What this is
What is a workstation design review?
What is a workstation design review?
A structured check of a proposed or changed workstation against ergonomic design principles: working height, reach envelope, clearance, materials presentation and the range of people who will use it. It is carried out before the workstation exists, so findings can be changed on a drawing rather than retrofitted on a floor.
Who should carry out a workstation design review?
Engineering, working with ergonomics and the people who will use the workstation. Engineering brings the process and budget constraints; ergonomics brings the design principles; workers bring the knowledge of how the task is actually done, which a drawing cannot show.
How is a design review different from an anthropometric fit check?
The design review is the general pass over dimensions, materials flow and hygiene. The fit check is the specific, quantified test of whether that design accommodates the range of body sizes in the population, and the design review can call for one before it signs off.
Scope
When is a workstation design review required?
This review is the design-stage gate. It is easy to misuse either as a substitute for the population-level fit test the design needs, or as a survey of a workstation that already exists and is due for a different assessment.
Use this template when
- A new workstation, line or process is being designed, before the layout is fixed
- An existing workstation is being materially changed: relocated, re-tooled, or altered in method
- A workstation is going through management of change and its ergonomic impact needs a decision
- A design already signed off is called back by an incident, complaint or insurer request
- Engineering needs a documented ergonomics sign-off before capital is committed
Do not use it for
- Anthropometric Fit Check, which tests whether a design accommodates the range of body sizes in the workforce; run it from this review, not instead of it
- Tool and Equipment Ergonomic Review, which assesses hand tools and portable equipment rather than the fixed workstation
- Manual Handling Assessment, needed once the task and its loads are defined, not as a substitute for design-stage review
- A workstation already built and running with no design change proposed, where a routine task assessment is the right instrument
- Recording the change itself, which belongs in management of change, not in this review
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 6385 requirements does this satisfy?
ISO 6385 sets ergonomic principles for the design of work systems rather than prescribing dimensions, which puts the weight on whether the design process applied them and can show its reasoning.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 6385:2016 cl.5 | Ergonomic principles applied during the design process, at the design stage, not after the work system is built | Header |
| ISO 6385:2016 cl.6 | Work space dimensioned to reach, posture and clearance, height matched to precision, light or heavy work | Dimensions |
| ISO 6385:2016 cl.6 | Design accommodates the range of body sizes, including shorter, taller and left-handed use, not an average figure | Fit across the workforce |
| ISO 6385:2016 cl.6 | Material presentation and product and waste flow designed to remove unnecessary lifting, floor-level handling and awkward reach | Materials and flow |
| CSA Z412 | Workstation dimensions, lighting and access suited to the task, including cleaning and maintenance access | Other requirements |
| ISO 6385:2016 cl.5 | Users and other stakeholders participate in the design and in evaluating whether it meets its purpose | Other requirements |
| ISO 6385:2016 cl.4 | Ergonomics weighed as a design input alongside cost, output and quality, recorded and signed off by engineering and ergonomics | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Anthropometric Fit Check, the quantified test of whether the population accommodates a design this review has approved in principle.
- Tool and Equipment Ergonomic Review, which covers hand tools, grip, weight, vibration and trigger force rather than the fixed workstation.
- Manual Handling Assessment, a quantified lifting method needed once the loads and frequencies at the station are defined.
- A general risk assessment, which records hazard and harm rather than whether the design meets ergonomic principles.
- The management of change record, which this review can trigger and link to, but does not replace.
Global
Workstation Design Review requirements by country
No jurisdiction requires a design-stage ergonomics review by name. The duty arrives indirectly, through work equipment obligations, and directly through customer or certification requirements built on ISO 6385.
OSH Act General Duty Clause; no dedicated ergonomic design standard
No OSHA standard requires workstation design review. A poor design is addressed, if at all, through the General Duty Clause after the fact.
Design-stage review is voluntary: no regulator forces it, but none excuses a later defect because no standard named it.
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, s.2 and s.3; Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Work equipment must suit the purpose and the person using it, considered at selection and design, not only in use.
A design ignoring the range of users is hard to defend once an incident or exclusion is documented.
ISO 6385:2016, CSA Z412
ISO 6385 sets ergonomic principles for the design process itself; CSA Z412 addresses office and display-screen workstation dimensions.
Where a customer or certifier specifies ISO 6385, the review is evidence the process, not just the outcome, was followed.
