SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Engineering students learn a great deal about the physical world. This training makes it possible to explain a variety of phenomenon and to harness the forces of nature. When a degree is conferred on an engineering graduate, there is an automatic inference about that individual's technical competence. But how will the new engineering graduate fare in the marketplace? Is technical competence sufficient? While the new graduate may have the technical capacity to be relatively productive on the first day on a new job, how well has that individual learned how to relate to and work with other people?
While technical training is clearly the primary emphasis area at the university level in the college of engineering, technical abilities in and of themselves do not assure long-term success. Working well with people is vital to the success of an engineer. This becomes even more important as the engineer is promoted upward in the organization. Initially, the new graduate will have superiors and colleagues. After a few years, as the engineer becomes seasoned, subordinates will also be added. Thus, the engineer must ultimately be able to work well with superiors, colleagues, and subordinates.
Since working with people is a factor in the success of an engineer,
it is important for the engineer to be able to understand some of the basics
about human behaviour. This behaviour will be examined in this class
as it relates to the work setting. The focus will be on motivation,
leadership styles, communication, team-building, and conflict. Some
background information will be given first.
SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
Until 100 years ago, worker productivity was not considered to be a
science. Some very basic rules were used in the work places and these
were seldom complimentary to workers. The Industrial Revolution brought
about mass production. The term, mass production as practised a century
ago, conjures up images of "sweat shops" and generally dismal working conditions.
Unfortunately, many of the images of sweat shops are accurate. However,
about a century ago, conditions began to change. The growth experienced
during the 1890's was followed by a period of weak economic conditions.
Coupled with the unfavourable working conditions, the changing economic
climate sparked a growth in the labour movement. Union strength was
weak at that time, but strength was being gained. It is in this environment
that "Scientific Management" was born. Scientific Management grew
as a result of the efforts of a few dynamic and enthusiastic individuals.
The contributions of some of the principle players in the Scientific Management
movement will be described. All individuals described worked in the
United States.
FREDERICK TAYLOR
(1856-1915)
(ref. The Principles of Scientific Management by Frederick Taylor, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, 1919)
Frederick Taylor is often called the "Father of Scientific Management". In fact, the term "Taylorism" is often used in lieu of the words Scientific Management. Although he started "at the bottom," he quickly became noticed. His work career began in 1874 as a pattern maker and as a machinist at Ferrell & Jones where, as an apprentice, he was not paid for his first year of service. During the second year of service, his pay was $1.50 per week.
Taylor moved on to employment with Midvale Steel Company in Philadelphia in 1878. He began employment as a labourer, but he quickly advanced within the organization to timekeeper, then machinist, then gang boss, foreman, assistant engineer, and finally (within 8 years) to chief engineer of the works. It was as a gang boss that Taylor had his first revelations of a need for change in the work place. He felt that it was inappropriate to simply apply pressure (the traditional motivator) on workers in order to get production. Instead, he felt that each task should be performed in some optimal time by a "first class" worker. This was the beginning of Scientific Management (1882). Scientific Management mandates that the best way of performing a task should be discovered and that the time to perform that task should be determined. Under this plan management was made responsible for finding the proper methods of performing tasks and for their proper planning. The art of management, he felt, was to know exactly what workers are to do and then "seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest way."
Taylor felt that the base of knowledge must come from a solid source of information. He recounted an example at Bethlehem Steel Works where he had worked after leaving Midvale Steel. He stated that there is some shovel load (ideal size of shovel) at which a worker will do the best job. This idea was sparked by some workers who insisted on bringing their own shovels to work rather than using company shovels. But what is the ideal load on a shovel? It would appear whimsical, he felt, to simply ask how much can be shovelled by the best worker. It makes more sense to do a detailed study, one not biased by one's perspective. To answer the question of the ideal shovel size, Taylor devised a simple experiment. Two workers were asked to participate in the study. To obtain the full cooperation of the workers, the workers were paid double wages during the experiment. He asked the workers to put in an honest day's work without rushing or "soldiering."
