She WORKED BACKWARDS, not because someone told her that was the right way to analyze her job, but probably because she was only a file clerk and no one ever told her anything.
"Why," she asked herself, "do I file these old papers anyway?"
"So I can find them again, quickly and surely, when they're wanted," seemed to be the only answer to that.
"What's the right way to file these letters and papers and data so I can find them quickly?" was her next question.
"Arrange them like words in the dictionary—ONE PLACE, and ONLY ONE PLACE, where each can be," was only common sense.
In the filing system which she had inherited, there were a dozen places for each set of data. There was a file on "Industries" with sub-files for "Automobiles" and all the rest; a file for data on "Railroads," with two or three sub-files. The file clerk had to use judgment and discretion in selecting the heading under which each letter or piece of data was filed. And she wasn't hired for judgment and discretion. Sometimes, too, the editors erred in their descriptions of the material they wanted.
One file, arranged alphabetically—ONE PLACE TO LOOK, regardless of the thing looked for—was the logical conclusion, viewed from the standpoint of finding.
The managing editor was horrified. Mix "railroads" with "public service," and "manufacturing" with "agriculture"?
"Why," asked the file clerk, looking back at her analysis, "why care how things are kept so long as they can be found quickly? When you send me for Camels, do you care, so long as you get them quickly, whether they're kept next to Chesterfields, or right beside the chewing gum? When the chief asks for data on 'C.P.R.' does he care, if he gets it right away, whether it was filed next to data on 'Coal' or beside facts about other railroads?"