Here’s how to make right choice.

 
Selecting task seating—the most-used work tool in the office—is one of the most critical decisions facility managers make in terms of the health, comfort, and productivity of their employees. Yet many companies still evaluate chairs in the same way they evaluate desks and carpeting. Outlined here is a strategy FMs can use to help ensure that they purchase the best chairs for their workers.

As recently as 10 years ago, all task chairs were essentially the same. They offered basically the same features and functions and varied primary in terms of aesthetics and textile offerings. As a result, selection criteria were often focused on how well the chair would coordinate with the office decor. However, as FMs have probably noticed at NeoCon over the past few years, task chairs have changed. No longer solely the domain of the major furniture manufacturers, task chairs are now available from so many sources and with such a wide variety of features and functions that choosing the right one is difficult. And this difficult task is made more so because it is paramount to the well-being of the users. Yet despite the long-term impact of the office chair on its users, many companies still utilize a haphazard evaluation process.

Before its most recent work station seating purchase, one large financial institution reportedly lined up six chairs in a hallway and invited employees to try them out and vote for their favourites. The only good thing about this approach is that it’s delightfully democratic. But it is actually the worst possible scenario. Those voting were given no guidelines about what to look for or how they should try using the adjustments. Some probably based their votes on chair fabric. They were not trying out the chairs at workstations (where they would be used). And they were trying them out for only a few seconds or a minute at most. These conditions resulted in a choice that’s virtually no better than random.

TOP 5 WAYS TO IMPROVE THE SELECTION PROCESS

• To help guarantee that the right choice is made, facility managers should:

• Involve employees. The people who will be using the chairs should be the ones to decide which chair most satisfies their individual requirements.

• Use an appropriate evaluation form. An evaluation form, such as the one found on Cornell’s website, should be utilized to make the decision as objective as possible. Prior to the evaluation, employees should be trained to understand why the form’s various criteria are important.

• Test chairs in a real work environment. Only by using a chair at a desk during a workday will someone be able to accurately judge its comfort and performance.

• Evaluate chairs for at least two to three days. Sitting in a chair for five minutes is like test driving a car in a driveway. Evaluators must be given the opportunity to really put a chair through its paces. Ideally, the evaluation should be done at a workstation.

• Do not give training on the chairs prior to the evaluation. Most users will not receive chair training prior to receiving their new chair. Therefore, training users prior to the evaluation will likely skew the results.

Better products become available.” McCaffrey, who is responsible for 1,700 such chairs, says that her team orders demo chairs from several different manufacturers and then assigns them to be tried out for a couple of days at work stations. Then the group tries to establish some consensus.

Gillette and Cerner are on the right track, but they could go even farther. Dr. Alan Hedge heads the Human Factors and Ergonomics Research Group in the department of Design and Environmental Analysis at Cornell University. His group researches ways to improve usability, comfort, health and performance through better ergonomic design. According to Hedge, the most important things for creating a healthy workplace posture are a good ergonomic chair; optimal keyboard and mouse position; and optimal monitor and document position. “Other furniture items, such as overhead storage, pedestals storage, worksurface area and worksurface finish, which constitute the bulk of the costs per work station, are almost irrelevant from an ergonomic standpoint,” he says. “Consequently, companies can readily cut furniture costs by minimizing the less essential items and reallocating funds to improving the immediate workspace of the seated worker, which is the microenvironment that actually affects their health and performance.”

Buying a chair is somewhat like buying a car—you get what you pay for. “A good quality chair will be more expensive,” Hedge says, “but it will pay for itself in improved worker productivity and health. And it will be built to a higher standard of reliability, with better, longer lasting materials. Most low-cost chairs simply don’t support the body well as the worker changes posture, and they don’t stand up to the rigors of repeated movements and daily use, so they are simply not cost-effective in the longer run.”

5 WORST MISTAKES THAT FMS MAKE

• When selecting workstation seating, ergonomists advise that facility managers avoid:

• Taking manufacturers’ ergonomic claims at face value. Just because a manufacturer says that its product is ergonomic doesn’t necessarily make it so. Claims must be backed up by scientific research.

• Looking at a limited range of offerings. The right chair may not be offered by the chosen systems manufacturer – or even by the chosen dealer. Facility managers should investigate all possible choices before narrowing their search.

• Letting the specifier’s personal preferences affect the decision. What’s right for one person may not be right for everyone. Only democratic decisions result in the best possible choice.

• Short or artificial evaluations. Sitting on a chair in a hallway for one minute is in no way representative of how that chair will be experienced day in and day out. Evaluations must take place in a real working environment for a minimum of two to three days.

Basing choice on unimportant or misguided criteria. Textile offerings and aesthetic appeal or “coolness” are among the criteria that should be minimized during an evaluation. Comfort and performance-related criteria must be the guide.