The shovelling experiment began with a particular shovel being used by each worker. The average weight of ore that was held by one shovel load was 17 kg. The production for each worker was 23 tonnes (metric tons) per day. After the production rate was established with the 17 kg capacity shovels, the shovels were machined so that each held 15 kg of ore. The daily production then rose to 27 tonnes per day. The shovel size was reduced until the daily production began to drop. From this experiment, Taylor determined that the ideal shovel size was one that held 9.5 kg of ore. Naturally, if a material of a different density was used, a different size of shovel would be required. This revelation was startling when it is realized that ore has varying densities. For example, Bethlehem Steel Works used ore from the Massaba Range of which 17 kg could be placed in a shovel of a given size while rice coal in the same shovel would yield a load of only 1.4 kg. Thus, for maximum efficiency the shovel used by the workers should be such that an average of 9.5 kg of material is in each shovel load.
The above example illustrates some of Taylor's style. He had many observations that proved profitable to his clients. He felt that to be successful in the business world, a firm needed to be organized only as well as the competitors. He felt that most businesses were managed equally bad, and as such, profits were a poor measure by which to evaluate the quality of management. He made statements to this effect because he felt that maximum production was not being achieved. He felt this was partly the fault of management since no one knew how much time should be consumed in performing any one task.
During this time period there was mutual suspicion between labour and management. Taylor attributed part of the blame to labour. Taylor felt that "soldiering" (slacking at work) was widespread. Soldiering includes the deliberate objective by the workers of concealing from the employer how fast the work could actually be done. A worker may go to pains to study just "how slowly he can work and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace." Soldiering included "natural soldiering," the natural instinct or tendency for workers to take it easy. This was generally dealt with by management's dismissal of the slower workers. Also included, was "systematic soldiering" which occurred when workers established a uniform standard rate of performance (whether hourly or piecework). It was assumed that under this system the better workers would slow down since they were paid the same as everyone else. Once this pattern is established, Taylor contended, no work is done faster than it was done in the past. Peer pressure on new workers maintains the established level of performance or work pace. Taylor admitted that he himself was guilty of soldiering as an apprentice. He said that soldiering is universal.
The systematic soldiering was fostered largely by the "piece rate" system. In the past under that system, increased productivity was invariably followed by a reduction in the "piece rate" or the payment per item produced. Workers grew disdainful of management under this system. It was not surprising that "Taylorism" met with the opposition of labour since it was often construed as being a form of piece work. However, Taylor contended that Scientific Management was not anything like piece work.
Taylor recognized that an alternative could be considered to boost productivity. That was to contract work with the best workers. These workers would, in turn, employ their own workers. Usually the best results were noted when fewer workers were hired by each "Contractor". This system is not without its shortcomings. The major one is that the "contracting" worker has much at stake in production and will not be concerned with the machinery which may quickly deteriorate.
Taylor's Scientific Management
Taylor's first ideas on scientific management were published in 1895, but it was essentially ignored by the public. In 1903 he presented another paper and people started to take notice. He said that it was the study of motions of workers and the simplifications of their movements and acts. It is not "speeding up" but rather the elimination of waste motion and the elimination of soldiering. It is a careful study on the part of management of the capacity and potentials of each worker. It consists of the mutual trust between workers and management working together as friends. He felt that the labor-management relationship did not have to be antagonistic. He felt that it was possible to give the workers what they most wanted (high wage) and the employers what they most wanted (low labor cost for their products)!
Taylor stressed that scientific management was not an efficiency device, a new system of figuring costs, a new scheme of paying workers, a piecework system, a bonus system, a premium system, time study, doing stop watch studies, etc. He said that it was a revolution, a complete mental revolution. It consisted of workers and management viewing each other as allies for their mutual benefit. He said the results of scientific were simple :
* More profits for employers
* Higher wages (30 - 100%) for workers
* Lower prices for consumers
Taylor's goal with scientific management was to have high wages paid to workers while maintaining low labor costs. He felt that this could be accomplished by employing only "First-Class" workers. He added, however, that every worker was "First-Class" at some task. It was simply the responsibility of management to link or couple each worker with the task for which first class performance could be achieved. When this is done, he said that some employers had actually increased wages by 30% to 100%. Taylor felt that workers learned by watching other workers and very little by reading. Thus, the burden for serious thinking was squarely on the shoulders of the employers.
