ANTR

ROPOME
ETRIA
Medidas
s significativ
vas para aplicação em projeto
 Applied Ergonomics Vol26, No 2, pp. 101-108, 1995
UTTERWORTH Copyright 0 1995 Ekvier Science Ltd
EINEMANN Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
m3-6870/95 SlO.Ou + 0.00

Packing products for customers

An ergonomics evaluation of three
supermarket checkouts

C. Carrasco, N. Coleman and S. Healey

National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, GPO Box 58, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia

M. Lusted
Department of Occupational Health and Safety, University of Sydney, Australia

The mtroduction of laser scanners at supermarket checkout areas has resulted in previous
ergonomics studies focusing specifically on the scanning process and associated cumulative
trauma disorders in the hands and arms. Few studies have evaluated the increased
musculoskeletal load and exertion of checkout staff when they are also expected to pack the
products into bags for the customers. This paper describes an ergonomics evaluation of three
different designs of checkout workstation, which require the operator to stand when they scan
the products, pack them into plastic bags and transfer the packed bags to the customer.
Musculoskeletal load and exertion associated with the different checkouts were measured using
OWAS, heart rate recordings and ratings of perceived exertion. In addition, subjective
rankings of the workstations were obtained and the productivity associated with each design
examined as part of the evaluation. Some of the variables measured showed significant
differences in postural load between the workstations. The results of the evaluation formed the
basis of recommendations for an improved workstation design. Some of the suggestions made to
reduce postural load and increase productivity include positioning the weigh scale to the side
and the bag frame beneath the scanner.

Keywords: workload, OWAS, postures, perceived exertion, heart rate, productivity, supermarket checkouts

Customers continually expect a faster, more efficient
and more thorough service at supermarkets. Super-
market profitability based on less than 1.5% of revenue
has led to checkouts being designed primarily for speed
and productivity rather than worker comfort (Rodrigues,
1989; Hoffman, 1991).
Ryan (1989) found that grocery workers who spent
more than 25% of their working time in standing
positions developed lower-back problems. Other
studies have reported the association of poor work
postures with pains or symptoms of musculosketetal
disorders (van Wely, 1970; Buckle et al, 1985; Aaras et
al 1988).
Hoffman (1991) described how the introduction of
laser scanners to checkout systems during the 1980s
increased revenue (through increased transaction
volumes and lower costs of training, inventory and
staffing costs) and improved customer service (with
faster transaction times and significantly more accurate
charges). However, other research has shown that
these benefits may have been achieved at a cost to the
health, comfort and work satisfaction of checkout
operators (Wilson and Grey, 1984; Margolis and Kraus,
1987; Krueger et al, 1988; Hoffman, 1991). Much of the
research into the health effects of laser scanners focuses
on cumulative trauma disorders associated with the
scanning process (Margolis and Kraus, 1987; Sluchak,
1991; Strasser et al, 1991; Harber et al, 1992). There is,
however, little ergonomics research that directly
investigates the increased musculoskeletal strain on
checkout operators when they are expected - in the
interests of productivity and customer service - simul-
taneously to bag products for customers.
This paper describes a study that involved the
ergonomics evaluation and comparison of three differ-
ent designs of checkout workstation where operators
are required to stand to perform the job. Two were
existing checkout designs, while the third was a
prototype of a proposed new ‘short’ version. The study
was requested by a large supermarket chain, which was
in the process of replacing its horizontal scanners with
vertical scanners. To make further productivity
improvements management proposed to introduce a
new ‘short’ checkout, which would take up less floor-
space. The space saved could then be utilized for
displaying more products or relieving congestion near

101
102 C. Carrasco
Vertical scanner
Bagracks ,\
Figure 1 Standard checkout
Figure 2 Modified checkout
the checkouts. While the full checkout job was studied,
this paper reports mainly on the bag packing and bag
transferral tasks.
The aims of the study were to evaluate the effects of
this new ‘short’ checkout on the health and safety of the
operators and on their productivity. The study also
aimed to make recommendations that would minimize
health risks and be acceptable to both operators and
management.
Subjects and methods
Checkout and task description
The three designs of checkout evaluated are shown in
Figures l-3. The major differences are in the rear
sections of the workstations. Each checkout has a
special bag frame for holding open two plastic bags
which the operators can use simultaneously, particularly
when packing ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ products into separate
bags. The bag frames on the ‘standard’ and ‘modified’
checkout are located in line and adjacent to the
et al
, Weighing scales
mveyor
scanner, but on the ‘short’ checkout the bag frame
is located on the rear collection shelf and aligned
perpendicular to the scanner.
When the bags are packed the operators transfer
them to collection shelves at the rear for the customers
to pick up. In the ‘standard’ checkout (Figure 1) the
shelf is 850 mm high, whereas in the ‘modified’
checkout (Figure 2) and ‘short’ checkout (Figure 3), the
collection shelf is at the same level as the base of the
bag frame (530 mm).
At all three checkouts, the operators have to work in
standing postures. They reach for products from the
end of the conveyor belt and pass them in front of the
vertical scanner before placing them in bags. Audible
signals inform the operator whether the barcode has
been successfully recognized or not. When the scan is
not successful, the cashier has to rescan the product and
eventually key in the bar code information. Unpackaged
fresh produce is weighed on scales positioned in front
of the vertical scanner. When the bags are packed they
are transferred onto the rear shelf for the customer to
take away.
 Packing products for customers 103

Figure 3 Short checkout

The operator’s job at each of the three checkout tion the subjects were asked to rank the different
designs is almost identical and can be categorized into checkout designs in order of preference at the end of
identifiable tasks, which are shown in Table 2. the study.

Perceived exertion
Subjects For each checkout design, the subjects were asked to
Five of the store’s female checkout operators volun- rate their overall perceived exertion using the Borg
teered to participate as subjects in the study. Their ages scale (Borg, 1973). These ratings were taken at the start
ranged from 16 to 34 years (mean = 21.4 yr) and their and end of the hour on duty and also at 10 min
heights from 1.45 m to 1.7 m (mean = 1.6 m). The intervals. Similarly, ratings of perceived exertion,
standardized Nordic questionnaire (Kuorinka et al, specifically of the arms, legs and back, using the same
1987) was used to collect personal details and ensure scale were also taken to provide an approximate
that subjects were free from serious musculoskeletal indication of the discomfort of individual body parts
disorders that might adversely affect results. (Owen and Garg, 1989; Harber et al, 1993; Sundelin,
Each subject worked in random order at all three 1993).
checkouts. They worked for 1 h at each checkout,
which represents the usual time that full-time employees Postural load
spend on duty at a checkout. It is the supermarket’s Postural load was measured using the basic Ovako
policy to rotate operators to other duties so that they working posture analysis system (OWAS). The OWAS
generally do not spend more than 1 h at a time on method, described extensively by Karhu et al (1977), is
checkout duty. one of the simpler observational methods of studying
The subjects’ ratings of perceived exertion, postures musculoskeletal load caused by poor working postures.
and heart rates were recorded as general measures of It is based on definitions for the positions of the back,
musculoskeletal strain and physiological load. In addi- arms and legs and the force used in the work.
Each subject was videotaped for the duration of the
study by a camera positioned at the rear of the
Table 1 Percentage of time spent at checkout job tasks”
checkout. The filming angle was selected to give a full
and clear view of the subject’s whole body, unobstructed
Job tasks ‘Short’ ‘Modified’ ‘Standard’ Average
by customers or any fixed objects. All the OWAS
1. Scanning 18.5 20.6 20.4 19.8 analysis was carried out from the videotapes, in the
2. Packing 19.4 17.8 17.5 18.2 laboratory, by one trained researcher to avoid possible
3. Transferring inter-observer variability. Approximately 15 h of
packed bags 7.3 8.9 9.2 8.5
4. Transacting
videotape were analysed (five subjects at three check-
payments 18.8 25.7 22.7 22.4 outs). Observations were made at 15 s intervals and the
5. Weighing and postures classified according to the OWAS method. A
keying 5.2 5.4 6.7 5.8 total of 4071 observations were recorded for all the
6. Install bags on
frame 0.8 0.4 0.8
three checkouts studied.
7. Wait for service 1::; 8.4 7.2 8.8
8. Wait for Heart rate
customers 11.5 6.5 9.5 9.2
9. Other 7.1 5.9 6.4 6.5
Heart rates were continuously measured using a ‘Sports
Tester PE 2000’ (Polar Electra Finland) and readings
Total 100 100 100 100
were recorded at preset intervals of 5 s. The heart rate
“Based on all five subjects working in random order at each checkout data were used to provide an approximation of the
type, for a duration of 1 h per subject. overall workload associated with each checkout design.
104 C. Currusco et al

