Shop Management by Frederick Winslow Taylor (top books to read .TXT) 📕

orders and its apparent red tape, looks like a waste of money; while the

ordinary management in which the planning is mainly done by the workmen

themselves, with the help of one or two foremen, seems simple and

economical in the extreme.

The writer, however, while still a young man, had all lingering doubt as

to the value of a drafting room dispelled by seeing the chief engineer,

the foreman of the machine shop, the foreman of the foundry, and one or

two workmen, in one of our large and successful engineering

establishments of the old school, stand over the cylinder of an engine

which was being built, with chalk and dividers, and discuss for more

than an hour the proper size and location of the studs for fastening on

the cylinder head. This was simplicity, but not economy. About the same

time he became thoroughly convinced of the necessity and economy of a

planning department with time study, and with written instruction cards

and returns. He saw over and over again a workman shut down his machine

and hunt up the foreman to inquire, perhaps, what work to put into his

machine next, and then chase around the shop to find it or to have a

special tool or template looked up or made. He saw workmen carefully

nursing their jobs by the hour and doing next to nothing to avoid making

a record, and he was even more forcibly convinced of the necessity for a

change while he was still working as a machinist by being ordered by the

other men to slow down to half speed under penalty of being thrown over

the fence.

No one now doubts the economy of the drafting room, and the writer

predicts that in a very few years from now no one will doubt the economy

and necessity of the study of unit times and of the planning department.

Another point of analogy between modern engineering and modern

management lies in the fact that modern engineering proceeds with

comparative certainty to the design and construction of a machine or

structure of the maximum efficiency with the minimum weight and cost of

materials, while the old style engineering at best only approximated

these results and then only after a series of breakdowns, involving the

practical reconstruction of the machine and the lapse of a long period

of time. The ordinary system of management, owing to the lack of exact

information and precise methods, can only approximate to the desired

standard of high wages accompanied by low labor cost and then only

slowly, with marked irregularity in results, with continued opposition,

and, in many cases, with danger from strikes. Modern management, on the

other hand, proceeds slowly at first, but with directness and precision,

step by step, and, after the first few object lessons, almost without

opposition on the part of the men, to high wages and low labor cost; and

as is of great importance, it assigns wages to the men which are

uniformly fair. They are not demoralized, and their sense of justice

offended by receiving wages which are sometimes too low and at other

times entirely too high.

One of the marked advantages of scientific management lies in its

freedom from strikes. The writer has never been opposed by a strike,

although he has been engaged for a great part of his time since 1883 in

introducing this type of management in different parts of the country

and in a great variety of industries. The only case of which the writer

management in different parts of the country and in a great variety of

industries. The only case of which the writer can think in which a

strike under this system might be unavoidable would be that in which

most of the employees were members of a labor union, and of a union

whose rules were so inflexible and whose members were so stubborn that

they were unwilling to try any other system, even though it assured them

larger wages than their own. The writer has seen, however, several times

after the introduction of this system, the members of labor unions who

were working under it leave the union in large numbers because they

found that they could do better under the operation of the system than

under the laws of the union.

There is no question that the average individual accomplishes the most

when he either gives himself, or some one else assigns him, a definite

task, namely, a given amount of work which he must do within a given

time; and the more elementary the mind and character of the individual

the more necessary does it become that each task shall extend over a

short period of time only. No school teacher would think of telling

children in a general way to study a certain book or subject. It is

practically universal to assign each day a definite lesson beginning on

one specified page and line and ending on another; and the best progress

is made when the conditions are such that a definite study hour or

period can be assigned in. which the lesson must be learned. Most of us

remain, through a great part of our lives, in this respect, grown-up

children, and do our best only under pressure of a task of comparatively

short duration. Another and perhaps equally great advantage of assigning

a daily task as against ordinary piece work lies in the fact that the

success of a good workman or the failure of a poor one is thereby daily

and prominently called to the attention of the management. Many a poor

workman might be willing to go along in a slipshod way under ordinary

piece work, careless as to whether he fell off a little in his output or

not. Very few of them, however, would be willing to record a daily

failure to accomplish their task even if they were allowed to do so by

their foreman; and also since on ordinary piece work the price alone is

specified without limiting the time which the job is to take, a quite

large falling off in output can in many cases occur without coming to

the attention of the management at all. It is for these reasons that the

writer has above indicated “a large daily task” for each man as the

first of four principles which should be included in the best type of

management.