Taylor had become quite successful with this new concept. He was asked by numerous firms to implement scientific management in their plants. The entire process generally took about five years to accomplish.
Taylor Testifies
Scientific management gained national attention in 1911 when stop watch studies sparked two labor strikes. This also got the attention of the U.S. Government. It must be recognized that scientific management was not viewed favorably by the organized labor leaders. It was felt that scientific management weakened the bargaining position of labor if management knew exactly how much work each worker could perform in a specified time period (by knowing how long a job took, an employer was able to eliminate the excuses for "soldiering". Scientific management did not recognize or cater to organized labor. This was a particularly sensitive issue at the time as unions were just beginning to organize (they were in a tenuous position). Taylor was personally not endeared to the unions. He was antagonistic to unions and perhaps even had a contemptuous attitude toward them. He felt that all workers were guilty of soldiering.
In 1912 a special house committee hearing was held in response to labor strikes and Frederick Taylor was asked to testify. That testimony delineates the major facets of scientific management and it also points out some unfounded fears that existed at the time. Perhaps his comments are still valid.
Taylor began with some general comments that will be summarized.
Taylor began by saying that he did not advocate that "his" system be called the Taylor system, but preferred to call it scientific management. He felt that many people had actually contributed to its development. The system was first called the Piece-Rate System, but Taylor later changed it as the piecework aspect was only one aspect of the system. He later called it the "Task System" in that the system set a measured standard of work for each worker to perform each day. Since this term sounded too harsh, he finally settled on scientific management.
He said that there is a general belief among working classes that more production generated by a worker meant that another work's job was in jeopardy. That is, if productivity was doubled, the number of workers would be cut in half. Taylor was convinced that this notion was misguided and that just the opposite occurred. He compared production to measuring wealth claiming that it was the only measure of wealth other than what is grown or extracted from the earth. The second belief among workers was that piecework was a way to exploit workers. Both of these beliefs results in slow-downs. These slow-downs were a way to prevent further "rewards" being imposed on the workers.
Taylor then tried, by way of example, of showing how increased productivity could actually put more people to work. He used the example of the power loom which was developed between 1780 and 1790. He used Manchester, England, for this example since this was a strong weaving center. In 1840, before there was widespread acceptance of the power loom there were 5,000 cotton weavers in Manchester. Then efforts were being made to introduce the power looms in the area. Since power looms could triple the output of a weaver, it was felt that 2/3 of the weavers in Manchester would be put out of work. There was harsh resistance to the introduction of the power loom. Many scab weavers (those who worked on power looms) were beaten and a few were killed. Several establishments that introduced the power looms were burned. Taylor said that with the logic that they were using he could understand their actions. In spite of the resistance offered to its introduction, the power loom won out. Were the fears of the workers justified? Were 2/3 of the workers out of their jobs? The power loom was a labor-saving device. By 1912 it had been improved to the point that the output per worker was 8 to 10 times that of a weaver on a conventional loom. The astounding fact was that in 1912 there were 265,000 weavers in Manchester. In other words, nearly 500 yards of cotton were being produced for every yard that was produced in 1840. In that same time period the population did little more than double. A startling change occurred with cotton during those 72 years. In 1840 cotton was a luxury material enjoyed by the rich and only rarely by the poor. In 1912 cotton was a common commodity for all to enjoy. By reducing the cost of production, cotton products were made more available to all people and thus the wealth was shared. Thus, higher production means higher wages and still the prices of goods go down.
