Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 413–418

Ergonomics—costs and benefits$

D. Beevisa,*, I.M. SladeaEMI Electronics Ltd, UK

Abstract

Ergonomics is primarily concerned with improving the performance of man or of man–machine systems. Although many

applications have produced evident improvements, the terms of reference and the results are not often expressed in measures that are

easily converted into financial savings. However, there is a growing demand for cost–benefit data of ergonomic improvements, and

several examples in which the application of ergonomic principles has resulted in tangible benefits, are reviewed.

Cases are cited of increases of productivity resulting from equipment redesign and of savings achieved from the reduction of

accidents, and from improvements in the working environment. It is concluded that there is, as yet, no large body of well-

documented cases of financial savings accruing from the application of ergonomics, due in many cases to the difficulties of costing

actual changes in performance in the work situation. The need for further studies is debated, and it is suggested that the use of

ergonomic data in a design programme should not necessarily be based on the prediction of financial benefits.

r 1970 Pergamon Press

1. Introduction

Historically, present day ergonomics evolved fromwartime requirements to ensure the ability of operatorsto control weapon systems or interpret informationfrom newly developed electronic displays and commu-nication systems such as radar. The emphasis was,therefore, primarily on improving the performance ofgiven man–machine combinations, rather than produ-cing improvements in efficiency measured in terms ofvalue added per man hour.

This attitude is still prevalent today, coupled in somequarters with the idea that ergonomics is some form ofwelfare service to be provided for the employee byimproving his comfort, health or safety. Indeed,although financial savings may be shown to accruefrom applying ergonomics to job or equipment redesign,they have seldom been the reasons for establishing anergonomics service or department within an organisa-tion. Thus the USA armed services, possibly the mostextensive users of ergonomics data in the western world,require compliance with their human engineeringstandard, MIL STD 1472, to:

* achieve satisfactory performance by operator, controland maintenance personnel;

* reduce skill requirements and training time;* increase the reliability of personnel-equipment com-

binations;* foster design standardisation within and among

systems.

In many cases these criteria are sufficient justificationfor the employment of ergonomics, since many datashow that designing work methods, equipment andenvironments to suit the capacities of users greatlyimproves their performance, comfort and health. How-ever, this approach, qualitative rather than quantitative,coupled with the as yet limited industrial application ofergonomics, has resulted in a paucity of data on thefinancial benefits of ergonomics. With the currentpreoccupation with production efficiency, design ratio-nalisation and cost–benefit studies of alternative designsand processes, the subject is ill-equipped to refuteallegations that financially there is no benefit to be hadfrom ergonomics, or even to provide evidence ofeconomic advantages to justify the inclusion of anergonomist on a design team. Nonetheless, such ques-tions are increasingly being asked.

Whether they should be asked is debatable, but toanswer them requires evidence derived from the sort of‘before and after’ comparison normally associated withwork study techniques or more recently with valueanalysis programmes. Few such studies have beendocumented; a review in Whitfield (1962) covered the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

$First published in Applied Ergonomics 1 (2), 79–84.

*Corresponding author.

0003-6870/$ - see front matter r 1970 Pergamon Press

doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00061-9

handful of validation trials in the literature at that time,and a more recent extensive review (Slade, 1969) hasadded few more cases.

Not only are examples scarce, but few that have beenpublished include economic data. This reflects thedifficulty of converting the usual ergonomic criteria ofhuman performance into costs, for example whenreducing the incidence of mistakes or accidents madeby a process operator to a monetary value. Not onlythis, but performance gains shown during comparisontrials under carefully controlled conditions may beconfused by other effects in actual use or by shop-floorconditions, or the criteria used during the comparisontrial in a laboratory may prove unsuitable or mean-ingless in an industrial situation. Apart from thesedifficulties, the ramifications of industrial bonus systemsor the results of ‘productivity bargaining’ over proposedchanges in working methods can obscure potentialsavings when put into practice.