It was also anticipated that the heart rate tracings Table 2 Mean ratings” of perceived exertion; after disregarding the
obtained might help provide a better understanding of first 10 min

the workload during the shift, help determine the most

Short Modified Standard
strenuous activities, and possibly assist in the prediction
of the degree of strain inflicted by a different arrange- Overall
ment of the work tasks (Malchaire and Rezk-Kallah, Subj 1 11.0 11.0 13.0
1991). Subj 2 13.4 13.4 15.0
Subj 3 12.7 12.0 12.6
Subj 4 11.7 12.6 12.0
Productivity Subj 5 12.4 11.0 14.0
In this study, productivity was defined and measured as Arms
the time taken by the checkout operators to (a) pack Subj 1 11.0 11.0 12.0
each item into the plastic bags and (b) transfer a packed Subj 2 15.0 14.0 15.6
Subj 3 12.2 11.5 12.6
bag to the customer. The mean time taken to pack an 13.2
Subj 4 12.5 12.2
item in a bag was based on the times taken by each Subj 5 11.0 11.0 12.0
operator to pack 100 items. Similarly the mean time to
Black
transfer a packed bag to the customer was based Subj 1 12.0 11.0 13.0
on 30 bag transferrals by each operator. The product- Subj 2 16.2 16.0 16.6
ivity measurements were made from the videotape Subj 3 13.2 13.0 12.2
recordings. Subj 4 13.5 14.2 13.0
Subj 5 12.6 11.4 14.2
MF
Environment Subj 1 11.5 11.0 12.0
Subj 2 15.2 15.0 15.4
Temperature and humidity have been shown to influ-
Subj 3 11.5 11.5 11.0
ence ratings of perceived exertion disproportionately Subj 4 13.5 14.2 12.0
outside certain limits (Gamberale, 1990). To account Subj 5 12.4 11.0 14.0
for their possible influence, temperature and humidity
were measured by a sling psychrometer. “Each based on about seven ratings obtained during each 1 h period
of work.

Data analysis
Simple statistics and repeated measures analysis of
variance method were used to describe and evaluate
the contributions of the checkout designs on exertion,
musculoskeletal load and productivity. The data
collected were analysed using Statistical Analysis
System (SAS Institute Inc., 1985), with the Proc GLM
procedure being used for the repeated measures
analyses.
Results
Checkout job analysis
Table 2 shows the proportion (%) of time spent on each
category of task at each of the checkouts. It shows that
the three most time-consuming tasks were scanning
(20%), packing (18%) and transacting payments (22%),
and they took up 60% of the checkout job. Waiting for
service and customers together accounted for nearly
one-fifth of the job, and transferring bags took up just
10% of the time.
Perceived exertion
The subjects’ ratings of perceived exertion are summar-
ized in Table 2. A repeated measures analysis of
variance showed no significant differences between
the mean ratings of all three checkouts for overall,
back, legs or arms. However, there were signific-
ant time trends for all measures (overall p < 0.001;
back p < 0.001; legs p < 0.01; arms p < O.Ol), with
ratings of exertion increasing over time for all check-
outs. A significant interaction was also indicated
between checkout type and time for the overall ratings
@ < O.Ol), and those of the arms (p < O.Ol), with both
of these ratings increasing more quickly at the standard
checkout.
Postural load
The total job. The distribution of the pooled OWAS
postures for the total checkout job is shown in Table 3.
At all the three checkouts the most typical OWAS
posture adopted was a standing posture with straight
back, and arms below shoulder level. However,
the proportion of time spent at the ‘short’ checkout
(86%) with a straight back posture was significantly less
(p < 0.001) than that spent in such postures at the
‘standard’ checkout (93.46%) and the ‘modified’
checkout (93.3%). The amount of ‘walking’ that
occurred at the three checkouts was also significantly
different. The proportion of time spent walking at the
‘short’ checkout (8.5%) was found to be significantly
less (p < 0.05) than at the other two checkouts.
There were also differences in the way the subjects
worked. For example, the videotape recordings showed
how one operator adopted a lunge position to scan and
pack, and did not take steps at all at the short checkout.
Another operator walked 18% of the time, turning by
stepping rather than twisting her back (OWAS classifies
taking steps in the walking category). Such differences
are not apparent in the averages as presented in Table
3.
Packing task. During the packing task (Table 3) the
proportion of straight back postures at the ‘short’
checkout was significantly less (p < 0.001) than those at
the ‘standard’ and ‘modified’ checkouts. The back was
twisted for nearly 23% of the time at the short checkout
compared with only 6% at the modified checkout and
10% at the standard. This was observed to be mainly
due to the location and alignment of the bags.
 Packing products for customers 105

Table 3 Percentages of time spent= in postures according to OWAS variables for the three different checkouts: (a) total task, (b) packing, (c) bag
transferral

Posture Short Modified Standard

(a) Total task

Back straight 86.0 93.3 93.4
bent 4.6 3.3 3.4
twisted 8.2 3.0 3.1
bent and twisted 1.2 0.4 0.1
Arms 2 below shoulder 97.0 97.3 95.6
1 above shoulder 2.5 2.1 3.9
2 above shoulder 0.5 0 0.5
Legs standing 90.9 78.3 80.2
Standing on 1 leg 0.6 1.4 1.6
walking 8.5 20.3 18.2
(b) Packing
Back straight 69.7 85.8 83.7
bent 4.2 6.8 6.2
twisted 22.8 5.9 9.6
bent and twisted 3.3 1.5 0.5
Arms 2 below shoulder 97.6 98.0 96.8
1 above shoulder 1.9 2.0 2.4
2 above shoulder 0.5 0 0.8
Legs standing 89.6 76.1 79.9
standing on 1 leg 0 0.7 0
walking 10.4 23.2 20.1
(c) Bag transferral
Back straight 55.6 90.5 96.6
bent 11.5 2.5 0.6
twisted 26.7 7.0 2.8
bent and twisted 6.2 0 0
Arms 2 below shoulder 93.8 97.6 72.5
1 above shoulder 5.7 2.4 23.0
2 above shoulder 0.5 0 4.5
Legs standing 87.9 22.6 33.9
standing on 1 leg 1.4 1.9 0.8
walking 10.7 75.5 65.3

“Based on all five subjects working in random order at each checkout type, for a duration of 1 h per subject.

