An ergonomically designed workstation is important in preventing repetitive strain and other health-related problems. However, its importance in enhancing employees’ productivity is rarely studied. Thus, the main aim of this study was to assess the impact of workstation design on perceived productivity. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire, observational checklist, and anthropometric measurements. A sample of 398 operators and 22 supervisors in six garment manufacturing companies in Ethiopia were considered in the survey. Among the 398 operators, 361 were willing for anthropometric measurements of 37 body dimensions. Seven different furniture (chairs and tables) in the sewing sections of the six companies were measured and evaluated against standards and compared with the anthropometry of the subjects. Descriptive and correlation analyses were used to evaluate the sewing workstations, while one-sample t-tests were conducted to compare anthropometric measurements. The result showed that the existing furniture, working posture and space, and equipment negatively impacted the productivity of operators. The dimensions of the workstation furniture were neither within a standard nor matched to anthropometric measurements of the subjects. The mismatch of furniture dimensions with the anthropometry of the subjects along with the significant mean differences in anthropometry of workers across nations showed that domestic standard is necessary. Finally, an ergonomic chair was proposed with dimensions matching the anthropometry of the subjects mostly.

1. Introduction

A workstation is a specific place that workers use to carry out their jobs [1]. Workstation design focuses on the size, shape, and arrangement (i.e., location and orientation) of the various structural components that surround one or more employees [2]. It is an important issue in all working environments including offices [3, 4], manufacturing firms [5], and the service industry [6]. However, the workstations in the garment industry need special attention. The workers in this industry perform repetitive actions continuously sitting for more than 8 h/day, with minimal breaks, to meet high targets [7]. They operate in a constrained working posture and sweatshops with congested working areas, poor illuminations, high temperature, and inadequate ventilation [8–10].

Studies show that considering the psychological and physical needs of workers is vital while designing workstations [11–13]. According to Helander [14], workstations should be designed to meet operators’ physical and mental needs. Marmaras and Nathanael [2] noted that the seat in a workstation should have a backrest that can recline and support the lumbar. Most studies show that improperly designed workstations lead to long-term health problems [15, 16]. Nonergonomically designed workstations also hamper the performance of workers. The physical working environment, including lighting, temperature, and ventilation [4, 5, 17], and the design of equipment [18] are associated with the performance of employees. The design of the workplace and its environmental quality are also linked with the quality of life at work [19]. While most studies evaluating the effect of workplace design on productivity considered office design [4, 20], this study focused on the garment manufacturing industry in which labour sweatshops are suspected and the working conditions are criticized globally [9].

Most of the studies on the evaluation of workstations considered the anthropometric measurements of workers. The anthropometry of workers plays a vital role in the design of workstations [21]. Sutalaksana and Widyanti [22] considered the anthropometric data of workers and recommended the redesign of the workplace of the Indonesian roof tile industry. Namate et al. [23] presented anthropometric data of Namibian workers which could be used in the design of personnel protective clothing or workstations. In a comparison of the anthropometry of students and the dimensions of their classroom furniture in primary schools in Khulna, Bangladesh, Parvez et al. [24] found a significant mismatch. Wibneh et al. [25] compared the anthropometric dimensions of Ethiopian army personnel with the workspace design of light armored vehicles and found a considerable mismatch.

In the garment industry, Sarder et al. [7] found that working conditions were stressful with long working hours and poor safety, while the equipment and the physical workplace design were acceptable. Mukund et al. [9] presented an ergonomic assessment of the workstations in the cutting and sewing sections of a garment manufacturing company in Bangalore. They identified that “bad ergonomics” lead to health problems for workers and suggested interventions for developing ergonomic workstations and equipment. Ali et al. [26] found mismatches between the furniture in garment companies and the anthropometric characteristics of workers. These studies also called for further investigation and understanding of the anthropometric characteristics of industrial workers so that workstations and the machines and equipment therein can be designed to fit the needs of the workers.

It is recommended to consider the anthropometry of workers while designing furniture in general [27]. In the garment industry, there were some attempts to solve workstation design problems. Parimalam et al. [28] assessed the working environment in garment manufacturing companies and proposed interventions to improve cutting, sorting, checking, and ironing table dimensions. Kabir and Ahmed [29] proposed improved table dimensions and chair design. Eladly et al. [30] noted the considerations of desk heights and degree of inclinations while designing ergonomic sewing workstations. Abate and Hailemariam [15] presented a chair design that may reduce the musculoskeletal complaints of sewing operators. However, the studies also recommend further investigations into the design of ergonomic workstations in the garment industry.

The employees of the garment industry, one of the largest industries in developing countries, perform activities such as clothing design, cutting fabrics, stitching components, and finishing garments [31]. Ghasemi et al. [8] found that working postures among sewing operators were mostly in an unacceptable condition that needed ergonomic intervention. Kassaneh and Tadesse [32] identified several workplace safety issues in some Ethiopian garment companies. Poor workstation design is one issue that has been associated with health risks for sewing machine operators [15]. While several studies were conducted on risk assessment and evaluation of workstation design in the Ethiopian garment industry [15], very little research has been conducted on the importance of workstation design to increase productivity [33]. Therefore, this study fills this research gap and opens a new line of discussion. The objectives of the study were as follows:

•
To describe the anthropometric dimensions of Ethiopian industrial sewing operators and compare them with the anthropometry of operators in other nations
•
To explore the relationship between workstation design and perceived productivity in the garment industry in Ethiopia
•
To evaluate the sewing workstation design of selected garment manufacturing companies
•
To propose ideas valuable for the improvement of the sewing workstation design and the eventual workers’ productivity

In the first section of the paper, the nature of industrial sewing workstations was introduced, recent studies on workstation design were reviewed, and research objectives were identified. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the research methods employed to address the objectives are described. The results of the analyses are provided in Section 3, while discussions of the results and their implications are presented in Section 4. In the last section, conclusions are drawn based on the main findings, limitations of the study are recognized, and future research directions are indicated.

2. Method

In this research, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. The sewing workstations were observed qualitatively, and the perceptions of the participants towards their workstations, their anthropometry, and the dimensions of the furniture in sewing workstations were surveyed quantitatively.

2.1. Sampling and Data Collection

Six out of 35 garment manufacturing companies operating in Addis Ababa (the capital city of Ethiopia) were surveyed [34]. The companies were selected by considering their similarities in the type of products they produce, their production capacity, and the technology adaptation level. Their products include upper garments such as shirts, T-shirts, and sweaters. A structured questionnaire was prepared in English and translated into Amharic (Ethiopian national language) by experts. The translated questionnaire was tested by a sample of 20 knowledgeable participants and was revised according to the feedback collected. The tested and revised questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 462 sewing operators from the six garment companies according to Cochran [35] with a 20% allowance. Out of these, 398 participants returned the self-administered questionnaire with a response rate of 86.15%. Moreover, 22 supervisors working in the sewing sections were interviewed.