How to complete it
How to complete a workstation design review, step by step
The template prompts for dimensions and scores. What determines whether the review actually prevented a problem is what happens around those numbers.
The Stage field is there to be read, not just filled in. A review logged against a design already installed and running has become the first step of a modification programme, and should be resourced as one, not filed as a design review that happened to fail.
A workstation built to an average height or reach fits a narrow band of the workforce and excludes the rest, who adapt by stooping, reaching, or standing on something. Percentile Range Accommodated forces that choice explicit, and an average-only design should trigger a fit check before sign-off, not after installation.
A workstation can have correct height and reach and still fail if product arrives at floor level or waste is lifted out at height. A design scoring well on Dimensions but failing here has solved only half the problem.
Change Involved and MOC ID exist because a review that recommends a change is not finished until that change is controlled. An ergonomics sign-off on a design that then changes without an MOC record has signed off nothing that will actually get built.
What auditors find
Most common workstation design review findings
The review itself is usually completed. The findings concern designs approved against the form's own logic and numbers that do not agree with the sign-off.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Design signed off as acceptable with Percentile Range Accommodated recorded as designed for average. | ISO 6385:2016 cl.6 | Route to an anthropometric fit check before sign-off; do not close on an average-only design. |
| Height Adjustable recorded as fixed or limited for a station used by more than one worker or task type. | ISO 6385:2016 cl.6 | Specify adjustable height or a second fixed option matched to the task types performed there. |
| Fit Check ID left blank on a design closed without an anthropometric fit check being raised. | Standard-specific | Link the fit check record before the review closes, so the two read as one decision, not two forms. |
| No Lifting From Floor recorded as occasional or routine, with no change recommended. | ISO 6385:2016 cl.6 | Treat floor-level handling as a design defect, not a training point; specify a lift, chute or powered feed. |
| Change Involved marked yes with no MOC ID captured. | CSA Z412 | Raise the change record before proceeding; a change without an MOC reference is unrecorded. |
| Design Acceptable recorded as with changes, but Changes Recommended left blank and Action Required marked no. | ISO 6385:2016 cl.5 | A conditional acceptance needs the condition written down and an action raised. |
Case in point
Case in point: the design that was signed off twice, in opposite directions
A new pack-off station was reviewed at design stage. It recorded working height matched to a light task and percentile range accommodated as designed for average, on the basis that the existing crew sat within a narrow height band. Design Acceptable was yes, no fit check was raised, and Fit Check ID was left blank.
Eight months later the site hired a second shift, and two new starters, well outside the original crew's height range, could not reach the control panel without stepping onto a pallet. Reviewed again from a complaint, the second review found what the first review's own option had warned against: a design built to one group's average fails the moment the population changes.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
6 sections
- Reference
- ERG-029
- Archetype
- Review
- Record ID
- WDR-2026-000
- Scoring
- Design score
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 6385, CSA Z412
- Links
- Links Job, MOC
- Tags
- Ergonomics, Design
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 54
- Follow up fields
- 4
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
14 fieldsReview ID*
Auto sequence. Format WDR-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Area 2*
The area within the site.
Exact Location 2
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Workstation Or Line*
Review Trigger*
Stage*
Design Out, Do Not Train Around
Every posture problem fixed at the design stage stops existing for everyone who ever works there. Training is the fallback when design has already failed.
Dimensions
9 fieldsWorking Height*
Height Adjustable*
- Yes3 pts
- Limited1 pt
- Fixed0 pts
Adjustment Range Adequate*
- Yes3 pts
- Limited1 pt
- No0 pts
Height Matches Task Type*
Precision work sits above elbow height. Light work at elbow. Heavy work below.
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Reach Envelope Acceptable*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Frequently Used Items In Primary Zone*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Knee And Foot Clearance*
- Adequate3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- None0 pts
Space To Change Posture*
- Yes3 pts
- Limited1 pt
- None0 pts
Sit Stand Possible*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Fit across the workforce
6 fieldsAnthropometric Data Used*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Fit Check ID
Links to ERG-030 Check ID
Percentile Range Accommodated*
Designing for the 5th to 95th percentile covers most people. Designing for average fits almost nobody.