Transferring packed bags. The subjects adopted
significantly more (p < 0.01) bent, twisted, and bent
and twisted postures at the ‘short’ checkout when they
transferred packed bags to the rear shelf. The back was
straight only 56% of the time at the ‘short’ checkout
(Table 3) as compared with 97% and 90% at the
‘standard’ and ‘modified’ checkouts respectively. But
the proportion of time spent ‘walking’ at the ‘short’
checkout (10.7%), during this task, was significantly
less (p < 0.01) than at the ‘modified’ (75.5%) and the
‘standard’ (65.3%) checkouts.
The raised arm postures (ie one or both arms above
the shoulder) were adopted significantly more often
(p < 0.05) at the ‘standard’ checkout, ie 27.5% of the
time. This occurred particularly when the shorter
operators lifted packed bags onto the high rear
collection shelf. At the ‘modified’ and the ‘short’
checkouts these proportions were considerably less,
being 2% and 6% respectively.
Heart rate
The mean heart rates of the subjects are summarized in
Table 4. There were no significant differences detected
between the effects of the checkouts on the mean heart
rates of the subjects. Also, the heart rates did not
appear to increase over time.
Recordings of heart rates were synchronized with the
videotape recordings of the checkout activities. An
analysis of the activities from the videotapes together
with the corresponding heart rate tracings found that
the checkout activities were not sufficient to explain the
changes in heart rates.
Productivity
The mean time taken to pack an item at the ‘modified’
checkout (2.1 s) was significantly less @ < 0.01) than
the mean time (2.6 s) taken to pack at the ‘short’
checkout (Table 5). Packing at the ‘short’ checkout
required the products to be carried a greater distance
and usually involved bending and twisting when placing
them in the bags. There were no significant differences
detected between any of the checkouts in the mean
times taken to transfer bags from the frame to the
collection shelf.
Operator preferences
Four of the five subjects rated the ‘short’ checkout as
the worst. The ‘modified’ and ‘standard’ checkouts
were rated equal first. The reasons given for disliking
the short checkout were the need to twist while
packing, and the difficulty of taking the bags from the
frame and transferring them forward onto the shelf.
Discussion
This evaluation was conducted at the workplace during
normal shopping hours and compared the physical
106 C. Carrasco et al

Table 4 Mean heart rate over 60 min for the subjects at each of the Ratings of the overall preceived exertion, and the
three checkouts ratings of the arms, increased more quickly when
working at the ‘standard’ checkout. This could be due
Short Modified Standard
to the effect of raising the arms to lift the load onto the
Readings n=4204 n = 3757 n = 4356 high rear collection shelf at that checkout. Rodahl
(1989) points out that tasks requiring the arms to be
Subject 1 112 114 120
Subject 2 108 116 105 raised above the shoulder result in relatively high
Subject 3 77 82 84 cardiovascular strain and the rapid onset of fatigue.
Subject 4 112 110 99 Although OWAS is not sensitive to prolonged
Subject 5 106 98 114 bending of less than 20”, which was observed to be the
main type of bending during the study, it was neverthe-
less considered to be an appropriate tool to highlight
Table 5 Mean times (in seconds) taken to (a) pack each item” and (b) postural load. The results showed significant differences
transfer one bagb at each of the checkouts
in postural load between the checkouts. For the full
Short Modified Standard
checkout job, there were significantly more bent,
twisted, and bent and twisted postures, but significantly
(a) Packing less walking postures observed at the ‘short’ checkout.
Subject 1 2.1 1.7 1.8 The differences were even more noticeable during the
Subject 2 2.3 1.9 2.6 packing and transferring tasks. The high number of
Subject 3 2.4 2.0 2.3
Subject 4 3.5 2.1 2.5 bent, twisted, and bent and twisted back postures
Subject 5 2.8 2.0 2.1 observed at the ‘short’ checkout indicate that a greater
Overall mean 2.6 2.1 2.3 musculoskeletal load is associated with that checkout
(b) Bag transferral design. Nineteen percent of the postures observed at
Subject 1 3.9 3.5 3.9 the ‘short’ checkout, during the bag-transferring stage,
Subject 2 4.1 3.7 5.0 were rated by OWAS as requiring remedial action ‘in
Subject 3 4.2 3.1 3.1
Subject 4 4.0
the near future’. During the bag-transferring task, the
3.8 4.5
Subject 5 5.6 6.1 4.9 ‘standard’ checkout had significantly more ‘arms raised
Overall mean 4.5 4.0 4.3 above shoulder’ postures. These postures illustrate the
greater biomechanical load associated with having to
“Based on the times taken by each operator to pack 100 items. lift the bags onto the high rear collection shelf of this
bBased on the times taken by each operator to transfer 30 packed
bags. checkout.
Although the bag frame permitted two bags to be
packed simultaneously, observations showed that only
loads and productivity associated with each of three one operator consistently packed into both bags. The
checkouts. Although the full checkout job was studied, other operators preferred not to use the one further
only the physical load and productivity associated with away because of the reach distance. To maintain the
the differences in the rear section of the checkouts were separation of wet and dry goods, they either left items
analysed in more detail. It was assumed that the on the shelf to be packed later or they selected items
contribution to the physical load and productivity by from the conveyor depending on whether they were
the front sections was the same for each checkout packing a wet or dry bag.
because of the identical design. The best features Reducing the reach distance to the second bag would
amongst the three rear sections were identified and make it easier for all operators to use and could lead to
recommended for a new checkout workstation. shorter bag packing and transferral times especially
Physical workload was quantified using RPE, heart when two light bags can be transferred simultaneously.
rate measurements and OWAS. These methods are This could be achieved by positioning the bag frame in
flexible and have a wide range of applicability, particu- front of the operator beneath the scanner.
larly in field studies, as they do not interfere with the The ‘modified’ checkout had the lowest mean time
job. The results from this study show that the RPE and (Table 5) for the transferring task, and although this
heart rate methods were generally unable to detect was not found to be statistically significant the data
significant differences between the checkouts. Though show that only one subject had a mean transfer time
there is evidence (Harber et al, 1993) that subjects that was higher than for the other checkouts. While the
can distinguish sensation from different body parts, ‘short’ checkout might have been expected to have the
only the overall RPE was significantly higher at the lowest bag transfer time this was not the case. ‘.Two
‘standard’ checkout than at the ‘modified’ checkout. factor probably offer explanations for the longer bag
Ratings of perceived exertion consistently increased transfer times. Lifting and moving the packed bags
for each subject during the study period. Interestingly, forward was carried out by the operators adopting back
corresponding increases in heart rate were not observed. bent postures caused by the location of the bag frame
This could be because the supermarket checkout tasks on the rear shelf. In addition, the bag frame reduced
do not generate sufficient muscular activity to result in the rear shelf space on the ‘short’ checkout, causing the
an increase in heart rate and also because the physically space to fill more quickly with packed bags and
demanding dynamic tasks (Table I) (scanning, packing probably needing additional movements to find and
and transferring bags) are performed for only about place the bags.
50% of the total checkout time. The increased ratings Overall the ‘modified’ checkout had the lowest mean
of perceived exertion most likely reflect fatigue from bag-packing and bag-transferring times. It also had the
the static muscle work of standing. lowest physical load as measured by RPE and OWAS.
 Packing products for customers
In summary, the ratings of perceived exertions
identified problems with the ‘standard’ checkout.
OWAS showed that there were more postural loads
associated with the ‘short’ and ‘standard’ checkouts
than with the ‘modified’ checkout. No significant
differences between the checkouts were found when
heart rate was used as a measure of physiological load.
In comparing productivity, the ‘short’ checkout had the
longest mean times to pack and to transfer bags but it
took up the least floorspace. The ‘modified’ and
‘standard’ checkouts were rated equal first choice by
the subjects.
Recommendations
The results show that the ‘modified’ checkout was the
most acceptable design in terms of physical load,
productivity and operator acceptance. However, to
take account of management’s objective to improve
productivity by providing more floorspace, a new
checkout design that takes up less floor space would be
required.
Recommendations were therefore made for the
design of a new shorter checkout that would incorporate
the more acceptable features of the ‘modified’ check-
out, The design features common to all three checkouts
were also reviewed and some improvements were
suggested based on previous research (Baron and
Habes, 1992; Hinnen et al. 1992; Slappendel, 1992),
anthropometry (Grandjean, 1988) and the specific task
demands. The proposed checkout design is shown in
Figure 4.
Specific recommendations
The conveyor, and the centre of the vertical scanner
should be retained at their existing heights, ie 965 mm
and 1065 mm respectively. These heights are recom-
mended by Grandjean (1988) for female workers
performing light manipulative tasks: that is, 50-100 mm
Vertical scanner
\
Figure 4 Proposed design of new checkout
107
below 50th percentile shod female elbow height. The
vast majority of checkout operators in Australia are
female.
Vertical scanning is maintained. In addition to the
claimed productivity advantages (ie less cleaning
required, better barcode reading function), vertical
scanners presenting a horizontal beam toward the
cashier minimize the handling of items, because most
barcodes are located on the vertical surface of a
container or box (Baron and Habes, 1992). Also, as the
majority of operators working at horizontal scanners
lift all items during handling (Hinnen et al, 1992;
Slappendel, 1992), it is unlikely that significantly more
lifting is required when presenting items to a vertical
scanner.
The length of the checkout space and the reach
distances during packing should be reduced by position-
ing the bag frame directly in front of the operator and
beneath the scanner. This should enable the operators
to pack into both bags simultaneously without having to
overreach. These changes might also lead to a reduc-
tion in bag-packing time, with possible implications for
staffing levels and speed of customer service.
Repositioning the bag frame beneath the scanner
would require the scales to be moved. To minimize
costs the scale should be relocated to the side and
adjacent to the conveyor. Relocating the scales to the
side of the operator is generally not recommended by
other researchers. However, these recommendations
are often made in the context of sitting workstations
(Hinnen et al, 1992; Slappendel, 1992) or checkouts
where operators do not have to bag products simul-
taneously for customers (Rodrigues, 1989; Baron and
Habes, 1992; Hinnen et al, 1992).
It is possible to argue that the benefits associated
with relocating the scale to the side (reduction in reach
distances, decreased checkout length) outweigh the
health risks associated with the other researchers’
recommendations. For instance, most of the produce
Conveyor
108 C. Carrasco et al