Furthermore, out of the 398 respondents, 361 (90.70%) volunteered for anthropometric measurements. The participants were approached randomly. Observations were filled in by one of the researchers of this study, the questionnaires were self-administered by the participants, and the anthropometric measurements were taken by trained technical assistants. Two groups of two female data collectors were first trained on how to take anthropometric measurements according to the procedure in Pheasant and Haslegrave [36]. The trained data collectors took measurements from 20 willing subjects for a pilot test. Repeated measurements by the same and different data collectors were taken until inter and intradata collectors’ differences were considerably minimized and consensus was reached. The dimensions of seven different furniture (tables and chairs) were also measured. In addition, 10 different sewing sections of the six companies were checked by observational checklist.

2.2. Data Collection Instruments

Data were collected using a checklist, a self-administered structured questionnaire, and anthropometric measurement instruments. The checklist was prepared based on the guidelines of the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) [37, 38]. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part was designed to obtain demographic characteristics such as age, marital status, and education, and job-related characteristics such as experience, stress, and level of satisfaction. In the second part, questions related to productivity and employee satisfaction, and workstation design factors such as furniture, space, posture, and equipment were included [39–41]. The questions were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree).

A total of 37 anthropometric dimensions were taken from 361 female operators (see Figure 1). The dimensions were mostly selected from Pheasant and Haslegrave [36], while some dimensions useful for clothing design were also added from ISO 8559: 2017 [42]. The definitions of the anthropometric dimensions are provided in the Appendix. A similar approach was also followed by Bizuneh et al. [43]. Physical instruments and a list of body dimensions were used to take anthropometric measurements of the participants and the dimensions of the furniture. A nonstretchable plastic measurement tape was used to measure the girth, vertical, and width dimensions, while weight and height scales were used to measure the weight and height of the subjects, respectively. The landmarks of the hips and waist were marked by ribbons, and the measurements were recorded on a table with the list of body dimensions.

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Measuring existing furniture and body dimensions of operators.

2.3. Ethical Considerations

The research included a quantitative survey conducted following the Helsinki Declaration. First, the respondents were briefed about the objectives of the research. They were also informed about their anonymity and the confidentiality of the data and its use only for research purposes. Then, their willingness to participate in the study was asked. Finally, the willing participants signed a voluntary consent before filling in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was prepared to be self-administered, and the participants were consciously performing their tasks. Therefore, there was no chance for contact or verbal influences after the distribution of the questionnaire. Hence, for such a noninterventional study, clearance from a research ethics review committee was not applicable.

2.4. Data Analysis

First, all data were entered into SPSS Version 21 for computation. The data from the observation checklist were described by frequency and percentages. The quantitative data from the questionnaire survey was checked for reliability. The overall Cronbach’s alpha value was found to be 0.85 which is acceptable [44]. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe the perceptions of the participants on their workstation elements and their effect on productivity. Moreover, correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between workstation design and perceived labour productivity.

The anthropometric measurements of the participants were checked for normality through skewness and kurtosis analysis. Following no significant deviation from normality, the mean and standard deviations; minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) values; and 5^th, 50^th, and 95^th percentiles of the dataset were provided [14] to assist in product/tool design that fits well for Ethiopian female workers. Because of the scarcity of anthropometric datasets of the Ethiopian working population, the sewing machines and furniture mostly imported from China are not expected to be designed by considering the anthropometry of Ethiopians. Therefore, the anthropometric data were compared with similar age workers’ anthropometry in Malaysia [45], Canada [46], and Mexico [47] by conducting one-sample t-tests. This is important to show that the anthropometry of Ethiopian female workers differs from the anthropometry of female workers in other nations. The countries were selected based on accessible anthropometric datasets of similar-age industrial working females. Plus, Bizuneh et al. [48] have already reported statistically significant mean differences in most anthropometric dimensions among Ethiopian, United States, and Chinese female consumers. The results of the current paper will develop on that by considering industrial working females from other nations.

The dimensions of workstation furniture were evaluated against standards [49] and compared with the anthropometry of the participants [24, 50, 51] to identify mismatches. The match criterion for each furniture dimension with a specific anthropometric dimension of the subjects was retrieved from the literature. Table 1 presents the match criteria with descriptions and their sources. Three expected evaluation results were defined [52] as (1) “low mismatch” results when the furniture dimension is lower than the Min limit of the equation, (2) “match” results when the furniture dimension is between the Min and Max limits, and (3) “high mismatch” results when the furniture dimension is higher than the Max limit. Finally, furniture dimensions with improved match percentages, with the anthropometry of the subjects, were proposed.

Table 1. Match criteria of furniture and anthropometric dimensions.

Anthropometric dimension	Furniture dimension	Match criterion	Description	Design suggestion	Source/s
Popliteal height (PH)	Seat height (SH)	(PH + 3) cos 30^°° ≤ SH ≤ (pH + 3) cos 5^°	• PH should be higher than the SH allowing the knee to be flexed so that the lower legs form a 5° to 30° angle relative to the vertical axis	• SH shall better be designed for the 5^th percentile of PH with shoe clearance	Kahya [52], Parvez et al. [24], and Parvez et al. [27]
Buttock popliteal length (BPL)	Seat depth (SD)	0.80 BPL ≤ SD ≤ 0.95 BPL	• SD should be at least 5 cm less than the BPL but not much less leaving the thigh unsupported	• SD shall better be designed for the 5^th percentile of BPL
Hip breadth (HB)	Seat width (SW)	1.10HB ≤ SW ≤ 1.30HB	• SW should be at least 10% (to accommodate HB) and at most 30% (for space economy) larger than HB	• SW shall better be designed for the 95th percentile of the HP
Sitting shoulder height (SSH)	Backrest height (BH)	0.60 SSH ≤ BH ≤ 0.80 SSH	• The BH should be kept lower than or at most on the upper edge of the scapula, which is 60%–80% shoulder height	• BH shall better be designed for the 5^th percentile of SSH
Sitting elbow height (SEH), sitting shoulder height (SSH)	Table height (TH)	SEH + (PH + 4) cos 30^°° ≤ TH ≤ (pH + 4) cos 5^°° + 0.85SEH + 0.15SSH	• TH should be 3–5 cm higher than the SEH plus seat height	• TH shall better be designed for the 5^th percentile of sitting elbow height from the floor	Gouvali and Boudolos [50] and Molenbroek et al. [51]

3. Results

3.1. Participants’ Information

The participants were 18–35 years old female sewing machine operators with about half of them being 25–30 years old. All of them were educated from completing primary school up to college diploma level, while the majority (53.8%) had completed secondary school. This indicates that young girls become operators after completing high school education because most of them cannot afford a college education. Most of them (53.5%) were single. They had various experiences ranging from 6 months to 5 years. Though investing their precious young age force, most of them were feeling dissatisfied (50.8%) in their jobs because of poor working conditions and low pay. About 99% of them had experienced medium to high job stress due to highly repetitive activities and restless days. Details of the demographic and job-related characteristics of the participants can be found in Table 2.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the participants (operators).