2. Savings from equipment redesign

Faced with such complications, it is not surprisingthat many ergonomic programmes do not continuebeyond giving advice during the design stage. Indeed toargue that funds be allocated for a post-design evalua-tion of ergonomic improvements implies a lack ofconfidence that would dissuade some managers fromemploying ergonomics in the first place.

Nevertheless, examples are available. In a comparisonbetween an old and a redesigned speed control for anindustrial sewing machine (Singleton, 1960), possibledifferences between laboratory results and shop floorpractice were accounted for by running a secondcomparative trial of both machines during actualworkshop use. Records taken over one month’s opera-tion of both machines showed a potential improvementin the production rate of between l0% and 15%, fromwhat was a relatively simple change in the machinecontrol dynamics. The increase in production was latervalidated on a large scale using conventional time studytechniques.

Translating the improvement into economic termsproved difficult, the savings to the company dependingon the bonus system finally agreed between manage-ment and operatives. Singleton estimated that bydividing the gains equally between the two interests,earnings would increase by 5% and the capital costof the new control units, which had a life of sevenyears, would be recovered in about three years’operation.

In another case (Murrell and Edwards, 1963), wheninvestigating differences in performance between ma-chine operatives using conventional drum scale lead-screw indicators and those using digital indicators

(Gibbs, 1952), it was found that wide variations inwork undertaken prevented direct comparisons of timeto do the same job. By distinguishing between settingtime and machine cutting time, however, comparisonswere made between the performance of four operators(two young, two old) using both types of machines overa period of eight weeks. Analysis showed that the digitalleadscrew indicators gave an 11% increase in machineutilisation, in terms of minutes cutting per hour ofoperation (Fig. 1).

From another company, Slade recently obtainedcomparative figures between machines with digital andwith conventional drum, leadscrew indicators (Table 1,Fig. 2).

These figures were taken over several weeks routineuse. The impressive reduction in operating time repre-sents a financial saving to the company of 9 s. per hourper machine, allowing for incentive bonus.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. The operator adjusts a short boring tool setting; the indicators

enable the lathe to be used as a measuring instrument as well as a metal

chip remover.

Table 1

Industrial comparison of lathes with scale and digital position

indicators

Order size

(items)

Machine

time per

order

(hours)

Handling

time per

order

(hours)

Setting

time per

order

(hours)

Total

time

(hours)

Scale and

vernier indicator

2400 7644 3860 1500 13 004

Digital indicator 2400 4400 3860 100 8400

Savings in time 3204 1400 4604

D. Beevis, I.M. Slade / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 413–418414

3. Accidents and mistakes

The foregoing examples clearly show savings in timeresulting in savings in money. There are many cases ofcourse, where ergonomic improvements to tasks orequipment do not result in savings in time, or increasesin work rate, for example when reducing the incidence ofaccidents or mistakes.

In the USA there have been a number of investiga-tions into the cost of accidents, and the West GermanIron and Steel Federation has also sponsored a researchprogramme on ‘‘The Direct and Indirect Costs ofAccidents’’ (Berckhoff, 1952). This has been sum-marised with an attempt to apply the results of thisand some of the USA research to the British Iron andSteel Industry (Laner, 1957). However defining the exactcost of any particular accident remains extremelydifficult.

Risks, and hence costs, can be greatly reduced inmany cases by the use of suitable protective equipmentand safety measures. A survey of the economics of aneye safety programme in a factory in the USA (Suleck,1965) showed how a mandatory examination of thesight of all workers, with the provision of prescriptionsafety glasses to the 35–40% who required them andplain safety glasses for the rest, cost less than the

estimated amount payable under workmen’s compensa-tion for a single eye injury.

