In many organisations, problems with workplace ergonomics don’t appear suddenly.
There isn’t always a dramatic moment when something clearly breaks.
Instead, the pressure builds quietly.
The DSE process still exists.
Assessments are still completed.
Actions are still logged and followed up.
But gradually, small pressures begin to accumulate.
More employees join the organisation.
Hybrid working becomes the norm rather than the exception.
Internal staff are trained to complete assessments.
Shared workstations become part of everyday operations.
None of these changes are negative. In fact, they are often signs of a healthy and growing organisation.
But together they can begin to place strain on systems that were originally designed for a much simpler operating environment.
Many organisations first notice this pressure in their Display Screen Equipment (DSE) assessment process. As teams grow and hybrid working becomes more common, the systems used to manage workstation assessments, equipment recommendations and follow-up actions can gradually become harder to coordinate. What once worked well for a smaller team may start to feel more complex as demand increases.
When “working” starts to feel harder
At first glance, the DSE process may still appear to be working.
Assessments are taking place and issues are being addressed.
Yet behind the scenes, organisations often start to notice subtle shifts.
Coordination takes longer than it used to.
Recommendations vary slightly between assessors.
HR teams spend more time clarifying responsibilities.
Managers wait longer for decisions or equipment approvals.
Nothing has failed.
But the system starts to feel heavier to operate.
What was once a straightforward process gradually becomes more complex to manage.
I often see this pattern when supporting organisations that have grown steadily over a number of years. The process itself still exists, but the coordination around it begins to feel slower and more fragmented.
Activity vs oversight
One of the key differences between organisations that manage this well and those that struggle is the distinction between activity and oversight.
Most organisations are good at activity.
They ensure assessments are completed.
They log recommendations.
They follow up on actions.
But oversight asks a different set of questions.
Are recommendations consistent between assessors?
Are recurring issues visible across teams or departments?
Are internal assessors aligned in how they identify and prioritise risk?
Has the process evolved as hybrid working has changed how people use workstations?
Without this level of oversight, even well-run processes can slowly drift.
Growth introduces complexity
As organisations grow, new variables are introduced into the system.
More employees mean more onboarding assessments.
Hybrid working means individuals may use multiple work environments.
Internal assessors may increase in number, each bringing slightly different interpretations and approaches.
Shared workstations add another layer of coordination.
None of these factors are problematic on their own.
But together they introduce a level of complexity that the original system may not have been designed to handle.
Inclusion and variation
Another factor that increasingly influences DSE systems is the need to support a more diverse workforce.
Workstations, equipment design and default settings have historically been based on relatively narrow anthropometric ranges.
A mature DSE system recognises that variation matters.
Employees may require adjustments during pregnancy.
Individuals with a history of musculoskeletal issues may need different levels of support.
Hybrid working environments can introduce very different workstation setups across home and office locations.
Inclusive workplaces need systems that can adapt to these differences.
Good ergonomics isn’t simply about furniture or posture. It’s about how the system responds to variation.
When a structured review becomes valuable
Often the best time to review a DSE system is not when something has gone wrong, but when the organisation begins to feel this quiet strain.
A structured review allows organisations to step back and look at the system as a whole.
Questions worth asking include:
-
- Are internal assessors working from a consistent understanding of risk?
-
- Are responsibilities for decisions and approvals clearly defined?
-
- Are recurring themes visible across the organisation?
-
- Does the current process reflect how people actually work today?
These kinds of questions move the focus beyond individual assessments and towards the overall health of the system.
Strengthening the foundation
For many organisations, the goal is not to redesign the entire DSE process.
Instead, it is about strengthening the structure that supports it.
That might involve improving oversight of completed assessments, aligning internal assessors around common standards, or ensuring escalation pathways are clearly defined for more complex cases.
When the system is structured well, it becomes much easier to manage increasing demand without friction.
And that allows organisations to maintain consistency, respond effectively to employee needs, and support healthy working environments as they continue to grow.
A simple question worth asking
If your organisation has grown or evolved over the past few years, it may be worth asking a simple question:
Is our DSE process still designed for the environment we operate in today?
Sometimes nothing is broken.
But the system may be ready for a closer look.
If your organisation is beginning to notice this kind of strain in its DSE process, a structured review can often bring clarity quickly. Sometimes a few small adjustments to oversight, assessor alignment or escalation pathways are enough to make the system far easier to manage as demand grows.