Characteristics	Category	Frequency	Percent
Age	18–24	134	33.7
	25–30	202	50.8
	31–35	62	15.6
	Total	398	100.0

Level of education	Completed primary school	45	11.3
	Completed secondary school	214	53.8
	Diploma	139	34.9
	Total	398	100.0

Marital status	Single	213	53.5
	Married	177	44.5
	Divorced	8	2.0
	Total	398	100.0

Duration of employment	6–12 months	42	10.6
	1–2 years	120	30.2
	3–5 years	132	33.2
	Above 5 years	104	26.1
	Total	398	100.0

Job satisfaction	Very dissatisfied	60	15.1
	Dissatisfied	202	50.8
	Unsure	10	2.5
	Satisfied	106	26.6
	Very satisfied	20	5.0
	Total	398	100.0

Job stress	Low	4	1.0
	Medium	272	68.3
	High	121	30.7
	Total	398	100.0

3.2. Anthropometric Measurements of Female Operators

Given the importance of anthropometry in workstation design, 37 anthropometric dimensions of 361 female subjects who operate sewing machines were measured to develop a representative anthropometric dataset that can be used to design ergonomic products and workstations. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the average anthropometric measurements of the subjects (in centimeters). For example, the average measurements of important anthropometric dimensions including popliteal height, buttock popliteal length, hip breadth, and sitting shoulder height were 44.29, 45.42, 33.61, and 55.41 cm, respectively. These measurements were later compared with the existing dimensions of furniture in sewing workstations.

Table 3. Anthropometric measurements (centimeters) of Ethiopian female sewing operators (N = 361).

Dimensions	Mean	SD	Min.	Percentile			Max.
Dimensions	Mean	SD	Min.	5^th	50^th	95^th	Max.
Age	27.47	6.35	18.00	20	26	40	52.00
Weight	54.80	7.21	43.00	45.00	53.00	70.00	87.00
Shoulder width	39.68	2.94	24.00	35.00	40.00	45.00	49.00
Bust girth	92.22	10.47	66.50	79.00	90.00	111.80	129.00
Bust width	45.48	10.47	26.00	28.10	46.00	61.00	76.00
Elbow to elbow breadth	43.24	5.55	31.00	35.00	42.00	54.00	60.00
Back width	34.53	3.23	27.00	29.10	34.00	39.00	47.00
Abdomen circumference	90.27	12.60	66.50	73.00	88.00	112.90	126.00
Waist girth	80.79	12.31	59.00	65.00	78.00	102.00	122.00
Hip girth	102.76	10.58	71.00	89.00	101.00	120.00	137.00
Hip breadth	33.61	7.84	21.00	24.00	31.00	49.80	58.00
Center front waist length	33.66	3.64	26.00	28.00	33.00	39.00	44.00
Full front waist length	41.97	4.14	33.00	35.00	42.00	49.00	56.00
Shoulder length	14.26	1.71	9.00	11.10	14.00	17.00	19.00
Center back waist length	36.36	3.12	24.00	31.00	37.00	41.00	45.00
Full back waist length	40.35	2.83	33.00	36.00	40.00	44.00	49.00
Outside length	94.97	5.98	80.00	86.00	94.00	105.00	111.00
Waist to hip	26.10	4.55	18.00	20.00	25.00	35.00	39.00
Body rise	31.38	4.33	14.00	24.00	32.00	38.45	43.00
Inside leg length	69.21	4.97	56.00	62.00	69.00	78.00	81.00
Thigh girth	50.94	5.60	32.00	43.00	50.00	60.00	74.00
Thigh clearance	16.43	2.00	12.00	13.00	16.00	19.90	23.00
Popliteal height	44.29	3.26	33.00	39.55	45.00	49.90	54.00
Knee girth	37.45	3.70	30.00	32.00	37.00	44.00	53.00
Arm length	69.10	3.99	53.00	63.00	69.00	75.00	81.00
Upper arm length	33.23	2.82	25.00	29.00	33.00	38.00	52.00
Under arm length	52.22	7.54	36.00	40.00	54.00	63.00	68.00
Hand girth	19.60	1.41	15.00	17.50	20.00	22.00	24.00
Height	155.69	5.27	143.00	146.00	155.00	164.90	173.00
Standing eye height	146.30	5.23	133.00	137.55	146.00	155.00	163.00
Standing shoulder height	130.43	5.46	115.00	121.10	130.00	140.00	144.00
Standing elbow height	101.80	5.11	85.00	94.00	102.00	110.00	117.00
Sitting eye height	69.60	5.57	56.00	60.00	69.00	79.00	87.00
Sitting shoulder height	55.41	4.79	24.00	49.00	55.00	63.00	69.00
Sitting elbow height	23.14	2.30	15.00	20.00	23.00	27.00	31.00
Buttock knee length	57.68	5.02	44.00	49.00	57.00	66.00	75.00
Buttock popliteal length	45.42	6.09	30.00	36.00	45.00	56.00	61.00
Sitting height	79.85	4.96	60.00	71.00	80.00	88.00	92.00

3.3. Comparison of Anthropometric Measurements With Subjects From Other Countries

Some anthropometric dimensions of the subjects were compared with the anthropometric dimensions of similar-age working females in three other countries including Malaysia, Canada, and Mexico. Thirteen dimensions were found commonly in three of the studies. The differences were mixed (see Table 4). Most of the differences were statistically significant at different levels, while only a few differences were not statistically significant. For example, there were no statistically significant mean differences in height between the Ethiopian subjects and Malaysians and the sitting eye height of the Ethiopian subjects and Mexicans. The mean differences in anthropometric measurements of the Ethiopian subjects and Canadians were all statistically significant, and the Canadians were larger than the Ethiopians in all of the dimensions except buttock to knee length. Moreover, the mean differences between the anthropometric measurements of the Ethiopians and Canadians were also larger than the differences between the Ethiopians and the subjects from Malaysia and Mexico. Furthermore, some of the differences were larger than 5 cm in magnitude which is expected to make important differences in furniture and workstation designs.

Table 4. Anthropometric measurement (centimeters) differences among Ethiopian and other countries’ female workers.

