidelines for comfort. Most temperatures were cold enough to be

uncomfortable for a person seated for long hours, and some were cold

enough to require additional clothing such as field jackets and gloves.

The cold temperatures are combined with high air flow rates on the

operations floor, thus adding to the occupants' discomfort.

144
The measured noise levels did not indicate any likely health problem but

did suggest another area of environmental annoyance. Some printers at

all three sites were unacceptably loud and should be shielded, moved, or replaced. The major noise problems, however, relate to conversations and

job-related noise (such as training films, meetings , etc . ) which occurred

in the workspaces. These were most noticeable in the analytic areas which were invariably crowded open-plan spaces where people need to

concentrate but also interact with other analysts. This noise adds

distractions and combines with the other environmental problems to create

an annoying work environment.

The condition of the furniture, chairs, and carpets, the lack of storage

and conference space, the use of generally drab colors, and the lack of

windows or access to the outside combine with the more quantifiable

environmental problems to make a less than pleasant work environment and

contribute to occupant stress. While proving that the work environment

decreases productivity is not easily done, the authors believe that the

conditions in the field stations are such as to decrease productivity,

particularly when the equipment problems are also considered. The

companion report (Rubin and Collins, 1988) provides suggestions for

ameliorating some of the environmental conditions in the field stations.

145
7. References

1 . American National Standard for Human Factors Engineering of

Visual Display Terminals - Revised Review Draft. July 1986.

2. Kaufman, J. (Ed.) Illuminating Engineering Society

Handbook: Reference Volume. New York, N.Y: IESNA, 1984

AND 1987.

3. Meyer, B. Indoor Air Quality, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Pub. Co., 1983.

4. National Research Council, Committee on Vision. Video

Displays, Work, and Vision. Washington, D.C.: National

Academy of Sciences, 1983.

5. Rubin, A. & Collins, B. Interim Survey of Selected Military

Building Environments: A Research Approach. NBSIR 87-3606,

August 1987.

6. Rubin, A. & Collins, B. Evaluation of the Working

Environment at Selected U.S. Army Field Stations:

Suggestions for Improvement. NBSIR 88-3827, August 1988.

7. Shahnavaz, H. Lighting Conditions and Workplace Dimensions

of VDT Operators. Ergonomics

.

1982. 21, pp* 1165-1173.

146
Appendix A

Location

Questionnaire

6-17-87

ENVIRONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

1. How long have you worked in the facility where you are now

employed?

Less than 3 months

3-6 months

6-12 months

1-2 years

More than 2 years

2. How long have you worked at your present job in this facility?

Less than 3 months

3-6 months

6-12 months ___ 1-2 years __ More than 2 years

3. How long have you worked in facilities such as this before your present

assignment?

Less than 1 year ____ 1-4 years

5-8 years

9-15 years

More than 15 years

4.

For each of the following spaces in your facility, please rate the quality

of the lighting by placing an x in the appropriate columm.

MP's Station

Excellent Pretty

Good

Neutral Not Very Poor

Good

Break Areas

Corridors &

Hallways

Restrooms

Work Spaces
Dining Facility

Snack Bar
5. Please rate your work space on each of the following:

Excellent Good Fair

Amount of Space

Available to You

Quality of Desks

and Chairs

Amount of Lighting

Location of Ceiling

Lights for Your Task

Color of Walls

and Partitions

Color of Furniture

Storage Space

Conversational

Privacy

Access to

Co-workers

Wall/Desk Space

for Personal Items

Condition of

Furniture

Ability to Adjust

Light for the

Work Station

Visual Privacy

Amount of Surface

Area for Work

Comfort of Chair

Ventilation and

Air Circulation

Heating

Cooling

149

Poor
Air 6. Quality

The way offices and other work spaces are arranged in terras of making it

easier for employees to get their jobs done is:

Excellent

Pretty Good

Fair

Poor

7.

The way the work spaces and offices look is:

__ Excellent

Pretty Good

Fair

Poor

8.

On the average, how many hours a day do you spend at your work space in this

facility?

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 More than

Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 10 hours

9,

Which of the following tasks best describes the work that you normally do.

(CHECK THOSE THAT APPLY)

Transcribing taped material

_______ Collecting or recording material

Using a video display terminal (VDT)

Reading and writing

Analysis of material _____ Filing

_______ Attending meetings

______ Talking on telephone

Maintaining equipment

______ Installing equipment _____ Managing

______ Supervising operational activities _____ Communicating (message traffic)

_______ Other. Please specify

150
10.