normally weighed at other grocery checkouts is sold by Borg, G.A.V. 1973 ‘Perceived exertion, a note on “history” and
methods’ Med Sci Sports 5, 90-93
this supermarket chain as prepackaged and barcoded Buckle, P.W., Stubbs, D.A. and Baty, D. 1985 ‘Musculo-skeletal
items. Consequently the amount of time spent weighing disorders (and discomfort) and associated work factors’ in Corlett,
was less than 6% of the total checkout activity time. N., Wilson, J. and Mane&a, I. (eds) Proc First Int Occupational
From observations of the current weighing task, it is Ergonomics Symposium, Zadar, Yugoslavia 1985 Taylor &Francis,
London, pp 19-30
hypothesized that the operators would place the
Gamherale, F. 1990, ‘Perception of effort in manual materials
produce on the weighing scales while still facing the handling’ Stand J Work Environ Health 16 (suppl. l), 59-66
customer, as the keyboard and the scale’s visual display Grandjean, E. 1988 Fitting the Task to the Man - A Textbook of
are located above the scanner. This should reduce the Occupational Ergonomics 4th edn, Taylor & Francis, London, p 37
need to twist the body. Harher, P., Bloswick, D., Luo, J., Beck, J., Greer, D. and Pena, L.
1993 ‘Work-related symptoms and checkstand configuration: an
Ryan (1989) reported that prolonged standing is a experimental study’ Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 54(7), 371-375
major contributor to the postural stress experienced by Harber, P., Bloswick, D., Pena, L., Beck, J., Lee, J. and Baker, D.
checkout operators. To provide the operators with the 1992 ‘The ergonomic challenge of repetitive motion with varying
opportunity to rest during the job cycle, sit/stand ergonomic stresses. Characterizing supermarket checking work’ J
supports are often recommended (Ryan, 1989; Porter Occup Med 34, 518-528
Hinnen, U., Laubli, T., Guggenbuhl, U. and Krueger, H. 1992
et al, 1991; Baron and Habes, 1992). Such an un- ‘Design of check-out systems including laser scanners for sitting
obtrusive type of support at the checkouts would be work posture’ Stand J Work Environ Health 18, 186-194
desirable, but given the hourly rotation the checkout Hoffman, M.S. 1991 ‘Challenges of providing ergonomic solutions for
operators have, this requirement may be minimal. (It users in the retail scanning environment’ in Karwowski, W. and
Yates, J.W. @Is) Advances in Industrial Ergonomics & Safety III
should be noted that in Australia work practices are
Taylor & Francis, London, pp 587-594
currently undergoing many changes. Checkout jobs as Karhu, O., Kansi, P. and Kuorlnka, I. 1977 ‘Correcting working
permanent full-time work are becoming rare. Most of postures in industry: a practical method for analysis’ Appl
these jobs are now offered as casual work, where Ergonomics 8, 199-201
the operators often work no more than 4 h a day at the Krueger, H., Hmnen, U. and Witscbi, U. 1988 ‘Design of organisa-
tion and ergonomics of cash desks’ in Adams, AS., Hall, R.R.,
checkouts.) McPbee, B.J. and Oxenburgh, M.S. (eds) Proceedings of the Tenth
Congress of the International Ergonomics Association Sydney,
August 1988, pp 137-139
Conclusion Kuorinka, I., Jonssun, B., KIlhom, A., Vinterherg, H., Biering-
Sorensen, F., Andersson, G. and Jorgensen, K. 1987 ‘Standardised
The study did not find any one of the three checkouts to Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal
be remarkably and consistently better than the other symptoms’ Appl Ergonomics 18, 233-237
two in every aspect measured. However, for some Malcbaire, J.B. and Rexk-Kallab, B. 1991 ‘Evaluation of the physical
tasks, certain features unique to one of the checkouts work load of bricklayers in the steel industry’ Stand I Work
Environ Health 17, 110-116
were identified as being comparatively better. These Margdis, W. and Kraus, J.F. 1987 ‘The prevalence of carpal tunnel
findings enabled a set of recommendations to be put syndrome symptoms in female supermarket checkers’ J Occup Med
forward for a new checkout design incorporating the 29, 953-956
best features of the different checkouts. The proposed Owen, B.D. and Garg, A. 1989 ‘Patient handling tasks perceived to
be most stressful by nursing assistants’ in Mital, A. (ed) Advances in
design was accepted by the supermarket chain, who
Industrial Ergonomics & Safety I Taylor & Francis, London,
agreed to install such new checkouts in selected new or pp 775-781
modernized stores. Porter, J.M., Almeida, G.M., Freer, M.T. and Case, K. 1991 ‘The
Since the study was completed, nearly two years design of supermarket workstations to reduce incidences of
ago, the industrial engineering manager of the retail musculo-skeletal discomfort’ in Queinnec, Y. and Daniellou, F.
(eds) Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the International
company has reported that over 75% of the 450 Ergonomics Association, Paris, 1991 Taylor & Francis, London,
company-owned stores have installed the short checkout pp 1122-1124
with the recommended design changes incorporated. Rod&, K. 1989 The Physiology of Work Taylor & Francis, London,
The store managers are pleased with the extra floor- P 69
Rodrigues, C.C. 1989 ‘A technical analysis of the supermarket laser
space available for merchandising and other operational
scanning workstation’ in Mital, A. (ed) Advances in Industrial
needs. There have been no unfavourable reports about Ergonomics & Safety I Taylor & Francis, London, pp 953-959
the new checkout design from operators working at Ryan, G.A. 1989 ‘The prevalence of musculo-skeletal symptoms in
these workstations. supermarket workers’ Ergonomics 32, 359-371
SAS Institute Inc. 1985 SAS for Personal Computers Version 6 SAS
Institute Inc, Cary NC
Acknowledgements Slappendel, C. 1992 ‘An ergonomic evaluation of scanner checkouts
in supermarkets’ J Occup Health Safety 8, pp 331-334
The authors would like to thank the checkout operators, Slucbak, T.J. 1991 ‘Ergonomic challenges in supermarket front-end
workstations’ Proc Hum Factors Sot 35th Ann Mtg Human Factors
store manager and Mr Mike Tighe, industrial engineer-
Society, pp 862-866
ing manager of Woolworths, for their support and Strasser, H., Grob, E. and Keller, E. 1991 ‘Electromyographic
participation in the study. evaluation of the physical load of the left hand-arm-shoulder
system during simulated work at eight different cash register
arrangements’ in Karwowski, W. and Yates, J.W. (eds) Advances
in Industrial Ergonomics & Safety III Taylor & Francis, London,
References pp 457-463
Sundelin, G. 1993 ‘Patterns of electromyographic shoulder muscle
Aaras, A., Westgaard, R.H. and Stranden, E. 1988 ‘Postural angles fatigue during MTM-paced repetitive arm work with and without
as an indicator of postural load and muscular injury in occupational pauses’ Int Arch Occup Environ Health 64, 485493
work situations’ Ergonomics 31, 915-933 van Wely, P. 1970 ‘Design and disease’ Appl Ergonomics 1,262-269
Baron, S.L. and Hahes, D. 1992 ‘Occupational musculoskeletal Wilson, J.R. and Grey, S.M. 1984 ‘Reach requirements and job
disorders among supermarket cashiers’ Stand .I Work Environ attitudes at laser-scanner checkout systems’ Ergonomics 27 (12),
Health 18 (suppl. 2), 127-129 1247-1266
Applied Ergonomics 1990, 21.1,7-14