It is not always possible to identify specific causesof accidents of course, and hence those areas inwhich ergonomics could be of benefit; one reason beingthat there are usually several contributory factorsinvolved. For example, the number of aircraft accidentsthat have occurred specifically from the pilot misreadinga three-pointer altimeter—a notoriously confusinginstrument (see the article in the December issue onpage 16)—is not known, but it seems certain that such‘human errors’ have contributed to a considerablenumber of crashes.

In another case, a contributory factor in the crash ofan experimental aircraft in the USA seems to have beenthat the pilot made an error when using a control whichhad been designed to operate in the opposite direction tothat recommended by human factors engineers.

However, the Cornell–Guggenheim InternationalAviation Centre in the USA has published a report(Lederer et al., 1963) giving monetary values of manyaspects of accidents and over 30 references to othereconomic studies of transport accidents. It includesfinancial statements to show that any improvementwhich reduces the likelihood of transport accidents isalso worthwhile in monetary terms.

In a more routine application, savings in cost arisingfrom the redesign of the cab of an electric overheadtravelling crane were studied by R. G. Sell, at the BritishIron and Steel Research Association. It was found thatby changing the design to allow the operator to see the‘hook’ (in this case a large magnet) and reach andoperate the controls at the same time, the cost ofdamage to railway wagons, etc., caused by impact of thecrane magnet would be reduced by at least d30 per week.The modifications to the crane cost d270.

Even the cost of simple mistakes can be high,especially when they are widespread or occur over along period. Over a period of more than 7 years a meterreader consistently misread the water meter–anothernotoriously confusing device—of a large hotel in theUSA (Chapanis, 1965). Eventually a compromisesettlement was agreed between the hotel and the citywater department for $12 569, and even this representeda loss of some $8000 in water department revenues.

4. Environmental redesign

Despite the large number of applications of ergo-nomic principles in the fields of lighting, noise protec-tion and heating and ventilation—whether byergonomists or not—there is no greater number ofdocumented examples of financial benefits in this areathan in others. Some of the difficulties of costingimprovements in production resulting from changes in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Five-figure Dimension Indicator arranged to read up to 99–

999. The trigger lever activates a positive clutch to disengage the drive

from the lead screw for rapid traverse or approximate setting as well as

setting to a known datum or reference. On a lathe cross slide control, it

can show exactly the workpiece diameter.

D. Beevis, I.M. Slade / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 413–418 415

lighting levels or other environmental factors have beendiscussed (Manning, 1968; Stone, 1968). A majorproblem is the difficulty of assigning definite costs toany particular change in operator performance follow-ing an improvement in working conditions. The well-known Hawthorne experiment in the USA demon-strated how even adverse changes in environmental andworking conditions can produce an increase in perfor-mance due to the increase in operatives motivation andmorale when the employers apparently express aninterest in their welfare.

Nevertheless, one researcher (Robinson, 1963) hasgiven five examples where significant improvements inoutput, or decreases in spoilt work, absenteeism andaccidents, resulted directly from improvements in light-ing. Significantly three of these were inspection tasks, ortasks having a high inspection content, where theimprovement in lighting would have enhanced thedifferences between good and bad products. In onecase, in the leather stamping department of a leatherworking factory in Germany, 12 consistent operativesworked for 2 years under 3761� (35 ft-candle) ofillumination, and for a further 2 years under1076l� (100 ft candle). The average production under10761�was 107.6% of that under 3761� and theannual value of the extra production was 13 times thetotal annual cost of the revised lighting installation.Since the figures were obtained over a 2 year period,before and after changing the lighting, the ‘Hawthorneeffect’ should not have confounded the comparisonsignificantly, although some doubt must remain as withmost of these examples.

In a study carefully designed to compensate for anysuch effects (Broadbent and Little, 1960), performancein accoustically treated and untreated rooms of a cin!efilm processing plant was compared over four 6weekperiods, both before and after reducing the ambientnoise level in one of the rooms from 99 dB to 89 dB[(above the usual zero of 0.02mN/m2 (0.0002 dyne/sq cm)]. Although finding an increase in work rate for allrooms following the treatment, apparently due to animprovement in morale, they did find other improve-ments in performance related to the reduction of noisealone. Film breakages attributed to the operator errorwere significantly reduced (by a ratio of 1:15); shut-downs of the equipment attributed to the operator alsodecreased, although not by a statistically significantamount. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult toconvert these savings into monetary figures.