Taylor then gave an example of how employers were partially at fault for the distrust that labor had of management. This example related to piecework. He gave an example of a worker making fountain pens at an average rate of 10 per day and being paid $2.50 per day. Then the company decides to go to the piece rate system which pays $0.25 per ten produced. This nets the worker the same pay for each day's work at the same production rate. The only difference is that the worker now has an incentive to try to increase productivity, so the worker becomes ingenious and manages to increase his productivity to 20 pens per day, earning $5.00 per day. The employer then sees that they are paying this worker $5.00 per day when the competition is paying only $2.50 per day. They feel compelled to lower the piece rate in order to be more competitive so the piece rate is reduced to $0.15 per piece. The worker now is earning about $3.00 per day at the new production rate. This reduction in the piece rate will be resented by the worker. Taylor was very opposed to this seemingly common management practice. The result of this action by management will cause workers to act in a uniform way, i.e. the incentive for increased production is lost. A worker who received such a "cut" in the piece-rate would be a "very extraordinary man if he doesn't adopt soldiering and deliberately going slow instead of fast as a permanent policy so as to keep his employer from speeding him up and then cutting his piecework price". Although soldiering is not in the long term best interests of the workers, Taylor said that it is difficult to stop once management has started to cut piece rates.
Taylor concluded with an example of handling pig iron which consists
of picking up pig iron, carrying it a short distance and then dropping
it on the ground. There is seemingly little science involved here.
But, he contended, that a great science is involved with this work.
He added, however, that the worker who chooses this work is probably "too
stupid" to know the science.
FRANK GILBRETH
(1868-approx - 1920)
Frank Gilbreth was born in Fairfield, Maine. Frank Gilbreth was three years old when his father died. This unfortunate circumstance effected Frank later when he was college age. His mother was trying to put her two daughters through college so college was not a viable option for Frank.
Frank Gilbreth's Training :
Frank had always wanted to be a construction engineer. So when he left home he decided to become a bricklayer's helper. Upon leaving home, his mother said, "But if you're going to be a bricklayer's helper, for mercy sakes be a good bricklayer's helper." His first foreman's initial reaction to Frank was probably that he was the worst type of helper. Frank was always questioning the way different tasks were done. He always wanted to improve on the way things were done. He noticed that every mason would lay bricks in a slightly different or unique manner. He felt that there must be "right" way and therefore some people were doing it wrong.
Frank's foreman did indulge him and did permit him to make some changes in the operations. During his first year he devised a scaffold that made him the fastest bricklayer on the job. To earn this distinction, Frank had the loose bricks and the mortar placed at the same level as the top of the wall being built. The foreman called Frank lazy, but went and had other scaffolds built just like it.
Frank advanced quickly in the trade. He became the foreman of his own crew. His crew's productivity was so good that he quickly elevated to superintendent. His confidence quickly grew and numerous innovations in the bricklaying trade developed. Some of his innovations included the following :
* The use of ramps (many per building) to eliminate the wasted time
of climbing ladders.
* The use of ramps to slide material down rather than haul it down.
* Elevating scaffolding that was jacked up while workers were working
on it.
* The use of gravity conveyors.
* Sizing the trowels so that they held enough mortar for exactly one
brick.
* Sizing the trowels to hold mortar for two bricks.
Frederick Taylor mentioned Gilbreth's accomplishments in his special
house committee testimony. He mentioned how Gilbreth reduced the
numbers of motions needed to lay bricks. He had totally eliminated
the need for stooping down. Before any changes were made, it required
18 different motions to lay bricks. The productivity with 18 motions
was about 960 bricks per day. Then Gilbreth came along and reduced
the operation to 5 different motions. When this was done the productivity
was increased to about 2800 bricks per day. Gilbreth automatically
increased the pay of workers who used his method from $5.00 per day to
$6.50 per day and the productivity jump was automatic. Note that with the
elevated productivity the workers were still using fewer total motions
per day (1750 motions per hour vs. 2160 motions per hour). In other
words, it was easier to lay 2800 bricks per day than the 960 bricks per
day when the new method was used.