Please estimate the number of hours that you spend at each task on a typical

day

.

Rarely Less than 2-4 4-6 6-8 More than

2 hours hours hours hours 8 hours

Reading

Listening

Transcribing

Using VDT

Filing

Analysis

Other

11.

For each task performed, please rate the lighting available to you.

Excellent Pretty Neutral Not Very Poor Not

Good Good Applicable

Reading

Transcribing

Using VDT

Filing ' Analysis _____

Other

12.

How would you describe the amount of light available to you now?

_ Much too bright _____ A bit too bright

Just about right

A bit too dim

Much too dim

13.

Overall, how satisfied are you with the lighting at your work space.

_____ Very Satisfied

Fairly Satisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied _____ Not Very Satisfied

Not At All Satisfied

14.

Are there any changes that you would make to the lighting at your

workstation?

151
15. If you use a Video Display Terminal (VDT) , indicate how

the following conditions is for you. If you do not use question 16

.

Not at all Not very Fairly

Bothersome Bothersome Bothersome

Screen Flicker

Distance to

Screen

Screen Angle

Glare from

Overhead Light

Letter Size

Distance to

Keyboard

Keyboard Angle

Height of Desk

Chair '

Brightness

of Screen

Ease of Reading

Printed/Typed

Material

Brightness of

Overhead Light

Ease of Reading

Screen Characters

Inability to

Adjust Screen or Keyboard

Space for Printed

Material

bothersome each of

a VDT, please go to

Very

Bothersome

152
16. For printed or written tasks, indicate how bothersome each of the following

conditions is for you.

Not at all Not very Fairly Very

Bothersome Bothersome Bothersome Bothersome

Glare from

Overhead Light

D i mne s s of

Overhead Light

Height of Desk _ ___

Chair ______ _____ _________

Ease of Reading

Printed/Typed

Material

Brightness of

Overhead Light

Room to Spread

Out Paper Task

Quality of Printed

Material

17. Sometimes the arrangements of work stations can be distracting to the people

in offices. Please indicate how bothersome each of the following is to you.

Not at all

Bothersome

Not very Fairly Very

Bothersome Bothersome Bothersome

Ringing Telephones

Conversation

of People

Noise From

Printers

Noise From Other

Equipment

Noise From

Ventilating

System

Noise From

Corridors

Reflected Glare

Off Work Surfaces

153
Glare From Ceiling

Lights

Not at all Not very Fairly Very

Bothersome Bothersome Bothersome Bothersome

Overly

Dim Lights

Absence of

View or Simulated View

Too Hot

On Days

Too Cold

On Days

Too Hot

On Mids . Too Cold

On Mids

Too Many

Drafts ________

Air is Too

Stuffy _______ _______

People Walking

Around ________

People Too

Close

People Too

Far Apart

18. Please rate each of the following by placing an X in the space that best

describes your feelings about this facility. For example, if you think the

facility is pleasant, put an X next to the word "pleasant"; if you think it

is unpleasant, put an X next to the word "unpleasant"; and if you think it

is in between, please put an X where you think it belongs.

Adequate for my job

Pleasant

Well Maintained

Interiors

Confined

Stimulating Spaces

Difficult to Find

Way Around

Poorly Lit Spaces

Humid

Clean

Noisy

Colorful

Interesting

Hot

Relaxed Atmosphere

Not adequate to do job

Unpleasant

Poorly Maintained

Interiors

Spacious

Unstimulating Spaces

Easy to Find

Way Around

Well Lit Spaces

Dry

Dirty

Quiet

Drab

Boring

Cold

Tense Atmosphere

154
Soft Lighting Harsh Lighting

Bright Dim

Better Than Other Worse Than Other

Field Units Field Units

19.

How often have you experienced any of the following symptoms which you think

are caused by working in this facility?

Never Rarely Sometimes Always

Headache

Dizziness

Sleepiness

Sore Throat

Runny Nose

Irritated Eye _____

Trouble Focusing Eyes

Difficulty in

Concentrating

Leg Going to Sleep

or Cramping

Fatigue

Ear Infection

Frequent Colds

Sinus Problems

Allergies

20.

How many days have you been absent from work due to illness during the last

six months?

None

1-2 days

3-5 days

6-12 days

More than 12 days

21. Overall, how satisfied are you with your work equipment?

Very Satisfied

_______ Fairly Satisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied

Not Very Satisfied

Not at all Satisfied

22. If you could make any changes to your work equipment, what would you do?

23.