Further illustrations of improved performance result-ing from reduced noise levels are given in a study carriedout at Dresden (Hartig, 1962). One case comparestwo otherwise identical offices, one of which wasquietened by being fitted with a ‘‘sound swallowingceiling and wall-clothing material’’, and in both ofwhich everything they could measure was measured for

a year. The results were compared and in the quiet officethere was

* 19% higher production* 29% less typing errors* 52% less errors on calculating machines* 37% less sick leave* 47% less staff changes

This paper also states that in 1960, DM 1 million werepaid in compensation for occupational deafness.

Another environmental condition that seriously af-fects efficiency is heat, which cannot be avoided inindustries such as steelmaking, forging, glassmaking,etc. In such conditions the only way of improvingefficiency is by providing protection. There has beenmuch recent development of clothing that protectsagainst heat, some of which is described by Hellon(1961) and by Crockford (1962, 1963). The results theyreport of using airfed permeable clothing show that inconditions of heat such that an unprotected person hasto leave within a few minutes, a man wearing such a suitcan work for as much as 2 h. This work obviously hasgreat potential for savings in labour costs where, forexample, it enables the manpower required to re-line afurnace in a given time to be reduced.

5. Costs and contribution of the ergonomics team

In some applications, particularly those where ergono-mists are involved in the design of a new piece ofequipment from the start, it is not possible to show real orpotential reductions in errors or improvements in produc-tion. Thus when validating the redesign of the EMIdec2400 digital computer (Whitfield, 1964) it was found thatthe improvements to the design had not resulted in areduction in errors, although it is possible that acomparative trial run over a longer period might havedone so. Significantly, improvements were found in theoperating times for some tasks on the new computer, andthese were taken as indicating improvements in the relativeease of operation. However, the speed with which aparticular task is performed is not an important con-sideration in this case, given the comparative contributionsof man and machine to the data processing task.

Thus we find instances where ergonomics mayimprove the product—subjectively the redesigned com-puter was ‘better’ than the original—without anydemonstrable financial advantage. Utilising ergonomicsdata in the design of a chair is a very basic example. Fewwould think of attempting a cost-benefit analysis forsuch an application. All that can be said is that thedesign is better than it might have been, — that thedesign is ‘right’ — and that ultimately its sales shouldbenefit from this fact. It is a question of qualitativerather than quantitative advantages.

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Beevis, I.M. Slade / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 413–418416

Given that there may be no immediate financialadvantage to the user between products designed withand without ergonomic advice, the only remainingquestion is whether the design costs are greater or not.It is often argued by project managers that they cannotafford to employ extra staff such as ergonomists.Equally it is argued that it costs no more to design aproduct properly than to design it badly. This is borneout by experience during the design of the above-mentioned computer. It was found (Shackel, 1962) thatas a result of preparing full sketches of panel layouts andconsole details, about 1 month’s work in the drawingoffice was saved because difficult and time-consumingdecisions had already been made. The cost of all theergonomic work, which included a study of theanthropometry of the operators’ work station, involvingtrials using a mock-up, was of the same order.

6. Costs of experimental work

Whilst the above argument may be accepted forroutine design advice, the costs of an ergonomic studyinvolving a research programme may, at first glance,seem formidable. With less money being freely availablefor research, particularly in industry, financial justifica-tion for such work is increasingly important. Onestumbling block is that the results of engineeringresearch often have wide application, whereas ergo-nomic research tends to relate to one particular problemor project, resulting in the occasional accusation thatergonomics presents engineers with an overwhelmingmass of conflicting data.