Evaluation of a supermarket twin-

checkout involving forward and
backward operation
H. Strasser

Head of the Department of Ergonomics, Institute of Production Engineering, University of Siegen,

PauI-Bonatz-Strasse 9-11,5900 Siegen, F.R. Germany

Cashier workplaces recently put into service in self-service shops of a retail company
provide a face-to-face position of two cashiers. These twin-checkouts involve both
traditional goods handling from the front to the rear as well as a reverse technique -
i e, forward operation from behind. By means of different methods they have been
analysed from an ergonomics point of view and evaluated in respect of operators'
workload resulting from the specific layout. The results support the conclusion that
the new 'backward' system and twin-checkouts are not inferior to traditional single
checkouts. On the contrary, a working technique where the arm moves from behind
to the front involves a better approach to accounting for physiological characteristics
and obviously allows a better fitting of the task to operators.

Keywords: Workload, human performance, materials handling, workplace design, checkouts, cashier workplace

Introduction
Checkout systems in self-service shops have been
ergonomically studied in different countries beginning more
than ten years ago (see, for example, Ivergard, 1972; Ohara
et al, 1976; Bitsch and Peters, 1978; K6ck et al, 1978;
Strasser et al, 1978; Elias et al, 1981). For German check-
stands there has been a first effort at analysis in the early
1980s, after the collection, review and filtering of the
knowledge present at that time (e g, review and general
proposals from Strasser and Miiller-Limmroth, 1983). From
these analyses a kind of minimum approval or standard
could be created (concerning ergonomics evaluation and
design), an approval which finally could even be incorporated
into a national agreement with regard to "minimum require-
ments for cashier workstations" (Anon, 1984a). Similar
proposals also based on human factors research exist for
other countries, too (e g, Grey etal, 1987).
Recently, however, new questions have arisen; this is not
surprising because technology has not stagnated. We have
now, for example, modular cashpoints or automatic reading
systems, called scanners, and the concomitant changes with
regard to the work itself as well as to cashiers' stress (see,
fi)r example, Wilson and Grey, 1984; Buchberger et al, 1986;
Gros et al. 1986; Hinnen et al, 1987; Krueger et al, 1988).
Irrespective of discussion concerning the human and
economic aspects of laser scanners, twin-checkouts with or
without scanners have been designed and already put into
service in some self-service shops these are of interest
both from an economic and an ergonomics point of view.
Twin-checkouts are advantageous because less area has to
be reserved for them in a shop (and space costs money) than
for two single (conventional) checkstands. In contrast with
the traditional technique of handling the goods with the
left arm from front to back of the checkout (and body), in
one part of the twin-checkout the cashier must work with
the left arm in the reverse direction. This unusual method
of handling the goods caused uncertainty concerning the
assessment of workload, even fears that these cash desks
involve extra risks for occupation-related health hazards.
These questions of potential operator injuries and health
problems were the focus of the study reported here.
Methods
Twin-checkouts without scanners m the self-service
shops of a retail company were analysed by time studies
(global registrations of the time needed for customers to
'pass through' in the two parts of the checkout), by photo-
graphic records of field observations, and by measurement
of the interior and exterior dimensions of the checkstands
from an anthropometric point of view. Using 5th-percentile
and 95th-percentile stencils of German females in con-
nection with true scaled side elevations and top view of the
checkout workstations, reach and clearance requirements
were evaluated, always essential for a rough ergonomics
assessment. This was necessary in order to prove whether
minimum demands and standard design recommendations
for the dimensions of cashier workplaces were satisfied.
In addition to this investigation of the somewhat more
static aspects of work, the dynamic demands of good handling
were examined. A general analysis of arm strength looked at
what was required in the two main (opposite) arm movement
directions employed at the twin-checkouts. Electromyo-
graphic investigations of local muscle strain in the hand-arm-
shoulder region, which is dependent on different movement
directions in a horizontal plane, produced arguments for an