It is evident, however, that it is useless to assign a task unless at

the same time adequate measures are taken to enforce its accomplishment.

As Artemus Ward says, “I can call the spirits from the windy deep, but

damn `em they won’t come!” It is to compel the completion of the daily

task then that two of the other principles are required, namely, “high

pay for success” and “loss in case of failure.” The advantage of Mr. H.

L. Gantt’s system of “task work with a bonus,” and the writer’s

“differential rate piece work” over the other systems lies in the fact

that with each of these the men automatically and daily receive either

an extra reward in case of complete success, or a distinct loss in case

they fall off even a little.

The four principles above referred to can be successfully applied either

under day work, piece work, task work with a bonus, or differential rate

piece work, and each of these systems has its own especial conditions

under which it is to be preferred to either of the other three. In no

case, however, should an attempt be made to apply these principles

unless accurate and thorough time study has previously been made of

every item entering into the day’s task.

They should be applied under day work only when a number of

miscellaneous jobs have to be done day after day, none of which can

occupy the entire time of a man throughout the whole of a day and when

the time required to do each of these small jobs is likely to vary

somewhat each day. In this case a number of these jobs can be grouped

into a daily task which should be assigned, if practicable, to one man,

possibly even to two or three, but rarely to a gang of men of any size.

To illustrate: In a small boiler house in which there is no storage room

for coal, the work of wheeling the coal to the fireman, wheeling out the

ashes, helping clean fires and keeping the boiler room and the outside

of the boilers clean can be made into the daily task for a man, and if

these items do not sum up into a full day’s work, on the average, other

duties can be added until a proper task is assured. Or, the various

details of sweeping, cleaning, and keeping a certain section of a shop

floor windows, machines, etc., in order can be united to form a task.

Or, in a small factory which turns out a uniform product and in uniform

quantities day after day, supplying raw materials to certain parts of

the factory and removing finished product from others may be coupled

with other definite duties to form a task. The task should call for a

large day’s work, and the man should be paid more than the usual day’s

pay so that the position will be sought for by first-class, ambitious

men. Clerical work can very properly be done by the task in this way,

although when there is enough of it, piece work at so much per entry is

to be preferred.

In all cases a clear cut, definite inspection of the task is desirable

at least once a day and sometimes twice. When a shop is not running at

night, a good time for this inspection is at seven o’clock in the

morning, for instance. The inspector should daily sign a printed card,

stating that he has inspected the work done by –-, and enumerating the

various items of the task. The card should state that the workman has

satisfactorily performed his task, “except the following items,” which

should be enumerated in detail.

When men are working on task work by the day they should be made to

start to work at the regular starting hour. They should, however, have

no regular time for leaving. As soon as the task is finished they should

be allowed to go home; and, on the other hand, they should be made to

stay at work until their task is done, even if it lasts into the night,

no deduction being made for shorter hours nor extra pay allowed for

overtime. It is both inhuman and unwise to ask a man, working on task

work, to stay in the shop after his task is finished “to maintain the

discipline of the shop,” as is frequently done. It only tends to make

men eye servants.

An amusing instance of the value of task work with freedom to leave when

the task is done was given the writer by his friend, Mr. Chas. D.

Rogers, for many years superintendent of the American Screw Works, of

Providence, R. I., one of the greatest mechanical geniuses and most

resourceful managers that this country has produced, but a man who,

owing to his great modesty, has never been fully appreciated outside of

those who know him well. Mr. Rogers tried several modifications of day

and piece work in an unsuccessful endeavor to get the children who were

engaged in sorting over the very small screws to do a fair day’s work.

He finally met with great success by assigning to each child a fair

day’s task and allowing him to go home and play as soon as his task was

done. Each child’s playtime was his own and highly prized while the

greater part of his wages went to his parents.

Piece work embodying