Do you feel the need to have a view outside during break periods or lunch?

155
Yes No

24.

Suppose you could make 4 changes to your overall work environment. Using

the list below, indicate the 4 changes you would make in order of preference

(where 1 = most preferred)

.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.G.

H.

I . J . K.

L.M.

N.O . P.

A better year-round temperature

More privacy

Access to the outside during lunch and breaks

Change in color of walls, furnishings or carpets

Improved lighting

Less noise

Improved air circulation

Move further away from co-workers

More comfortable chair

Better break areas More comfortable furnishings

More frequent cleaning

Adjustable task lighting

More adjustable chair

Simulated view out/daylight

Other

25.

Please explain the reasons for your four choices.

L

2

3

4

26.

Overall, how satisfied are you with your work space?

Very Satisfied _____ Fairly Satisfied _____ Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

______ Not Very Satisfied

Not At All Satisfied

27.

If you could make any changes to the work space, what would you do?

156
28.

Overall, how satisfied are you with your work schedule?

Very Satisfied

Fairly Satisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Not Very Satisfied

Not At All Satisfied

29.

30. If you could make any changes to your work schedule, what would they be?

Please indicate how true the following statements are for your job.

Very Somewhat Not Very Not At

True True True All True

The work is important

When I talk to co-workers,

others can hear us

My job is satisfying

My work must be very

accurate

I have all the equipment

to get my job done well

My eyes get tired when

1 work for more than

2 hours

My job requires me to stay

in one place all day

My job requires a great

deal of concentration

I have enough time

to get my work done

Lighting at my desk

keeps me from doing

my job well

I have opportunities to

develop my own special

abilities

I am satisfied with the

quality of my work

I miss having a view out

or simulated window

Others get better

157
furniture

I need more time on

a terminal

Noise keeps me from

doing my job well

My job requires me

to work very fast

and accurately

I would like to know

what the weather is

like outside

31. Please rate your chair on each of the following:

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Ease of movement

on carpet

Ease of adjusting

seat height

Ease of adjusting

back height ______ _____

Seat tilt/tension

Back tilt/tension ______

General condition

32. Which of the following best describes your job?

_____ Administrative _____ Clerical

Operations _____ Analyst

Other

33. Are you Military Personnel? Yes No

Civilian? Yes No

Contractor? Yes No

34.

If you are military, which service do you belong to?

35. If you are military, are you? Enlisted.

NCO

Officer_

36. Are you a female? _________

male? _____

37. Do you wear glasses? Yes No. contact lenses? Yes No. bifocals? Yes_ No.

158
38.

If you answered yes to question #37, how long have you worn corrective

lenses?

Less than 6 months

6-12 months

1-

2 years

2-

5 years

39. More than 5 years

How old are you?

Under 20 20-25 25-30

30-35 35-44 45 or over

40. Today is:

Monday , Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Friday Saturday Sunday

41 . What shift are you currently working?

Days

Swings

Mids

Thank you very much for your participation.

159
Environmental Measures - Direct

17 J une 8 7

Time is: Date is: Space I.D.

Recorder:

1 . Number of work surfaces or places where tasks occur: 1 2 3 or more

la. Illuminance at PRIMARY task surface while SEATED in chair:

lux

lb. Illuminance at PRIMARY task surface while chair UNOCCUPIED:

lux

Id. Luminance at PRIMARY task area:

fL WHITE PAPER fL BLACK TASK

fL GREY TASK

fL CEILING BETWEEN LUMINAIRES

fL BRIGHTEST LIGHT SOURCE IN FIELD _________ fL DARKEST AREA IN FIELD OF VIEW

2 . Overhead Luminaire

Lens

Grille/Louvre _ None _______ Other

Watts

3 Position with respect to work station:

Above__ Ahead

Right Left

Beh ind

4. Lamp Type for overhead lighting

Fluor. CW WW Daylight Other

Incandescent Number of tubes

Dimming

160
5. Control of Switching

None

On-Off Multiple Levels

6. Have lamps been switched off?

Yes How Many? No

Does the workstation have a VDT? Yes No

Type

a

.

of VDT

Reflected light from electric light sources can be seen on screen? ....... Yes No

b. Keyboard can be raised and lowered? .

,

Screen can be raised, lowered, or tilted?

Yes No

c

.