SN	Body measurements	Mean (SD)		MD	Mean (SD)		MD	Mean (SD)		MD
SN	Body measurements	Ethiopian	Malaysian^a	MD	Ethiopian	Canadian^b	MD	Ethiopian	Mexican^c	MD
1	Weight	54.80 (7.21)	58.7 (14.1)	−3.9 ^∗∗∗	54.80 (7.21)	—	—	54.80 (7.21)	62.5 (15.3)	−7.7 ^∗∗∗
2	Height	155.69 (5.27)	155.7 (6.2)	−0.01	155.69 (5.27)	164.1 (6.4)	−8.4 ^∗∗∗	155.69 (5.27)	156.3 (5.2)	−0.6 ^∗
3	Standing eye height	146.30 (5.23)	143.1 (6.3)	3.2 ^∗∗∗	146.30 (5.23)	153.5 (6.4)	−7.2 ^∗∗∗	146.30 (5.23)	145.1 (4.9)	1.2 ^∗∗∗
4	Standing shoulder height	130.43 (5.46)	127.6 (6.5)	0.2.8 ^∗∗∗	130.43 (5.46)	136.1 (6.7)	−5.7 ^∗∗∗	130.43 (5.46)	—	—
5	Standing elbow height	101.80 (5.11)	96.2 (4.6)	5.6 ^∗∗∗	101.80 (5.11)	104.5 (5.3)	−2.7 ^∗∗∗	101.80 (5.11)	—	—
6	Sitting height	79.85 (4.96)	81.5 (4.5)	−1.7 ^∗∗∗	79.85 (4.96)	86.6 (4.5)	−6.8 ^∗∗∗	79.85 (4.96)	—	—
7	Sitting eye height	69.60 (5.57)	70.9 (5.1)	−1.3 ^∗∗∗	69.60 (5.57)	75.3 (4.0)	−5.7 ^∗∗∗	69.60 (5.57)	70.0 (2.9)	−0.4
8	Sitting shoulder height	55.41 (4.79)	54.5 (4.7)	0.91 ^∗∗∗	55.41 (4.79)	57.0 (4.0)	−1.6 ^∗∗∗	55.41 (4.79)	—	—
9	Sitting elbow height	23.14 (2.30)	23.1 (3.2)	0.04	23.14 (2.30)	23.5 (3.2)	−0.4 ^∗∗	23.14 (2.30)	—	—
10	Knee height	44.29 (3.26)	47.5 (3.7)	−3.2 ^∗∗∗	44.29 (3.26)	51.9 (3.6)	−7.6 ^∗∗∗	44.29 (3.26)	—	—
11	Buttock knee length	57.68 (5.02)	52.5 (4.7)	5.2 ^∗∗∗	57.68 (5.02)	56.5 (4.8)	1.2 ^∗∗∗	57.68 (5.02)	55.3 (3.2)	2.4 ^∗∗∗
12	Buttock popliteal length	45.42 (6.09)	43.1 (3.8)	2.3 ^∗∗∗	45.42 (6.09)	47.5 (4.0)	−2.1 ^∗∗∗	45.42 (6.09)	43.9 (2.8)	1.52 ^∗∗∗
13	Thigh clearance	16.43 (2.00)	13.4 (2.5)	3.0 ^∗∗∗	16.43 (2.00)	15.7 (2.8)	0.7 ^∗∗∗	16.43 (2.00)	13.5 (1.7)	2.9 ^∗∗∗

Abbreviation: MD, mean difference.
^∗MD is statistically significant at 0.05 level. ^∗∗MD is statistically significant at 0.01 level. ^∗∗∗MD is statistically significant at 0.001 level.
^aSource: Abd Rahman et al. [45].
^bSource: Deneau et al. [46].
^cSource: Lavender et al. [47].

3.4. Workstation Design and Perceived Productivity

The responses of the participants (operators and supervisors) on the assessment of the workstation elements and perceived productivity are presented in Table 5. The frequency of agreement with the statements regarding the situations of the different workstation elements indicated that most of the participants disagreed with the positive statements. For example, on the suitability, appropriateness, and comfort of furniture, the majority of them disagreed (73.4%) or strongly disagreed (18.76%) on average. Similarly, the operators, who participated in the study, mostly disagreed with the adequacy of spaces (63.99) and equipment status (56.5%). However, they agreed (58.96%) or strongly agreed (28.64%) on the effect of workstation design on their productivity mostly. Most of the supervisors, who participated in the study, also confirmed that they hear complaints about workstation designs (54.5%) and their linkage with productivity (45.46%).

Table 5. Descriptive statistics on workstation design and productivity.

About	Statements	Level of agreement
About	Statements	SD	𝐃	N	A	SA
Operators’ view (N = 398)
Furniture	The design of seat height, width, and the depth of chairs are suitable for sewing operation	49 (12.3)	267 (67.1)	57 (14.3)	25 (6.3)	0 (0.0)
	The fitness of the chair with the working machine is appropriate	92 (23.1)	242 (60.8)	51 (12.8)	13 (3.3)	0 (0.0)
	My working furniture (table and chair) are comfortable enough	83 (20.9)	292 (73.4)	22 (5.5)	1.0 (0.3)	0 (0.0)
	Average (%)	18.76	67.09	10.89	3.26	0.0
Posture	When performing a task, I do not raise my hands above the shoulder	81 (20.4)	247 (62.1)	56 (14.1)	9 (2.3)	5 (1.3)
Space	My workstation has enough space to store work-in-progress products	76 (19.1)	273 (68.6)	35 (8.8)	10 (2.5)	4 (1.0)
	There is an appropriate space and clearance in my workstation	89 (22.4)	248 (62.3)	40 (10.1)	20 (5.0)	1 (0.3)
	There is overcrowding in my workspace	68 (17.1)	243 (61.1)	62 (15.6)	25 (6.3)	0 (0.0)
	Average (%)	19.51	63.99	11.47	4.61	0.42
Equipment	All working equipment are in good and proper condition	83 (20.9)	225 (56.5)	53 (13.3)	31 (7.8)	6 (1.5)
Productivity	My current workstation design challenges me to meet my daily production target	2 (0.5)	8 (2.0)	64 (16.1)	223 (56.0)	101 (25.4)
	Inadequate and noncomfortable furniture affects my productivity	2 (0.5)	27 (6.8)	31 (7.8)	259 (65.1)	79 (19.8)
	Unfavourable workstation (working posture, unsuitable equipment, etc.) affect my productivity	1 (0.3)	1 (0.3)	40 (10.1)	253 (63.6)	103 (25.9)
	Solving the physical workstation design problems will improve employees’ productivity	0 (0.0)	2 (0.5)	21 (5.3)	202 (50.8)	173 (43.5)
	Average (%)	0.31	2.39	9.79	58.96	28.64

Supervisors’ view (N = 22)
Workstation	Throughout my employment, I heard complaints regarding the design of workstations	0 (0.0)	2 (9.1)	1 (4.5)	12 (54.5)	7 (31.8)
Employee satisfaction	There is a system that evaluates employee satisfaction	2 (9.1)	6 (27.3)	4 (18.2)	8 (36.4)	2 (9.1)
Productivity	The employee performance level is linked to adequate and comfortable furniture (table and chair) in the workplace	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	6 (27.3)	13 (59.1)	3 (13.6)
	Solving the physical workstation design problem will improve productivity	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (9.1)	11 (50.0)	9 (40.9)
	Employee satisfaction has a direct relationship with productivity	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (9.1)	6 (27.3)	14 (63.6)
	Average (%)	0.00	0.00	15.15	45.46	39.39

Abbreviations: A, agree; D, disagree; N, neutral; SA, strongly agree; SD, strongly disagree.

To assess the strength of relations between the workstation design elements and the perceived productivity of the operators, correlation analysis was performed. Table 6 presents the correlation coefficients. The relationships of productivity with furniture, posture, space, and equipment designs were negative and statistically significant at different levels. While all strengths of relations were weak, the inadequacy of space had the highest negative impact on perceived productivity. Moreover, bad posture was associated with inadequate space and improper equipment.

Table 6. Correlation analyses.

Variables	Furniture	Posture	Space	Equipment	Productivity
Furniture	1
Posture	0.21 ^∗∗ (0.000)	1
Space	0.32 ^∗∗ (0.000)	0.33 ^∗∗ (0.000)	1
Equipment	0.28 ^∗∗(0.000)	0.42 ^∗∗ (0.000)	0.43 ^∗∗ (000)	1
Productivity	−0.18 ^∗∗(0.000)	−0.12 ^∗ (0.018)	−0.21 ^∗∗ (0.000)	−0.13 ^∗ (0.013)	1

^∗Statistically significant at 0.05 level. ^∗∗Statistically significant at 0.001 level.