However, in at least one case financial benefits can beclaimed for such a research programme. During thedesign of a large materials handling plant (Shackel et al.,1967) a problem arose which could only be resolved by a6-month ergonomics research programme. Operatorswere required to read an identity code printed on oneface of heavy cartons moving past them on a beltconveyor. To complicate matters the carton end printedwith the code could be facing in any direction when thecarton was first put on the conveyor. The problem wasto find a cheap and reliable means of enabling theoperators to see all four vertical faces of a carton, or ofturning all the cartons to face one way.

A complex simulation was set up for the experiment,including two closed-circuit tv systems for viewing asimulated conveyor, together with a ‘carousel’ ofpowered belt conveyors. The solution finally chosen asa result of the study was relatively cheap, and reliable (ashort trial measuring physical work loads showed that aman could turn all the cartons the right way round asthey passed him on the conveyor). This allowed theplant to operate at maximum throughput for allthe items handled. Alternatives considered prior to the

ergonomics study would have reduced the plantthroughput by half when handling cartons, whichconstituted 30% of the total goods passed through thesystem. In terms of direct labour costs, therefore, thestudy, which cost d7 000, including equipment costs, canbe claimed to have made available a potential saving ofd500 for every full week of operation.

In a more recent and elaborate investigation (Lewis,1969), it was found that for some navigation tasks inhelicopters flying very near the ground, the navigatorusing a hand-held map has generally better performancethan a very sophisticated and expensive automaticnavigation system. Although the important criterion inthis case was accuracy of navigation, i.e. a performancemeasure, rather than cost-effectiveness of alternativesystems, it does illustrate the contribution that athorough study of human performance can make tothe development of complex and costly systems.

7. Conclusions

In the introduction to this paper it was admitted thatthere is a lack of data on the costs and benefits arisingfrom the application of ergonomics. The cases includedin this review show the scope of what is available anddemonstrate that financial benefits can and do accruefrom the redesign of equipment and tasks usingergonomic principles. Unfortunately those included arealmost the total of those available in the literature.Possibly they represent but the tip of an iceberg, thegreater part of which remains hidden for understandablereasons such as company security. But it seems likelythat many of the improvements resulting from ergo-nomic programmes have not been evaluated in financialterms if, indeed, at all. Besides the difficulties alreadymentioned, which may prevent benefits being expressedeasily as monetary advantages, it is thought that theacademic or university bias of the subject and of manyergonomists leads them, and those who hear of theirresults, to ignore matters of economics.

As ergonomists become more fully involved in thedesign of new tasks and equipment, rather than in theredesign of existing ones, there will be less opportunityto make such before and after cost comparisons. It ispointless to argue that a design could have been mademore expensive, or less efficient, although there isadmittedly only a shade of difference between such anargument and the example of the conveyor studymentioned above. Evaluations made within the designprocess should select those solutions which will lead to areasonable compromise between all design factors,including cost and efficiency. Opportunities for makingpost-design evaluations of financial benefits will there-fore become increasingly rare.

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Beevis, I.M. Slade / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 413–418 417

It is worthwhile considering whether this isimportant, and whether further evidence is reallynecessary despite the paucity of data. When matchingmen to machines, or machines to men, the criteria usedare those of performance—information processingrate, speed of response, accuracy, tolerance to externalinterference, overload capacity and so on; indeed, thefinal specifications of many systems are written inthese terms also. Should the American practice of‘Parametric Evaluation’ (NAVWEPS O.D. 270701963) be adopted on a wide scale for industrial pro-jects, the ergonomist will probably become involvedin the preparation of very detailed performance speci-fications.

It seems unnecessary that the value to a design teamof a specialist in human performance should beevaluated on a financial basis when the advice ofspecialists in electrical, mechanical, metallurgical ordynamic performance is accepted as natural in order toachieve a given specification. The education of designersand engineers to think of seeking the advice of anergonomist as naturally as they would that of a specialistin an engineering discipline would do much to changecurrent attitudes and would do away with the defensiveapproach implicit in talk of the financial justification ofergonomic recommendations.