Yes No

d. Location of screen

e . Monochrome Color

f

.

Screen Resolution: Good

Average

Poor

8. Lighting at VDT task area:

a. Illuminance on Keyboard with room lights lux

without room lights lux

b. Illuminance on Screen with room lights lux

without room lights lux

c. Luminance in FtL

fL CENTER

fL LEFT EDGE

fL RIGHT EDGE

fL UPPER EDGE

fL LOWER EDGE

fL SCREEN CH

fL CENTER

fL LEFT EDGE

fL RIGHT EDGE

fL UPPER EDGE

fL LOWER EDGE

fL SCREEN CH

fL SCREEN CH fL SCREEN CH

Character Character

11. Dominant colors in workstation:

161
12 . Workstation is in an open area:

12a. Type of panels: 1. 42" -54" Panels

2. 60" -64" Panels

3. 68" -74" Panels

4. Open without Panels

5. Other: (Specify)

12b. The space containing the workstation is:

1 . Private

2. Shared

13. Furnishings are predominantly (Check all that apply):

Wood

Metal

Fabric

Other (Specify)

CONDITION

14. Walls are predominantly (Check all that apply):

Wood

Metal

Fabric

Dry Wall or Plaster

Brick or Block _______

Demountable Ceiling Height Partitions

Vinyl Wallcovering

Glass

Other (Specify) ______

15. Type of office chair

Arms

Wheels

Adjustable back

Executive_ _

Condition

Carpet

Condition?,

16.

Does workstation have a carpet?

Tiles?

tiles?

Number of legs

Colors

Adjust. Seat

Secretarial

17.

Does the workstation have:

162
a. Pictures or poster on wall Yes No

b. Pictures or other mementos on desk,

credenza or tack surface Yes No

c. Fan Yes No

18 .

19.

20 .

21 .

22 .

23.

a

.

b.

c

.

d.

ef

.

S24.

Is there supplemental task lighting at primary/secondary task location?

Yes Type No

Lamp Type for task lighting

Fluor. CW WW Daylight Other

Incandescent Other

Fixture Type

Free Standing - Moveable

Furniture integrated

Desk mounted moveable

0 the r

Direction of Light

Fixed

Adjustable

Height of Task Light Above Task Surface

Record in inches IN

Varies

Instrusive Sounds

Very

None Little Some A Lot

Ringing Telephones _ Conversations of Co-workers

Printer or Computer Noise

Other Office Equipment Noise ___ _____ Vent System Noise

Outside Noise _____ Music or Intercom

Temperature

°F Dry Bulb

25. Humidity

% Relative Humidity

26. Air Flow

CFM

27. Background Noise Level

dBA Reading Source

163
28.

Headphone Noise Level

29.

Headphone Noise Level - Octave Band Readings

30.

Area Occupied by Person

Desk

Office Area

Chair

File Cabinet

VDT Screen

Other

Length Width Ht

Length Width

Length Width

Length Width

Distance

164
NBS-114A (wev. 2*<o

i

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NISTIR 88-3871

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

OCTOBER 1988

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Analysis of Environmental Data from Three Army Field Stations

5. AUTHOR(S)

Belinda L. Collins: Arthur I. Rubin

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than N BS. see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADORESS (Street. City , Stole, ZIP)

U.S. Army Intelligence & Security Command

Arlington Hall, VA 22212-5000

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey „ mention it here) Data from a detailed evaluation of environment conditions in three U.S. Army field

stations are presented. Three field stations were evaluated: Kunia, Augsburg, and

Berlin. Results from a questionnaire administered to over 600 people at all sites in

three job types (operator, analyst, and administrative/other) are given which indicate

major concerns with conditions such as temperature, lighting, space, furniture, equipment functioning, and general environmental quality. Physical data obtained from meas- urements of over 270 workstations indicated the presence of cold temperatures, low

light levels, reduced VDT screen contrast, glare, and distracting noises. The report

provides the basic data which support the concerns expressed by Headquarters; namely,

that field station personnel perform their jobs under conditions likely to impair

their effectiveness. Suggestions for improving conditions are given in a companion

report by Rubin and Collins.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

automation, contrast, environmental., assessment, indoor air quality, lighting,

luminance, noise, post-occupancy evaluation, temperature, VDT's

13. availability

| XI Unl imited

[ | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[ | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

[Xj Order From National T echnical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

176

15. Price $18.95

USCOMM-OC 8043-P80
-