- 5th to 95th4 pts
- Narrower range1 pt
- Designed for average0 pts
Works For Shorter Workers*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Works For Taller Workers*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Left Handed Use Possible*
- Yes3 pts
- Awkward1 pt
- No0 pts
Materials and flow
6 fieldsMaterial Delivered At Working Height*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
No Lifting From Floor*
- Confirmed3 pts
- Occasional1 pt
- Routine0 pts
Gravity Or Powered Feed Used*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Waste Removal At Height*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Product Flows Without Handling*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Turntables Or Tilters Provided
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Other requirements
6 fieldsCleaning Access Adequate*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Maintenance Access Adequate*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Hygienic Design Met*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Lighting At Task Adequate*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Noise At Position Acceptable*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Workers Involved In Design*
- Yes3 pts
- Consulted2 pts
- No0 pts
Outcome
13 fieldsDesign Acceptable*
- Yes3 pts
- With changes1 pt
- No0 pts
Changes Recommended
Mock Up Or Trial Required*
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Change Involved
Anything that is not a like for like replacement needs change control.
MOC ID
Format MOC-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-020 MOC ID
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Ergonomics*
Signature*
Engineering*
Second Signature*
ERG-029 · record IDs look like WDR-2026-000 · Links Job, MOC
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The review is straightforward to complete. What slips is the link to the fit check it should have triggered and the change record it should have opened.
Holds the design review library against the equipment and job registers, flags a design signed off for average dimensions with no linked fit check, and routes review to ergonomics and engineering.
Watches for Change Involved marked yes with no MOC ID recorded, and keeps the design review and its change record moving as one linked decision, not two open forms.
Connects the signed-off design to the asset record the workstation becomes, so the review that approved it stays attached once built and running.
Coordinates engineering and ergonomics, rolls open reviews and their linked actions into one view, and holds every write for approval before it touches a record.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
Workstation Design Review definitions and key terms
- Reach envelope
- The three-dimensional zone a person can comfortably reach without stretching or twisting, used to place frequently used items and controls.
- Percentile range (5th to 95th)
- The span of body dimensions covering nearly the whole workforce; designing to this range rather than an average figure is the core anthropometric principle.
- Design out, do not train around
- The principle that a posture problem removed at the design stage stops existing for everyone, where a training instruction only manages exposure while it is followed.
- Management of change (MOC)
- The control governing any modification that is not a like-for-like replacement, linked here through Change Involved and MOC ID.
- Hierarchy in design
- The preference for engineering the workstation to fit the task and population, over training or signage to compensate for a design that does not.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about workstation design review
What is a workstation design review?+
A structured check of a proposed workstation, covering height, reach, clearance, materials flow and fit across the workforce, carried out before it is built so findings can still be changed on paper.
When should the review be carried out?+
At concept or design stage, ideally, and always before procurement commits to equipment and installation makes changes expensive. A review logged against an already-running workstation is really the first step of a modification programme.
Does a design review replace an anthropometric fit check?+
No. The design review is the general pass over the concept; the fit check is the specific, quantified test of whether the design accommodates the population's range of body sizes. The template links the two through the Fit Check ID field.
Why does the template ask for percentile range rather than average dimensions?+
Because a workstation built to an average figure reliably excludes a large share of the population. Recording whether the design targets the 5th to 95th percentile, a narrower range, or the average makes that choice explicit and reviewable.
Who signs off a workstation design review?+
Engineering and ergonomics both sign, reflecting that the outcome has to satisfy the process constraints and the ergonomic principles behind the design, neither one alone.
What happens if the review finds the design needs to change?+
The change is flagged and, where it is not like-for-like, routed through management of change with its own reference recorded here, so the sign-off and the change record stay linked.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Ergonomics and MSD Prevention
Discomfort Report
Lets a worker report aches, pain or discomfort early, before it becomes an injury
Body Part Symptom Survey
Maps where in the body workers are experiencing discomfort, across a team or area
MSD Injury Report
Records a diagnosed musculoskeletal injury, including affected body part and suspected task
Early Intervention Record
Records the actions taken when discomfort is reported, before it becomes an injury
MSD Trend Review
Reviews discomfort reports and MSD injuries across areas and tasks
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 6385:2016 — Ergonomics principles in design of work systems
- CSA Z412 — Office ergonomics
- PUWER 1998 (UK)
- OSH Act s.5(a)(1), General Duty Clause (US)
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.