The onus does not lie solely with the engineers,however. As Kraft stated (Ergonomics 1958 1, 306-6)

‘‘I wholeheartedly support the statement maderecently by an executive of a large company, that lesstime should be devoted to defending human engineering,and more should be spent in producing results which areunderstandable and so obviously worthwhile to engi-neers that they speak for themselves’’.

References

Berckhoff, H.O., 1952. Die indirekten kosten eines Betriebsunfalls. Die

Berufagenossenschaft 4, 151.

Broadbent, D.E., Little, E.A.J., 1960. Effects of noise reduction in a

work situation. Occup. Psychol. 34 (2), 133–140.

Chapanis, A., 1965. Man–Machine Engineering, Tavistock Publica-

tions Ltd., London.

Crockford, G.W., 1962. Air fed clothing for work in hot conditions.

Ind. Safety 8 (9), 483–485.

Crockford, G.W., 1963. New developments in heat protective clothing

for industry. Trans. Assoc. Ind. Med. Off., 12–15.

Gibbs, C.B., 1952. A new indicator of machine tool travel. Occup.

Psychol. 26 (4), 234–243.

Hartig, H., 1962. L.armbek.ambfung in der industrie. Dresden Inst.

Arbeitsdkomomic Arbeitsschufzforschungt 15, 139.

Hellon, R.F., 1961. Working in heat. Safety 14, 36–38.

Laner, S., 1957. The cost of accidents. BISRA Report OR/3/57.

Lewis, R.E.F., 1969. Evaluation of an automatic navigation system

for use in helicopters. Proceedings of the International Sym-

posium on Man–Machine Systems IEEE Conference Record no.

69C58-MMS.

Lederer, J., Miller, C.O., Schmitt, C.T., 1963. Economics of safety in

civil aviation. technical Report. ADS-7, Cornell–Guggenheim

International Center. Pub. by Fed. AV. Agency, Washington.

D.C. as Rep FAA-ADS-7, December 1963.

Manning, P., 1986. Lighting in relation to other components of

the total environment. Trans. Illum. Eng. Soc. (London): 33 (4),

159–168.

Murrell, K.F.H., Edwards, E., 1963. Field studies of an indicator of

machine tool travel with special reference to the aging worker.

Occup. Psychol. 37 (4), 267–275.

NAVWEPS Ordnance Data 27070. 1963. Preparation instructions for

parameters documents. Department of Navy, Special Projects

Office, Washington DC.

Robinson, W., 1963. Lighting and the production engineer —the 1962

Sir Alfred Herbert paper to the institution of production engineers.

Prod. Eng. 42 (3), 123–146.

Shackel, B., 1962. Ergonomics in the design of a large digital computer

console. Ergonomics 5 (1), 229–241.

Shackel, B., Beevis, D., Anderson, D.M., 1967. Ergonomics in the

automation of meat handling in the London docks. Ergonomics 10

(2), 250–265.

Singleton, W.T., 1960. An experimental investigation of speed controls

for sewing machines. Ergonomics 3 (4), 365–375.

Slade, I. M., 1969. Economics advantages of ergonomic improvements.

Paper to the ERS Annual Conference 1969.

Stone, P.T., 1968. Ergonomics of the environment. Trans. Illum. Eng.

Soc. (London) 33 (4), 150–158.

Suleck, E.A., 1965. Eye safety: how and how much? Safety

Maintenance 129 (1), 11–12.

Whitfield, D., 1962. The validation of human engineering solutions to

design problems. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, University of

London.

Whitefield, .D., 1964. Validating the application of ergonomics to

equipment design: a study. Ergonomics 7 (2), 165–174.

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Beevis, I.M. Slade / Applied Ergonomics 34 (2003) 413–418418