Frank Gilbreth on His Own
Gilbreth was so successful in managing various projects that he was soon in business for himself. He was also successful as a contractor. He contracted for such projects as bridges, canals, industrial towns, and factories. By this time his reputation had grown. He became well known for his "motion studies". In fact, in some of the factories completed by him, he was asked to remain at the factory after it became operational to implement his time studies there.
He did some work on speeding up typing on typewriters. He had the typewriter painted white so that it could be photographed better when in use.
When WWI started he sent a telegram to President Wilson which read, "Arriving Washington 7.03 p.m. train. If you don't know how to use me I'll tell you how". Upon his arrival he was taken to the War Department where he was assigned to perform motion studies on training personnel in the assembly and disassembly of the Lewis machine gun and other automatic weapons.
Gilbreth's Thoughts on Scientific Management:
Gilbreth felt it to be his duty to "Study the motions and reduce them as rapidly as possible to standard sets of least in number, least in fatigue, yet most effective motions. This, he felt, had not been done scientifically in the past. This technique can be used to standardize the operations to be performed and consequently can limit the work or effort needed to perform the tasks. Although much of his work done in masonry, he was firmly convinced that these basic techniques could be applied in all industries whether in offices, schools, colleges, stores, households, etc. Even slight improvements, when taken in mass, will add up. Work of motion studies once completed need never be done again as this should become the standard.
Time study (Taylor) is the art of recording, analyzing and synthesizing the time of the elements of any operation, but it has also been extended to mental and machinery operations. The stress is on the timing of the elements of an operation and not on the entire operation.
Motion study (Gilbreth) is the science of eliminating wastefulness resulting from using unnecessary, ill-directed and inefficient motions.
Gilbreth felt that Taylor with his time studies was more basic. He simply timed activities performed in different ways and compared the times. Motion studies look only at correct methods. Gilbreth also assumed that each worker should be first class as the operation performed.
Gilbreth outlined the steps of analysis for motion studies :
(1) Reduce the present practice to writing.
(2) Enumerate the motions used.
(3) Study the variables which effect each motion. Consider each
variable as if it might be a problem.
(4) Devise a revised or improved method of practice.
(5) Critique the revised method in a similar manner.
Gilbreth stated that productivity was effected by three different variables, namely worker, environment, and motion. The "worker" variable includes anatomy, brawn, contentment, creed, earning power, experience, fatigue, habits, health, mode of living, nutrition, size, skill, temperament, training, etc. He recognized that left-handed workers need to have the job set-up in a different manner. He felt that if all workers are first class, all instructions will be the same for each of the workers (not one worker carrying 90 pounds and another 60 pounds). Motions should become habit. If all of the workers have the same earning power, it is easier to set up competition between them.
The "environment" variable includes surroundings, equipment, and tools. Included in this group are appliances, clothes, colors, entertainment, music, heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting, quality of material, reward and punishment, size of unit used, special fatigue-eliminating devices, union rules, hand tools, weight of units moved, etc. The "motion" variable includes acceleration, automaticity, cost, direction, effectiveness, ft-lbs of work done, inertia overcome, length, necessity, path, speed, etc.
Frank and his wife wrote a book on fatigue. This was perhaps one of the their major contributions in the recognition that fatigue must be dealt with in the place of work. Three sources of fatigue were noted :
(1) Improper rest - fatigue brought to work.
(2) Unnecessary fatigue - waste motions used to do work.
(3) Necessary fatigue - fatigue caused by work output.
It was recognized that every motion causes fatigue. On the short-term a worker can pick up bricks from his feet about as fast as when they are 2 feet above the ground. But this will not be true for long periods of time. Taylor also recognized that fatigue occurred in doing work and calculated the amount of rest required for different types of work "with great exactness". Their efforts were instrumental in the employment of rest breaks in the work place. Previously an idle workman was considered a disgrace, so workers acted like they were busy (systematic soldiering). This was a form of cheating brought on by the employers. With scientific management the evils of soldiering were eliminated.