0003 6870/90/01 0007 08 $03.00 © 1990 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd Applied Ergonomics March 1990 7
ergonomically more-or-less correct job design (see Strasser
et al, 1989).
Electromyography yields data on electromyographic
activity (EA), the envelope values of the amplified, rectified
and smoothed myoelectrical signals picked up by bipolar
surface electrodes. As is well known, for methodological
reasons these cannot indicate directly the level of muscular
strain. Furthermore, inter-individual comparisons of EA
values are difficult and data from different muscle groups
cannot be compared without applying difficult normalisa-
tion procedures (cf Mia]ler et al, 1989). A certain consistency
of results can be ensured, however, when tests on subjects
are done without changes in the electrodes' positions once
they are attached, and when only one test parameter ( e g,
the direction of movements of the hand-arm system) is
varied. In this way it was possible to interpret trends in
muscular load resulting from different working conditions
in the checkout investigations.
Finally, records of the operators' sitting postures, and of
them turning the head when trying to maintain visual
contact with the customers, have been used as criteria for
the assessment from an ergonomics point of view.
other (on the right) works from back to front. It is obvious
that this arrangement has the economic advantage of an
optimum utflisation of space in self-service shops (see also
Fig. 2). Comparison of the dimensions in Fig. 1 with the
legally specified workplace layout of Fig. 3 shows that the
twin-checkout design does meet minimum legal specifications.
It is concluded that anthropometric data have been taken as
the basis of inner and outer dimensions (clearances and reach
requirements), and that the workplaces 'fit' users from the
5th to the 95th percentile.
Indeed, detailed analyses (Strasser, 1987) showed that
most of the essential dimensions meet the minimum require-
ments for checkout systems obligatory on manufacturers in
Germany since 1984 (see Anon, 1984b). Yet seat-to-work
site relationship for the right hand keying in the prices on
a compact electronic cash register (which is about 25 cm
above the work counter) is not optimum. Considering a
preferred thigh clearance of 17 cm in both parts of the
twin-checkout, the optimum distance of 26 cm -- 30 cm
between seat height and work height for the right arm
cannot be produced (see Anon, 1984a). This would be
possible only when using a flat modular register.

Concerning the overall layout of the two parts of the

Results checkstands, there is only one circumstance which is really
In twin-checkouts two cashiers sit face-to-face as demon- unusual and that is the working direction from the rear to
strated in Fig. 1. One (on the left) works with the traditional the front on one side. How this has to be evaluated from
technique of material handling from front to back and the an ergonomics point of view, and what consequences for

Light Barrier
|A i 3400 kl

1]"','~~ ............. ~',

,,~' Conveyor Belt "t
Hollow /l IV/" ~', 450X2000 ]

f~)~ .... 0 ~ 1 - - 60o ~ ~ I~ T

• / /
1800

....... , .~F:I!
:~, ~ : ', Conveyor Belt
Goods Ho low,'" I~:;~ , ,, .......
t ;
140 i IIt.~!
i
r~;
rl I
4~ux]t~uu

*
I I . ~
II
12oo
i
~
................
UgM Barrier
3210 .t
w I

4725

780 '
750
650

I I

Fig. 1 Top view (upper part) and side elevation (lower part) of the twin-checkout workstation involving
forward and backward operation with 5th-percentile and 95th-percentite stencils of females
(Dimensions in ram)

8 Applied Ergonomics March 1990

 IIIIIII
" 2
Fig. 2 Two views of the checkout
(backward system) with seating
availability and compact
equipment (display, keyboard
and money box) arranged one
on top of the other and some
accessories (catalogue,
customer display and theft
mirror for control of the
lower part of the trolleys)
T-
E
/ having put the goods on the conveyor, in order to begin the
t possible for the cashier facing the cash register, even with
~ F P'I
, G ,p
Fig. 3 Some legal requirements with respect to ergonomics
demands of interior and exterior workplace layout
in Germany. (A ~> 62 cm; B % A; A - C / > 17 cm;
D-E<~10cm;F%35cm;G%60cm;26cm~<D-C
~< 30 cm)
(Source: Strasser and MLiller-Limmroth, 1982)
physical workload result, will be demonstrated step by step
looking at important phases of the work process.
Fig. 4 illustrates the first phase 'placing the goods on the
conveyor belt by the customers' and the consequences for
the operators. The new method, from back to front of the
checkout, of course makes it impossible for the cashier at
that time being busy with the registration of the goods - to
have any visual contact with the customer when facing the
cash register (see lower belt of Fig. 4). In the traditional
workplace that has always been possible. Therefore, at first
glance there is a clear disadvantage of the new system,
!l II
CustomerDisplay
Theft Mirror 1 Catalogue
Money Box
whereby the cashier turns her back on the approaching
customer. However, it has to be pointed out that the
customers standing at the start of the conveyor are not those
customers .whose goods are being registered. What about the
situation some time later?
As can be seen in Fig. 5, on both belts of the system the
customers walk on to the goods hollow (packing area) after
packing o f their goods. When working with the traditional
technique, a visual contact with the customer is hardly
head movements o f up to 90 ° . For the operator working
'backwards' the situation is better. Above all, in the paying
process the acceptance of the money and the return of
receipt and change - the customers are in the 'right position',
because they are mostly in the field of vision as well as
easily within reach for the cashier. In the traditional
technique sometimes a turn for the cashier o f up to 90 ° to
the left becomes necessary, because not all of the customers
come back to the operator from the goods hollow to pay.
The question of whether visual contact with the
customer is more important when placing the goods on the
conveyor or during the payment process should be answered.
However, there remains the question o f how the handling
of the goods 'from the rear to the front' will be evaluated
from an ergonomics point of view. This must be in the
light of certain obvious restrictions in the visual-motor hand-
eye co-ordination when picking up the goods, and also with
regard to the movements of the left arm from the rear to
the front (or from the left to the right in the case of a
working technique with a sitting posture oblique to the
conveyor). First, let us have a look at the motor movement
itself.
Applied Ergonomics March 1990 9
 Light Barrier

, I
.~,,, . . . . ~ ~
j,~Bm
=- ,~,
,,,
,,=
Conveyor Belt
450x2000
} :Y--.:~
/'~]
I
I ~1
U. :: .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . :Jill !. i

~;':;~'':':"~'15*
~ 15* / --

II ~,i ,'JO~¢I ~ i ~ %2 conveyor Belt N I

Ylll i ,,i: ..0x,.0
, I . . . . . . . . .

