An exoskeleton should be tested under realistic conditions before being introduced into the workplace. This is not just about whether the system feels comfortable. A systematic test must demonstrate whether the exoskeleton is suitable for the task, the employees, and the work environment, and whether it provides the intended support without causing new problems.

This requires a planned test procedure with defined goals, appropriate test subjects, and documented results. A brief demonstration or a one-time trial run is generally not sufficient for a reliable operational decision.

DGUV Information 208-062 "People and the Workplace – Selection and Use of Exoskeletons" describes a structured process consisting of preparation, testing, and evaluation. This process is supplemented by checklists for the task, the work environment, and corporate culture, as well as by assessment methods and questionnaires.

When putting it on for the first time, you can roughly assess the fit, weight, and handling. However, many decisive characteristics only become apparent during actual work.

An exoskeleton, for example, may support a primary activity while simultaneously interfering with walking, sitting, climbing stairs, operating a forklift, or picking up objects. Issues such as pressure points, heat accumulation, restricted movement, or the need for additional adjustments may also only become evident after prolonged use.

Therefore, both the primary activity to be supported and relevant secondary activities must be considered during the selection process. The DGUV explicitly cites compatibility with tools and other aids as a component of system selection.

The starting point is not the choice of an exoskeleton, but the description of the workstation. The test team should determine which strain is to be reduced and during which movements it occurs.
Relevant initial questions include:

• Which part of the body is primarily under strain?
• Which movements or postures occur?
• Are loads being lifted, held, carried, pulled, or pushed?
• Is work being performed above shoulder or head height?
• How long and how frequently does the strain occur?
• Which tools are being used?
• Are there already technical or organizational possibilities for improvement?

In occupational health and safety, exoskeletons are classified as personal protective measures. According to the hierarchy of controls presented, substituting, technical, and organizational solutions should be examined as a priority.
Therefore, the question is not just: "Which exoskeleton do we want to test?" It is first and foremost: "Which operational strain problem do we want to investigate?"

It is not possible to reliably define a universally suitable test duration for all companies and activities. The required duration depends, among other things, on how frequently the relevant task occurs, how much workflows vary, and how many intended users are involved.

The BG BAU decision matrix recommends a supervised practical test over a sufficiently long period of at least two weeks for a realistic impression.

This minimum duration is a useful benchmark, but not universal proof of long-term suitability. The test should include all typical situations that are relevant to the decision. If certain work processes occur only rarely, different shift conditions exist, or several groups of people are to use the system, a longer or supplementary test phase makes sense.

The decisive factor is therefore not just the number of days. The decisive factor is whether the test represents a representative cross-section of actual everyday work.

A general threshold from which an exoskeleton is considered successfully tested has not been established. Success criteria must be derived from operational requirements prior to testing. A positive overall result should take multiple dimensions into account.

The exoskeleton must be able to be used as intended. It must not unacceptably impede necessary protective measures, escape routes, first-aid measures, or safety-critical movements. Its use must also be taken into account in the risk assessment.

The test subjects were to perceive the support during the specified target activity in a traceable manner. This assessment was intended to refer to the previously determined movement or body region, not to a general feeling of “easier work.”

The designated primary and secondary activities must remain executable. Depending on the job profile, this includes, for example, walking, bending, sitting, climbing stairs, reaching, tool access, and movement in confined areas.

The system must be individually adjustable and must not cause any unacceptable pressure points, skin irritation, or strain on other parts of the body. The DGUV explicitly lists effects on the skin, soft tissue, and tissue as an evaluation criterion.

Test subjects should not just be asked about their general satisfaction. Concrete questions are more meaningful:

• Would you voluntarily continue to use the system for this activity?
• In what situations would you want to take it off?
• Which setting or product feature would need to be improved?
• Do you perceive the system as a support or as an additional restriction?

Questionnaires before implementation, after initial use, and after the test phase are part of DGUV Information 208-062.

The test should also determine whether there are changes in work quality, error rates, safe execution, or workflow. Increased performance should not be formulated as a primary goal of success. In the interest of safety and health, DGUV Information 208-062 advises against using exoskeletons to increase performance.

Define must-have criteria and evaluation criteria in advance. Safety-relevant must-have criteria cannot be offset by good ratings in other categories. For comfort, perceived support, and ease of use, however, a weighted overall assessment can be useful.

For internal company tests, standardized surveys, structured observations, and documented user experiences are particularly practical. Scientific studies can additionally employ objective measurement methods for physical strain.

The DGUV distinguishes between subjective and objective methods. Subjective methods, such as surveys, are suitable for internal company trials. Objective methods for measuring physical strain are preferably used in scientific field and laboratory studies.
Ideally, both perspectives are combined.

For an operational field test, the following can be documented, among other things:

• Assessment before the first wear,
• Impression after the first use,
• Assessment after the complete test phase,
• Perceived physical exertion,
• Pressure points or discomfort,
• Freedom of movement,
• Fit and adjustability,
• Time and effort for putting on and taking off,
• Actual duration of use,
• Reasons for removal,
• Compatibility with tools and protective equipment,
• Work quality and safety-relevant observations.

Complex biomechanical measurements are not a general requirement. Such methods require professional planning and evaluation.

The following compact checklist serves as a foundation. It does not replace a risk assessment, manufacturer specifications, or an occupational medical evaluation.

This structure draws on the topics covered in DGUV Information 208-062 and the BG BAU decision matrix and is intended here as a condensed summary.

The best solution is a combination of both.
A general basic checklist ensures that key topics such as safety, risk assessment, instruction, fit, emergency procedures, maintenance, and documentation are not overlooked. It also creates comparable conditions when multiple systems are being tested.

A task-specific supplement, on the other hand, reflects the actual requirements of the workplace. It should be derived from activity analysis, the work environment, and test objectives.

For a workplace involving overhead work, for example, the focus could be on arm mobility, tool guidance, and support effectiveness at various working heights. With forward torso inclination or load handling, different movement phases and secondary activities become relevant. In confined work areas, additional criteria such as passageways, bumping, or changes in movement must be taken into account.

Following the evaluation, there should be no automatic transition to procurement. First, it must be clarified whether the system:

• is suitable as is,
• is only suitable for certain activities,
• needs to be retested with different settings,
• should be replaced by another model,
• or is not suitable for the workstation in question.

In the event of a positive result, the area of application, user group, instruction, adjustment, storage, cleaning, and responsibilities should be documented. In addition, it must be determined how experience gained after implementation will continue to be recorded.

Testing therefore does not end exclusively with "buy" or "do not buy." It provides a documented basis for a task-related decision.

With a structured task analysis, suitable test models, and clear evaluation criteria, you can soundly determine which exoskeleton suits your company. Let us guide you through product selection, preparation, and field testing. 

Test exoskeletons now and find the right system. 

A good exoskeleton test does more than just answer the question of which model makes the best first impression. It shows whether a system is safe, manageable, and permanently suitable for day-to-day work. To this end, four foundations are required:

• a precise analysis of the tasks and the workplace,
• predefined test goals,
• a sufficiently long practical test with employees,
• a documented evaluation based on operational criteria.
  

A general checklist provides the framework. However, the actual decision always requires task-specific criteria. Only in this way can a trial be turned into a reliable operational evaluation.