3.5. Evaluation of Workstations

3.5.1. Evaluation Against Standards

Ten sewing workstations of the six garment manufacturing companies were observed based on OSHA’s checklist. The result in Table 7 confirmed that the complaints of the operators were real. Above three-fourths of the workstations had inappropriate chair and table dimensions that did not fit the operators’ anthropometric dimensions. Moreover, the equipment status (60%), existing space (73.33%), and posture of operators (60%) were not good in most of the workstations. However, a better observation was found regarding machines, where 65% of the workstations had appropriate machines in good condition.

Table 7. Result of observation.

Variables	Related questions	Yes (%)	No (%)	Remark
Furniture	Is the chair easily adjustable from a seated position? (i.e. seat height, seat pan tilt, backrest height, and tilt)	10	90
	Is the height of the chair appropriate?	50	50
	Is the height of the backrest appropriate?	30	70
	Is the depth of the seat pan appropriate?	20	80
	Is the height of the table properly adjusted for the worker?	—	100
	Has the form and size of the table been correctly determined for the sewing task?	30	70
	Average	18.33	76.67

Equipment	Are all tools and equipment used by employees at their workplace in good condition?	30	70
	Are all pieces of equipment adjusted, positioned, and arranged to minimize strain on all parts of the body?	50	50
	Average	40	60

Space	Are you able to sit close to the desk with no impediments/obstructions?	40	60
	Is there enough leg and foot space available while sitting and standing?	30	70
	Is sufficient clearance provided around and between machines to allow for safe operations, set up and servicing, material handling, and waste removal?	10	90
	Average	26.67	73.33

Posture	Can the sewing task be completed without excessive bending of the upper body and with changes in posture?	20	80
	Can work be comfortably completed within easy reach?	40	60
	Average	30	70

Machines	Can the treadle be adjusted in depth?	100	—
	Does your company check the machine conditions periodically to ensure they are in good operating condition?	30	70	Interview
	Average	65	35	Better result

Furthermore, the dimensions of existing furniture including tables and chairs were measured and evaluated against different standards. Seven types of tables and chairs were compared with the standard because one of the six companies had two types of tables and chairs. As can be seen from Table 8, only the heights of the tables were acceptable, while seat height, width, and depths were below the standard, and the backrest heights of the chairs were above the standard.

Table 8. Dimensions of existing furniture (centimeters) in the sewing sections of garment companies.

Dimensions	Companies							Mean	Standard^a	Comment
Dimensions	1	2	3	4	5	6(a)	6(b)	Mean	Standard^a	Comment
Chair seat height	42	40	40	42	41	41	40	40.85	≥ 45	Below standard
Chair seat depth	36	37	42	35	36	38	38	37.4	43	>>
Chair seat width	38	41	38	40	41	38	38	39.1	45	>>
Chair backrest height	38	40	35	38	37	35	35	36.6	17 - 30	Above standard
Table height	75	76	76	75	75	75	75	75.2	≥ 66	Acceptable
Table width	120	120	120	106	106	120	120	116	—	—
Table length	53	54.5	54.5	53	52	54	50	53	—	—

^a Source: UOB [49].

3.5.2. Evaluation Against the Anthropometric Measurements of the Subjects

The existing average furniture dimensions were compared with the operators’ body measurements. For example, seat height was compared with popliteal height, buttock popliteal length with seat depth, sitting shoulder height with backrest height, and hip breadth with seat width. The results in Table 9 showed considerable mismatches between the anthropometric measurements of the operators and measurements of the existing furniture. Seat dimensions showed high total mismatches, where the seat dimensions did not match with anthropometric measurements of above half of the subjects. For example, seat height was too short (low mismatch) for 50.69% of the subjects, seat depth was too short for 41.27% of the subjects, and seat width was too wide for 45.98% of the subjects. This shows that the existing chairs were not suitable for the anthropometric dimensions of the operators. However, better furniture dimension matches were found for backrest (90.03%) and table (60.39%) heights.

Table 9. Existing furniture match and mismatch percentages for operators.

Furniture dimension	Measured values	Match/mismatch percentage
Furniture dimension	Measured values	Low mismatch	Match	High mismatch	Total mismatch
Seat height	40.85	50.69	45.43	3.88	54.57
Seat depth	37.40	41.27	44.05	14.68	55.95
Seat width	39.10	36.57	17.45	45.98	82.55
Backrest height	36.60	9.42	90.03	0.55	9.97
Table height	75.20	0.28	60.39	39.33	39.61

3.6. Proposed Furniture Dimensions for Sewing Workstation

The proposed dimensions of furniture were obtained by searching for a specific furniture dimension that maximizes the match percentage [52]. First, furniture dimensions were designed for the Min and Max values of a specific anthropometric dimension of the subjects. Then, several furniture dimensions were prepared at 5 cm intervals and match percentages were calculated to find out the furniture dimension that maximizes the match percentage. For example, the best seat height was obtained as follows.

Hence, the potential seat heights were determined as 33.5 cm, 38.5 cm, 43.5 cm, 48.5 cm, and 52.5 cm based on the 5 cm interval size. Then, match and mismatch percentages were calculated for each potential seat height, where a Max match percentage of 74.79% was obtained for a seat height of 43.5 cm. The best other furniture dimensions in Table 10 were obtained similarly.

Table 10. Match and mismatch percentages of proposed furniture dimensions.

Furniture dimension	Measured values	Match/mismatch percentage
Furniture dimension	Measured values	Low mismatch	Match	High mismatch	Total mismatch
Seat height	43.50	13.02	74.79	12.19	25.21
Seat depth	40.0	19.95	47.92	32.13	52.08
Seat width	49.5	8.31	18.84	72.85	81.16
Backrest height	40.0	1.38	91.14	7.48	8.86
Table height	69.5	9.97	83.66	6.37	16.34

The proposed furniture dimensions in Table 10 showed considerable improvements in match percentages with the respective anthropometric measurements of the subjects. The best improvements include in seat (match = 74.49%) and table (match = 83.66%) heights. Improvements in seat depth (low mismatch = 19.95%) and width (low mismatch = 8.31%) focused on minimizing low mismatch to maintain the comfort of operators. Furthermore, an adjustable design of a sitting chair, designed using Auto CAD, is proposed. This adjustable chair was designed based on the proposed dimensions in Table 10. It provides a rotating seating surface that can be adjusted to increase or decrease seat height as needed so that workers can quickly carry items between the front and back workstations without twisting their backs or standing to complete their tasks. Additionally, the adjustment helps to fit the sitting height to the height of the working tables properly. The parts of the chair can be made from metal or wood and a sitting horizontal surface and backrest with cushion. The cushion should be about 4–5 cm thick [29]. The back rest should better have air passages to minimize discomfort with increased temperature. Figure 2 depicts the proposed adjustable chair and a model of an operator properly sitting on a chair in front of a sewing machine.