1
IJgM Barrier

Fig. 4 T w i n - c h e c k o u t w o r k s t a t i o n w i t h 5th-percentile and 9 5 t h - p e r c e n t i l e stencils of females, w i t h customers placing goods

on the conveyor belt

At all traditional cashpoints, where the goods are handled
from the front of the body to the rear, the exertion and
movement demanded of the hand-arm system are very un-
favourable. Fig. 6 shows motographic movement tracks
recorded on a research project of the BAU (Federal Institute
for Occupational Safety and AccLdents in Germany), and
demonstrates very clearly the unfavourable backward move-
ments of the arm during traditional goods handling in check.
stands with and without a scanner.

In contrast, the new 'backward' system involves

loaded arm movements in a more favourable direction from
the rear to the front, in fact 'towards the body'. From bio-
mechanical investigations, and also from anatomically
physiological foundations, it is well known that the flexor
muscles of the arm (the brachialis and the biceps) involved
in movements towards the body have a strength potential
about twice that of the extensor muscles (especially the
triceps). Therefore the involvement of the group of flexor
muscles in the force exerting movements in the 'backward'
system should generally be more advantageous. The more
physiologically unfavourable movement 'away from the
body' in the dorsal direction (to the rear) at all traditional
working systems (instead of adduction of the hand-arm
musculature towards the body) becomes more unfavourable
the more the cashier orientates to the customer. The sitting
posture facing the conveyor, which is recommended in
several papers (e g, Anon, 1984b; Hinnen et al, 1987), is
often impossible, because the cash register normally is
located on top of the work counter. A checkstand allowing
the operator to sit between the conveyor and the cashbox
would be best. For repetitive manual work the operator
would have to turn the body so that an angle of about 30 °
between the frontal plane (of the body) and the working
direction of the left forearm (in line with the conveyor belt)
would result. But this position can only be realised with a
scanner or with a keyboard also turned to at least the same
Fig. 5 Twin-checkout workstation with packing the goods
degree (i e, a modular system).
by the customer (upper situation) and return of
money, with visual contact, to the customer (lower Because the description of biomechanical factors above
part) cannot give information on the actual biomechanics of the

10 A p p l i e d Ergonomics March 1990


Fig. 6 Motographic illustration of the range of movements
during handling goods from front to back in
traditional checkstands, with (bottom) and without
(top) a scanner (by means of recording light tracks
from emitters fixed to different body parts).
(Source: BAU-brochure (Anon, undated)
Fig. 7 Experimental set-up, and
example of electromyographic
evaluation of horizontal manual Workstation
handling tasks (working height:
72 cm; distance between Disc Station
working and seat height:
28 +- 2 cm)
different arm movements results of electromyographically
measured static and dynamic components of musculo-
skeletal strain of the hand-arm system are of interest. What
is the muscular effort when varying the direction of arm
movements in a horizontal plane? Fig. 7 shows a test design
(for details see M//ller et al, 1988) where up to eight
simultaneous EMG recordings during repetitive movements
in different directions (with the same distance for each)
have been registered and evaluated by means of computer
facilities. In the right upper corner of Fig. 7 an example for
the electromyographic evaluation of the strain of one muscle,
dependent on the direction of horizontal arm movements, is
shown. This circular diagram makes clear that ttle greatest
strain was registered at an angle of approximately 150 °
(measured from the frontal plane).
When transferring results of local lnuscular strain
dependent on the direction of arm movements to the working
situation at twin-checkouts (and this shall be demonstrated
exemplarily for one muscle group in Fig. 8), the 'backward'
working procedure must be seen not to be disadvantageous.
It must rather be of advantage, especially as in traditional
forward systems manual work is done ahnost all within a
range of 110 ° and 150 ° - that means, with unfavourable
movement directions.
Fig. 8 shows only exemplary results i e, mean values of
the static and dynamic components (black and white area)
of the electromyographic activity (EA) of only one muscle
group (m. deltoideus) from five subjects. These data cannot
be representative for the complex physical load of the whole
hand-arm-shoulder system. However. normalised results (EA
values related to the EA data during maximum voluntary
contraction) from two comprehensive test series (with six
and eight muscle groups) from five and 11 female subjects
respectively (see Strasser et al, 1989: M[iller e t al, 1989)
delivered distinct myoelectric signals indicating similar
optimum and stressful working directions as shown in Fig. 8.
These data, applicable from experimental conditions to the
real workstation, have been proven statistically significant.
Finally, we must consider an aspect which is important
both in itself and also for its influence on all features of
38 cm 110~ 90°
1 kg
24/min
~ ., ". 40a
15( k" : ...... -" .." i:. 3o°
"~"":~""""" . 5~o ~ooo
;:" 20°
200 °
• .-" E l e c t r o m y o g r a p h i c A c t i v i t y (EA)
230 ° m. deltoideus pars s p i n a l i s
Dynamic Component
Mean EA
Static Component
Resting EA
JJ I I L--.,
I
E, 1
t
0 10 20 30 40 s
Applied Ergonomics March 1990 11
 ... ""'i..................150°
, .....
"-.

Fig. 8 Muscular load of the upper arm

varying distinctly with different
movement directions during
.......
handling of goods at the two
parts of the twin-checkout I.~toiOeus
workstation. Static and
dynamic components of the
electromyographic activity EA
(compare Fig. 7) (means from
five subjects) 200 °

Fig. 9 Position of the light barrier m

the two parts of the twin-
checkout workstation, with
different consequences for
turns of the head and sitting
postures

working. The location of the 'magic eye' detector (light
barrier) on the conveyor is the point the goods reach with-
out the aid of the cashier, if automatic operation is ordered.
There are consequences for the visual contact when handling
the goods - usually turns of the head - and also conse-
quences for the sitting posture chosen (see Fig. 9).
In the traditional (front to back) technique it would be
most unfavourable, due to visual aspects, for the cashier to
wait until the goods on the conveyor being transported into
the field of vision are stopped at the light barrier, which is
approximately 200 mm after the frontal edge of the work
counter (upper belt of Fig. 9). The cashier - who waits for

Fig. 10 Sitting posture of three cashiers in the forward (traditional) part of the twin-checkout workstations

12 Applied Ergonomics March 1990

the goods coming from the front - usually is inclined to
anticipate the speed of the conveyor and picks up the goods
as soon as they are in reach. This, though, generally induces
a bending forward of the b o d y trunk. The three photos o f
Fig. 10 indicate that in forward systems this even leads to
operators sitting on the leading edge of the seat without
utilising the backrest.
In the backward system the goods are stopped at least
140 mm in front of the work counter (lower belt of Fig. 9).
This also necessitates head movements, but experience
shows in this working technique that the cashier - waiting
for the goods coming from the rear - will utilise a backward,
or at least an upright, sitting posture. This brings about a
relief of the intervertebral discs in the lumbar vertebrae
region which is greatly desirable from a physiological point
of view (see, for example, Grandjean and Hi/nting, 1985;
Mandal, 1988). This also leads to improvements with regard
to visual contact. The sitting posture, somewhat bent back-
wards with an (always positive) increase of the angle between
the thigh and the trunk, may be demonstrated by Fig. 11.
Of course, in both parts of the twin-checkout the more-or-
less inconvenient sitting posture also results from the design
of the chairs, which is not optimum. However, the back-
ward system offered more possibilities for using the backrest
of even those chairs.

