Shop Management

by Frederick Winslow Taylor

By non-producers the writer means such employees as all of the general officers, the clerks, foremen, gang bosses, watchmen, messenger boys, draftsmen, salesmen, etc.; and by "producers," only those who actually work with their hands.

In the French and German works there was found to be in each case one non-producer to between six and seven producers, and in the American works one non-producer to about seven producers. The writer found that in the case of another works, doing the same kind of business and whose management was notoriously bad, the proportion of non-producers to producers was one non-producer to about eleven producers. These companies all had large forges, foundries, rolling mills and machine shops turning out a miscellaneous product, much of which was machined. They turned out a highly wrought, elaborate and exact finished product, and did an extensive engineering and miscellaneous machine construction business.

In the case of a company doing a manufacturing business with a uniform and simple product for the maximum economy, the number of producers to each non-producer would of course be larger. No manager need feel alarmed then when he sees the number of non-producers increasing in proportion to producers, providing the non-producers are busy all of their time, and providing, of course, that in each case they are doing efficient work.

It would seem almost unnecessary to dwell upon the desirability of standardizing, not only all of the tools, appliances and implements throughout the works and office, but also the methods to be used in the multitude of small operations which are repeated day after day. There are many good managers of the old school, however, who feel that this standardization is not only unnecessary but that it is undesirable, their principal reason being that it is better to allow each workman to develop his individuality by choosing the particular implements and methods which suit him best. And there is considerable weight in this contention when the scheme of management is to allow each workman to do the work as he pleases and hold him responsible for results. Unfortunately, in ninety-nine out of a hundred such cases only the first part of this plan is carried out. The workman chooses his own methods and implements, but is not held in any strict sense accountable unless the quality of the work is so poor or the quantity turned out is so small as to almost amount to a scandal. In the type of management advocated by the writer, this complete standardization of all details and methods is not only desirable but absolutely indispensable as a preliminary to specifying the time in which each operation shall be done, and then insisting that it shall be done within the time allowed.

Neglecting to take the time and trouble to thoroughly standardize all of such methods and details is one of the chief causes for setbacks and failure in introducing this system. Much better results can be attained, even if poor standards be adopted, than can be reached if some of a given class of implements are the best of their kind while others are poor. It is uniformity that is required. Better have them uniformly second class than mainly first with some second and some third class thrown in at random. In the latter case the workmen will almost always adopt the pace which conforms to the third class instead of the first or second. In fact, however, it is not a matter involving any great expense or time to select in each case standard implements which shall be nearly the best or the best of their kinds. The writer has never failed to make enormous gains in the economy of running by the adoption of standards.

It was in the course of making a series of experiments with various air hardening tool steels with a view to adopting a standard for the Bethlehem works that Mr. J. Maunsel White, together with the writer, discovered the Taylor-White process of treating tool steel, which marks a distinct improvement in the art. The fact that this improvement was made not by manufacturers of tool steel, but in the course of the adoption of standards, shows both the necessity and fruitfulness of methodical and careful investigation in the choice of much neglected details. The economy to be gained through the adoption of uniform standards is hardly realized at all by the managers of this country. No better illustration of this fact is needed than that of the present condition of the cutting tools used throughout the machine shops of the United States. Hardly a shop can be found in which tools made from a dozen different qualities of steel are not used side by side, in many cases with little or no means of telling one make from another; and in addition, the shape of the cutting edge of the tool is in most cases left to the fancy of each individual workman. When one realizes that the cutting speed of the best treated air hardening steel is for a given depth of cut, feed and quality of metal being cut, say sixty feet per minute, while with the same shaped tool made from the best carbon tool steel and with the same conditions, the cutting speed will be only twelve feet per minute, it becomes apparent how little the necessity for rigid standards is appreciated.

Let us take another illustration. The machines of the country are still driven by belting. The motor drive, while it is coming, is still in the future. There is not one establishment in one hundred that does not leave the care and tightening of the belts to the judgment of the individual who runs the machine, although it is well known to all who have given any study to the subject that the most skilled machinist cannot properly tighten a belt without the use of belt clamps fitted with spring balances to properly register the tension. And the writer showed in a paper entitled "Notes on Belting" presented to The American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1893, giving the results of an experiment tried on all of the belts in a machine shop and extending through nine years, in which every detail of the care and tightening and tension of each belt was recorded, that belts properly cared for according to a standard method by a trained laborer would average twice the pulling power and only a fraction of the interruptions to manufacture of those tightened according to the usual methods. The loss now going on throughout the country from failure to adopt and maintain standards for all small details is simply enormous.

It is, however, a good sign for the future that a firm such as Messrs. Dodge & Day of Philadelphia, who are making a specialty of standardizing machine shop details, find their time fully occupied.

What may be called the "exception principle" in management is coming more and more into use, although, like many of the other elements of this art, it is used in isolated cases, and in most instances without recognizing it as a principle which should extend throughout the entire field. It is not an uncommon sight, though a sad one, to see the manager of a large business fairly swamped at his desk with an ocean of letters and reports, on each of which he thinks that he should put his initial or stamp. He feels that by having this mass of detail pass over his desk he is keeping in close touch with the entire business. The exception principle is directly the reverse of this. Under it the manager should receive only condensed, summarized, and invariably comparative reports, covering, however, all of the elements entering into the management, and even these summaries should all be carefully gone over by an assistant before they reach the manager, and have all of the exceptions to the past averages or to the standards pointed out, both the especially good and especially bad exceptions, thus giving him in a few minutes a full view of progress which is being made, or the reverse, and leaving him free to consider the broader lines of policy and to study the character and fitness of the important men under him. The exception principle can be applied in many ways, and the writer will endeavor to give some further illustrations of it later.

The writer has dwelt at length upon the desirability of concentrating as much as possible clerical and brain work in the planning department. There is, however, one such important exception to this rule that it would seem desirable to call attention to it. As already stated, the planning room gives its orders and instructions to the men mainly in writing and of necessity must also receive prompt and reliable written returns and reports which shall enable its members to issue orders for the next movement of each piece, lay out the work for each man for the following day, properly post the balance of work and materials accounts, enter the records on cost accounts and also enter the time and pay of each man on the pay sheet. There is no question that all of this information can be given both better and cheaper by the workman direct than through the intermediary of a walking time keeper, providing the proper instruction and report system has been introduced in the works with carefully ruled and printed instruction and return cards, and particularly providing a complete mnemonic system of symbols has been adopted so as to save the workmen the necessity of doing much writing. The principle to which the writer wishes to call particular attention is that the only way in which workmen can be induced to write out all of this information accurately and promptly is by having each man write his own time while on day work and pay when on piece work on the same card on which he is to enter the other desired information, and then refusing to enter his pay on the pay sheet until after all of the required information has been correctly given by him. Under this system as soon as a workman completes a job and at quitting time, whether the job is completed or not, he writes on a printed time card all of the information needed by the planning room in connection with that job, signs it and forwards it at once to the planning room. On arriving in the planning room each time card passes through the order of work or route clerk, the balance clerk, the cost clerk, etc., on its way to the pay sheet, and unless the workman has written the desired information the card is sent back to him, and he is apt to correct and return it promptly so as to have his pay entered up. The principle is clear that if one wishes to have routine clerical work done promptly and correctly it should somehow be attached to the pay card of the man who is to give it. This principle, of course, applies to the information desired from inspectors, gang bosses and others as well as workmen, and to reports required from various clerks. In the case of reports, a pay coupon can be attached to the report which will be detached and sent to the pay sheet as soon as the report has been found correct.