4. Discussion and Implications

4.1. Discussion

The main objective of the study was to examine the relationship between workstation design and perceived productivity which was rarely studied in the garment industry due to the focus given to health issues in the literature. Following the significant relationship of workstation design with productivity, the physical sewing workstation designs were exhaustively evaluated by OSHA’s observation checklist and measurements of furniture dimensions. The measurements were also extended to the anthropometric dimensions of a sample of operators as the ergonomic workstation design is expected to fit the anthropometric dimensions of the operators. The anthropometric dimensions of the subjects were also compared to the anthropometric measurements of similar-age workers in other countries because machines and equipment are usually imported from China and are, therefore, designed to fit the standards of other countries. The results of the study are discussed and relevant implications are drawn as follows.

Though the strength of the relationship was weak, the status of the workstation elements was significantly related to the perceived productivity of operators which confirms the findings of previous studies in the garment industry in other countries [10, 53]. Observations and measurements showed a mismatch between the dimensions of the furniture in the sewing workstation and standard [37, 49]. These findings are in agreement with Mukund et al. [9] but are against the result of Sarder et al. [7] who reported that the physical workstation of the garment industry in Southeast Asia was acceptable. Furthermore, the comparison of some anthropometric measurements of subjects with similar age female workers in Malaysia [45], Canada [46], and Mexico [47] showed statistically significant mean differences. This finding supports the results of previous studies [43, 45, 48].

In this study, considerable mismatch was found between sitting chair dimensions and anthropometric measurements of the subjects. For example, the seat height of the existing chair (40.85 cm) was too low for 50.69% of the subjects. However, according to Parvez et al. [27], the seat height (46 cm) was too high for 95% of female undergraduate university students. Kahya [52] also found that seat height (43.5 cm) was too high for 30.88% of female undergraduate students. In fact, the 95^th percentile of the popliteal height of the subjects in our study (49.90 cm) was larger than the subjects in Parvez et al. [27] (44.37 cm) and Kahya [52] (47.61 cm). Larger popliteal height along with shorter chair seat height compared to the cases in the two studies [27, 52] has resulted in a higher low mismatch between popliteal height and seat height in our study. Based on the findings, a chair design was proposed to improve the sewing workstation. Previous studies [15, 29] have also proposed chair designs, but our design is different from those designs in dimensions and has unique design aspects such as aeration on the backrest.

4.2. Implications

The results of this study have both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the study was very comprehensive by investigating the perceptions of operators and supervisors about the design of their workstations and supplementing it with observation and objective measurements of physical workstations and anthropometry of the operators. The results confirmed that almost all of the subjects had experienced medium to high job-related stress. The existing chairs were found not to be suitable for the anthropometric dimensions of the operators. Furthermore, a bad working posture of sewing operators was associated with inadequate space, which had the highest negative impact on perceived productivity. These were unique contributions to the study of sewing workstation design. The results have also contributed to the body of knowledge by expanding the focus of researchers on the health risks of sewing operators to productivity, which is equally important.

Practically, associating workstation design with the productivity of workers has implications for managers. In the literature, cost-effectiveness is one of the obstacles hindering firms from designing ergonomic workstations. If the idea regarding the effect of workstation design on productivity is supported by research, there will be a higher chance that managers will give better attention to the design of ergonomic workstations which will ultimately support the social sustainability of the garment industry. In Ethiopia, the social sustainability of the textile and apparel industry is weak [54] because of the main focus on economic development [55] which actually is not possible without respecting the rights of workers.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the workstations of the sewing sections of selected garment manufacturing companies in Ethiopia in relation to perceived labour productivity. The results showed that the dissatisfaction of the operators with their workstation design has negatively affected their perceived productivity. The dimensions of the workstation furniture were neither within acceptable standards nor matched to the anthropometry of most of the operators. The differences in anthropometric measurements of the operators with similar age workers of other countries showed that furniture should be manufactured based on domestic anthropometric standards of the working population. Ergonomics is crucial for a comfortable workstation design, and the proposed table height and seat height, depth, and width dimensions could improve the fit of workstation furniture to the anthropometric dimensions of Ethiopian female operators. Eventually, this can improve the productivity of operators and maintain their health. Therefore, it is recommended that stakeholders of the garment industry in Ethiopia revisit the sewing workstations and implement interventions.

5.1. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study did not assess factors other than workstation design that affect perceived productivity. It would have been better if other factors were considered, and the observations were conducted in multiple seasons. Eventually, this could have enabled the researchers to implement the proposed design of the sitting chair. Therefore, future research could consider actually measuring labour productivity and implementing proposed furniture dimensions. Comparing workers’ actual productivity before and after adjustment of workstation dimensions, as well as exploring other factors that affect productivity in the sewing workstation, are valuable future research opportunities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

The financial expenses of the research were covered by the Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion Technology, Bahir Dar University.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Ethiopian Institute of Textile and Fashion Technology, Bahir Dar University, for supporting this study financially.

Appendix A

Table A1. Definitions of anthropometric dimensions [42, 36].

S.N.	Body dimension	Definition
1	Weight	The total mass of the body in kilograms
2	Shoulder width	Distance between the right and left shoulder points measured at the back with the arms hanging naturally
3	Bust girth	Horizontal girth measured at bust point level
4	Bust width	Distance between the bust points
5	Elbow to elbow breadth	The horizontal distance across the lateral surfaces of the elbows spreading sideways: distance between armrests
6	Back width	Distance across the back between the left and right arm scye lines
7	Abdomen circumference	The largest circumference of the abdomen (usually at the belly button level)
8	Waist girth	Horizontal girth of the body measured at the waist level
9	Hip girth	Horizontal girth of the body measured at the hip level
10	High breadth	Maximum horizontal distance across the hips in the sitting position
11	Center front length	Vertical distance measured from front neck point to waist level
12	Full front waist length	Vertical distance from the neck shoulder point, over the nipple, to the front waist
13	Shoulder length	Distance from the side neck point to the shoulder point
14	Center back waist length	Vertical measurement from back nape to waist level
15	Full-back waist length	The distance from the 7^th cervical vertebra to the waist following the contour of the spinal column
16	Outside length	Distance down the side of the body from the waist level vertically to the ground following the contour to the hip level
17	Waist to hip	Distance down the side of the body from the waist level to the hip level
18	Body rise	Vertical distance between the waist level and the crotch level measured at the back
19	Inside leg length	Vertical distance between the inside leg level and outer ankle point
20	Thigh girth	Horizontal girth measured at the highest thigh position with the subject standing upright
21	Thigh clearance	Vertical distance from the seat surface to the top of the uncompressed soft tissue of the thigh where it meets the abdomen
22	Knee height	Vertical distance from the center point of the kneecap to the ground
23	Knee girth	Horizontal girth of the knee at the level of the center point of the kneecap
24	Arm length	Outer distance from shoulder point to wrist point measured with the hand placed on the hip and the arm bent 90°
25	Upper arm length	Distance from the shoulder point to the elbow point
26	Under arm length	Distance between the armpit front fold point and wrist point on the palm side of the wrist
27	Hand girth	Maximum girth over the knuckles
28	Height	Vertical distance from the floor to the vertex: the crown of the head
29	Standing eye height	Vertical distance from the floor to the inner canthus (corner) of the eye
30	Standing shoulder height	Vertical distance from the floor to the acromion: the bony tip of the shoulder
31	Standing elbow height	Vertical distance from the floor to the radiale
32	Sitting eye height	Vertical distance from the sitting surface to the inner canthus (corner) of the eye
33	Sitting shoulder height	Vertical distance from the seat surface to the acromion: the bony point of the shoulder
34	Sitting elbow height	Vertical distance from the seat surface to the underside of the elbow
35	Buttock-knee length	Horizontal distance from the back of the uncompressed buttock to the front of the kneecap
36	Buttock-popliteal length	Horizontal distance from the back of the uncompressed buttocks to the popliteal angle at the back of the knee
37	Sitting height	Vertical distance from the sitting surface to the vertex: the crown of the head