Conclusions
When considering all points of view, the inference can be
drawn about backward systems that they certainly cannot
be considered a step backwards with regard to humane job
design. Instead, the conclusion can be supported that back-
ward systems for seated work even allow a better agreement
with physiological laws and a rather good fit of the work to
the person. Of course there are also disadvantages; for
instance, the fact that the cashier has no visual contact with
the customers during the time when they are putting the
goods on the conveyor belt. It is improbable, though, that
backward checkouts will bear a long-term risk potential for
physical defects, provided that intra-personal based
potential for health hazards are separated from work specific
issues. Job rotation between the two parts of a twin-
checkout has to be regarded as not unimportant to reduce
physical toad, by means of changing the kind of work and
related stress. There is also a better possibility of visual and
acoustic communication between the two cashiers sitting
face-to-face in the twin-checkouts. Such innovations should
be regarded as an enrichlnent in work variety of cash work-
stations. Social and psychological factors, which are of
interest to the supermarket management as well as to the
manufacturer, seem to be relatively well established in twin-
checkouts as maintaining the motivation of the cashiers.
Versatility and flexibility, variety and dynamics in the
working environment will also, from an ergonomics point
Fig. 1 1 Cashier in a backward system with a favourable
of view, always be more desirable than uniformity, especially
sitting posture, leaning backwards and the
if this uniformity would probably become a tight corset
seat backrest
in accordance with a pattern prescribed by legislation.

Anon. 1984b, Bewertungsschema "Kassenarbeitsplfftze",

References
Anon. 1984a, Mindestanforderungen fur Kassenarbeitspl~'tze.
Beschluss der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Leitenden Gewerbeauf-
sichtsbeamten vom Februar 1984. Ver6ffentlicht u.a. im
Staatsanzeiger fiir das Land Bayern.
Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeitsschutz (BAU), Dortmund.
Anon. Undated, Humanisierung von Kassenarbeitspliitzen
Ein Vergleich verschiedener Kassen (tisch-Modelle mit HiKe
der Motographie). Informations-Broschtire der Bundesanstalt
f/Jr Arbeitsschutz, Dortmund.

Applied Ergonomics March 1990 13

Bitseh, H.U., and Peters, Th. 1978, Menschengerechte
Gestaltung des Kassenarbeitsplatzes in Selbstbedienungsl~iden.
Schrfftenreihe "Humanisierung des Arbeitslebens". Hrsg:
Der Bundesminister ftir Arbeit und Sozialordnung.
Buchberger, J., Nemecek, J., and Fahrni, M. 1986, Arbeits-
medizinische und ergonomische Probleme der Kassenarbeit
in Selbstbedienungsl~lden. Arbeits'~rztlicher Dienst des
Bundesamtes fiir Industrie, Gewerbe und Arheit, Bern.
Elias, R., Tisserand, M., Christmann, H., Schouller, J.F., and
Boitel, L. 1981, Etude ergonomique du poste de travail de
caissidre de libre-service. Cahiers de Notes Documentaires
No 103,211-220.
Grandjean, E., and Hiinting, W. 1985, Sitzen Sie richtig? --
Sitzhaltung und Sitzgestaltung am Arbeitsplatz. Bayer.
Staatsministerium ftir Arbeit und Sozialordnung, Mtlnchen.
Grey, S.M., Norris, B.J., and Wilson, J.R. 1987, Ergonomics
in the electronic retail environment. ICL-Report, London.
Gros, E., Notbohm, G., and Jansen, G. 1986, Die Berufs-
genossenschaft, 9 , 5 0 6 - 5 1 1 . Ktirperliche Belastung an
Scanner- Kassenarbeitsplatzen.
Hinnen, U., Witsehi, U., and Krueger, H. 1987, Scanning und
menschengerechte Kassenarbeit. Band 5 der Reihe "Arbeits-
welt". Verlag der Fachvereine, ETH-Zentrum, Ziirich.
Ivergard, T.B. 1972, An ergonomics study of the check-
out system for self-service shops in Sweden. Dissertation,
Technical University Loughborough, UK.
KUck, P., Kafka, A., Pateisky, K., Tilscher, H., Moritz, M.,
and Margulies, F. 1978, Kassenarbeitspl'atze in Selbstbedie-
nungsl~/den. Studie des t~sterreichischen Bundesinstituts fiir
Gesundheitswesen im Auftrag der Gewerksehaft der Privat-
angestellten, Wien.
Krueger, H., Hinnen, U., and Witsehi, U. 1988, Design of
organisation and ergonomics of cash desks, lEA '88. Proc
10th Int Cong Int Ergonomics Assoc, Sydney, 137-139.
Mandal, A.C. 1988, The influence of furniture height on
backpain. Reprints of the International Conference on
14 Applied Ergonomics March 1990
Ergonomics, Occupational Safety and Health and the
Environment, Beijing, China, 454-463~
MUller, K.-W., Ernst, J., and Strasser, H. 1988, Zeitschr(ft
fur A rbeitswissenschaft, 42, ( 14 NF) 37 147-153. Eine
Methode zur Fraktionierung der elektromyographischen
Aktivit~t bei Beanspruchungsanalysen von repetitiven
T~tigkeiten.
MUller, K.-W., Ernst, J., and Strasser, H. 1989, Z Arb wiss,
43 ( 15 NF) 3, 129-135. Ein Normierungsverfahren der
elektromyographischen Aktivitiit zur Beurteilung einseitig
dynamischer Muskelbeanspruchung.
Ohara, H., Aoyama, H., and ltani, T. 1976, J Human Ergology
5, 31-40. Health hazards among cash register operators and
the effects of improved working conditions.
Strasser, H., and MUller-Limmroth, W. 1982, Checkout
systems in self-service shops - Standardisation and real
working conditions. In: lEA '82 Proceedings. (K. Noro (Ed))
Inter Group Corp, Tokyo, Japan, 106- 107.
Strasser, H., and MUller-Limmroth, W: 1983, Ergonomie an
der Kasse - aber wie? Menschengerechte Gestaltung yon
Kassenarbeitspl~tzen. Bayer. Staatsministerium fiir Arbeit
und Sozialordnung, Mtinchen.
Strasser, H. 1987, Verleichende Beurteilung human-
bezogener Auswirkungen der Arbeit an TANDEM-01-
Arbeitsplatzsystemen mit Riickwffrtskassen. Restricted
Report from the Department of Ergonomics, University of
Siegen.
Strasser, H., Einars, W., and MUller-Limmroth, W. 1978,
Z Arb wiss, 32 (4 NF) 3, 191-200. Belastung und Bean-
spruchung an Kassenarbeitspl/itzen mit dem Wagen-in.Wagen-
System.
Strasser, H., Keller, E., Miiller, K.-W., and Sernst, J. 1989,
Ergonomics, 32(7), 899-910. Local muscular strain
dependent on the direction of horizontal arm movements.
Wilson, J.R., and Grey, S.M. 1984, l~'rgonornics, 27(12),
1247-1266. Reach requirements and job attitudes at laser-
scanner checkout systems.