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1 Muhundhan M., Improved work station design for improved productivity, International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Technology. (2013) 2, no. 3, 225–227.
Google Scholar
2 Marmaras N. and Nathanael D., Workplace design, Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 2021, Wiley, 368–382.
10.1002/9781119636113.ch14
Google Scholar
3 Fahim I., Kalwar S., and Fatima S., The impact of workplace design on the productivity of employees in architectural firms, Journal of Educational Research and Social Sciences Review (JERSSR). (2023) 3, no. 1, 189–205.
Google Scholar
4 Nawaz A., Javed A., and Raja U. M., Impact of workspace design on employee′s productivity: a case study of public sector universities in Hazara division, International Journal of Sustainable Real Estate and Construction Economics. (2019) 1, no. 3, 201–214, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSRECE.2019.097646.
10.1504/IJSRECE.2019.097646
Google Scholar
5 Mutegi T. M., Joshua P. M., and Kinyua J. M., Workplace safety and employee productivity of manufacturing firms in Kenya, Cogent Business & Management. (2023) 10, no. 2, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2215569.
10.1080/23311975.2023.2215569
Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Gumasing M. J. J., Rendon E. R. A., and German J. D., Sustainable ergonomic workplace: fostering job satisfaction and productivity among business process outsourcing (BPO) workers, Sustainability. (2023) 15, no. 18, https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813516.
10.3390/su151813516
Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Sarder M. B., Imrhan S. N., and Mandahawi N., Ergonomic workplace evaluation of an Asian garment-factory, Journal of Human Ergology. (2006) 35, no. 1-2, 45–51, 18516877.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
8 Ghasemi F., Hasini M., Ahmadi M., and Rahmiani-IranShahi M., The relationship between working posture and anthropometric compatibility with workstations: a case study among sewing operators, Iranian Journal of Ergonomics. (2021) 8, no. 4, 15–30.
10.30699/jergon.8.4.15
Google Scholar
9 Mukund A., Amanprasad B. H., Rajeswara R. K., and Subramanya K. N., Ergonomic evaluation of the work stations in a garment manufacturing industry-an exploratory study, International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering. (2014) 2, no. 4, 54–59.
Google Scholar
10 Rana K. S., Randhawa J. S., and Kalra P., Healthy workplace healthy workers: balance for productivity enhancement–a case study of garment manufacturing units in North India, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT). (2021) 12, no. 6, 4744–4755.
Google Scholar
11 Chan J. K., Beckman S. L., and Lawrence P. G., Workplace design: a new managerial imperative, California Management Review. (2007) 49, no. 2, 6–22, https://doi.org/10.2307/41166380.
10.2307/41166380
Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Kaya Ö., Design of work place and ergonomics in garment enterprises, Procedia Manufacturing. (2015) 3, 6437–6443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.921, 2-s2.0-85009986233.
10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.921
Google Scholar
13 Roelofsen P., The impact of office environments on employee performance: the design of the workplace as a strategy for productivity enhancement, Journal of Facilities Management. (2002) 1, no. 3, 247–264, https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960310807944, 2-s2.0-84907187197.
10.1108/14725960310807944
Google Scholar
14 Helander M., A Guide to human factors and ergonomics, 2005, CRC press, https://doi.org/10.1201/b12385.
10.1201/b12385
Google Scholar
15 Abate A. E. and Hailemariam S. S., Improving work-related musculoskeletal disorders for sewing machine operators in Ethiopia, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. (2023) 29, no. 2, 573–585, https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2022.2058747, 35341467.
10.1080/10803548.2022.2058747
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Węziak-Białowolska D., Białowolski P., and McNeely E., Worker’s well-being. Evidence from the apparel industry in Mexico, Intelligent Buildings International. (2019) 11, no. 3-4, 158–177.
10.1080/17508975.2019.1618785
Google Scholar
17 Rorong S. V., The impact of physical work environment toward employee performance at PT. Bank Negara Indonesia Manado Regional Office, Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis dan Akuntansi. (2016) 4, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.35794/emba.4.1.2016.11611.
10.35794/emba.4.1.2016.11611
Google Scholar
18 Antonucci A., Barr A., Martin B., and Rempel D., Effect of bit wear on hammer drill handle vibration and productivity, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. (2017) 14, no. 8, 640–649.
10.1080/15459624.2017.1316385
Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Vischer J. C. and Wifi M., G. Fleury-Bahi, E. Pol, and O. Navarro, The Effect of workplace design on quality of life at work, Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research, 2017, Springer, Cham, International handbooks of quality-of-life, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31416-7_21.
Google Scholar
20 Yunus E. N. and Ernawati E., Productivity paradox? The impact of office redesign on employee productivity, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. (2018) 67, no. 9, 1918–1939, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2017-0350, 2-s2.0-85057462818.
10.1108/IJPPM-12-2017-0350
Google Scholar
21 Joshi M. and Deshpande V., Application of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) for developing ergonomic workstation improvement framework, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. (2023) 24, no. 1, 88–110, https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2022.2044932.
10.1080/1463922X.2022.2044932
Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Sutalaksana I. Z. and Widyanti A., Anthropometry approach in workplace redesign in Indonesian Sundanese roof tile industries, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. (2016) 53, 299–305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2016.03.002, 2-s2.0-84961839684.
10.1016/j.ergon.2016.03.002
Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Namate N., Mutingi M., Aku-Akai L., and Mbohwa C., Anthropometric analysis for ergonomic design: empirical studies in Namibia, Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2017, Rabat, Morocco.
Google Scholar
24 Parvez M., Parvin F., Shahriar M., and Kibria G., Design of ergonomically fit classroom furniture for primary schools of Bangladesh, Journal of Engineering. (2018) 2018, no. 1, 3543610, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3543610, 2-s2.0-85042133520.
10.1155/2018/3543610
Google Scholar
25 Wibneh A., Singh A. K., and Karmakar S., Understanding the synthesis of anthropometric diversity and workspace dimensions in ergonomic design of light armored vehicle, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries. (2021) 31, no. 5, 447–468, https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20893.
10.1002/hfm.20893
Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Ali M., Rahman M., Parvez M., and Hoque A., Ergonomic design of garments furniture for Bangladeshi workers based on anthropometric measurement, International Conference on Mechanical, Industrial and Energy Engineering 2014, 2014, Khulna.
Google Scholar
27 Parvez M. S., Rahman A., and Tasnim N., Ergonomic mismatch between students anthropometry and university classroom furniture, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. (2019) 20, no. 5, 603–631.
10.1080/1463922X.2019.1617909
Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Parimalam P., Kamalamma N., and Ganguli A., Ergonomic interventions to improve work environment in garment manufacturing units, Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. (2006) 10, no. 2, 74–77, https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5278.27304.
10.4103/0019-5278.27304
Google Scholar
29 Kabir M. and Ahmed M., Design of working chair and table for Bangladeshi garments workers to reduce fatigue and discomfort, Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanical Engineering (ICME2003), 2003, Dhaka.
Google Scholar
30 Eladly A. M., Abou-Ali M. G., Sheta A. M., and EL-Ghlomy S. H., A flexible ergonomic redesign of the sewing machine workstation, Research Journal of Textile and Apparel. (2020) 24, no. 3, 245–265, https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-10-2019-0050.
10.1108/RJTA-10-2019-0050
Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Sheta A., Abou-Ali M. G., El-Gholmy S. H., and Eladly A. M., Anthropometric Body Measurements and the Ergonomics Design of the Sewing Machine Workstation, Age. (2019) 31, 5–38.
Google Scholar
32 Kassaneh T. C. and Tadesse A. A., F. Zimale, T. Enku Nigussie, and S. Fanta, Evaluation of Workplace Environmental Ergonomics and Method Development for Manufacturing Industries, Advances of Science and Technology. ICAST 2018, 2019, 274, Springer, Cham, Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15357-1_8, 2-s2.0-85068378323.
Google Scholar
33 Beshah B., Kitaw D., and Gelan M., Workstation design in an Ethiopian small scale leather garment industry, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. (2013) 75, 434–442, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.047.
10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.047
Google Scholar
34 ETIDI, Ethiopian textile and apparel industry profile, The Ethiopian Textile Industry Development Institute (ETIDI), 2021, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Google Scholar
35 Cochran W. G., Sampling techniques, 2007, John Wiley & Sons, https://www.amazon.com/Sampling-Techniques-3Rd-William-Cochran/dp/8126515244.
Google Scholar
36 Pheasant S. and Haslegrave C. M., Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work, 2018, CRC press, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315375212.
10.1201/9781315375212
Google Scholar
37 OSHA, Guidelines on occupational safety and health for seating at work, 2002, Ministry of Human Resources, Malaysia.
Google Scholar
38 PAETEM, PAETEM, Stay healthy when sewing: Tips for ergonomic design of sewing workstations, 2024, German Social Accident Insurance Institution for the energy, textile, electrical and media products sectors, Germany, https://safety-work.org/fileadmin/safety-work/articles/OHS-Workshop_fuer_Mentoren__Lahore__September_2015/Stay_healthy_when_sewing.pdf.
Google Scholar
39 Sakthi Nagaraj T. and Jeyapaul R., P. Ray and J. Maiti, Ergonomic Study on Work Postures of Sewing Machine Operators in Government Industry: A Case in Lean Environment Garment Industry, Ergonomic Design of Products and Worksystems - 21st Century Perspectives of Asia. Managing the Asian Century, 2018, Springer, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5457-0_8.
Google Scholar
40 Taghipour M., Mahboobi M., Nikoeifar A., and Mowloodi E. S., Analysing the effects of physical conditions of the workplace on employee’s productivity (including case study), International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy. (2015) 3, no. 4, 111–119.
Google Scholar
41 Vandyck E. and Fianu D. A., The work practices and ergonomic problems experienced by garment workers in Ghana, International Journal of Consumer Studies. (2012) 36, no. 4, 486–491, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01066.x, 2-s2.0-84867346326.
10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01066.x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
42 ISO 8559–1, Size Designation of Clothes-Part 1: Anthropometric Definitions for Body Measurement, 2017, International Organization for Standardization (IS O), Geneva.
Google Scholar
43 Bizuneh B., Destaw A., Hailu F., and Tsegaye S., Investigation of readymade garment fit issues and analysis of anthropometric measurements of Ethiopian young men, Ergonomics. (2024) 67, no. 12, 1811–1827, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2350672.
10.1080/00140139.2024.2350672
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44 Hair J. F., Anderson R. E., Tatham R. L., and Black W. C., Multivariate data analysis: Prentice Hall, 1998, Upper Saddle River, NJ, https://www.amazon.com/Multivariate-Data-Analysis-Joseph-Hair/dp/0138132631.
Google Scholar
45 Abd Rahman N. I., Md Dawal S. Z., Yusoff N., and Mohd Kamil N. S., Anthropometric measurements among four Asian countries in designing sitting and standing workstations, Sādhanā. (2018) 43, no. 1, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-017-0768-8, 2-s2.0-85041516751.
10.1007/s12046-017-0768-8
Web of Science® Google Scholar
46 Deneau J., van Wyk P. M., Mallender M., and Duquette A., Anthropometry of the Canadian adult population: developing comprehensive, updated normative-reference standards, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. (2018) 68, 199–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.08.001, 2-s2.0-85051411408.
10.1016/j.ergon.2018.08.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
47 Lavender S., Marras W., and Sabol R., A study of female Mexican anthropometric measures useful for workstation design in light manufacturing facilities, AIHA Journal. (2002) 63, no. 3, 300–304, https://doi.org/10.1080/15428110208984717, 12173179.
10.1080/15428110208984717
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
48 Bizuneh B., Destaw A., and Hailu F., Analysis of garment fit problems and body measurements of Ethiopian young female consumers, Research Journal of Textile and Apparel. (2024) https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-10-2023-0110.
10.1108/RJTA-10-2023-0110
Web of Science® Google Scholar
49 UOB, Health and safety guidance: workstation design, 1998, The University of Birmingham (UOB).
Google Scholar
50 Gouvali M. K. and Boudolos K., Match between school furniture dimensions and children′s anthropometry, Applied Ergonomics. (2006) 37, no. 6, 765–773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.11.009, 2-s2.0-33745881364, 16442494.
10.1016/j.apergo.2005.11.009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
51 Molenbroek J. F. M., Kroon-Ramaekers Y. M. T., and Snijders C. J., Revision of the design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture, Ergonomics. (2003) 46, no. 7, 681–694, https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000085635, 2-s2.0-0037837855, 12745681.
10.1080/0014013031000085635
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52 Kahya E., Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures of university students, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. (2019) 74, 102864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102864, 2-s2.0-85073233914.
10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102864
Web of Science® Google Scholar
53 Silva D. and Dissanayake D., Impact of physical ergonomic factors on employee productivity: special reference to in apparel industry of Gampaha District, Wayamba Journal of Management. (2021) 9, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.4038/wjm.v9i1.7500.
10.4038/wjm.v9i1.7500
Google Scholar
54 Brandenburg M., Bizuneh B., Teklemedhin T. B., and Woubou A. M., Sustainability in Ethiopian textile and apparel supply chains, Africa and sustainable global value chains, 2022, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 195–215.
10.1007/978-3-030-78791-2_9
Google Scholar
55 Dura B. S. and Bizuneh B., 10 the impact of foreign direct investment on sustainable economic growth: a focus on the textile and apparel industries in Ethiopia, Fashion and Environmental Sustainability. (2023) 103, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110795431-010.
10.1515/9783110795431-010
Google Scholar

All articles

Evaluation of an Industrial Sewing Workstation Design and Its Impact on Perceived Productivity

Abstract

1. Introduction