Scientific Management in Gilbreth Home
Gilbreth was almost fanatical about waste motions. He carried this to the point of implementing the same principles in the home. Some of these were best cited in a book written by two (Frank Jr. and Ernestine) of his twelve children. The book "Cheaper by the Dozen" was also made into a movie in the 1940's. The following information is from that book.
Frank Gilbreth was a large man. He owned a yacht, smoked cigars, and dressed "sharp". He courted Lillian who was from a well-to-do family in Oakland, California. She was a Phi Beta Kappa and a Psychology graduate of the University of California. A newspaper announcing their marriage included the following line, "Although a graduate of the University of California, the bride is nonetheless an extremely attractive young woman".
They were blessed with 12 children who lived in a house of scientific management. Some instances are as follows :
He got into the bathtub (with the boys gathered around) and showed them how to bath most efficiently. Basically the bar of soap shouldn't touch the same place twice. He repeated the same demonstration for the girls, although he did this fully clothed on the living room floor.
He shaved by using two lathering brushes to lather his face. He said that it saved 17 seconds. He tried to use two razors and shaved 44 seconds faster but consumed 2 extra minutes in applying bandages.
Each morning : each of the children had to initial a chart to indicate that they had brushed their teeth, combed their hair, and made their bed.
Each night: each of the children had to initial a chart after completing homework, brushing teeth and washing hands and face.
Gilbreth buttoned his vest from the bottom up since it took only 3 seconds. From the top down it took 7 seconds.
On Sunday afternoon trips everyone would pile into the family touring car. Each of the children would have a specific duty while Gilbreth was driving (he apparently had poor driving habits). A roll call was held each time the car left (this was prompted by two incidents in which one of the children was left behind and everyone had to return to get them). The carload of children attracted much attention when they drove through the small towns of New England. When the car stopped at intersections in these towns, Frank would frequently yell out at the "on-lookers", "Well, you know they are cheaper by the dozen" or "you should see the ones we left at home".
Frank also taught his children about shortcuts in Math. For instance
41 squares is 1681 (41-25 = 16 and (50-41)squared = 81). Likewise
53 squared is 2809 (53-25=38 and (53-50)squared = 9). He taught various
"tricks" to his children. Once at an exhibit of calculators his young
daughter would shout out the answer before the calculator came up with
it.
HENRY LAURENCE GANTT
1860-1919
(Ref: Henry L. Gantt: Leader in Industry)
(By L.P. Alford, 1934)
Gantt was from Maryland. He graduated from high school and went to work in Baltimore as a draftsman at the plant of Poole and Hunt. He worked there for 2 years. He then went to Johns Hopkins and in two years earned a B.S. degree (1880). He then taught 5th grade for three years (1880-1883). He then went to Stevens Institute of Technology to study physics and math. He earned his BSME in 1884. After working in other plants, he went to work at Midvale (1887-1893) where Taylor also worked. In 1893 he became the superintendent of the AM. Steel Car Wheel Company. He then went into private consulting (1894-1895). He then worked for a year at the AM. Steel Castings Company.
Gantt was a creative person. From 1891 to 1904 he had numerous inventions. These included molds for steel ingots, high temperature furnaces, furnaces for heating and melting iron, forge furnaces, etc. Not surprisingly, several patents were obtained jointly between Gantt and Taylor.
Gantt During WWI
Gantt was a student of past wars and was an expert on the American Civil War. His favorite was Jackson. Even while the turmoil was brewing in Europe, Gantt was keenly aware of the developments and the potential impact it would have on the U.S.
Before the U.S. was involved in the war, Gantt, Charles Day and Harrington Emerson were hired by Pres. Taft to study the organization and management of the navy yards. None of the suggestions of the group were ever applied. Gantt fully sensed the inefficiencies that existed throughout the U.S. in the manufacture of rifles and shells. He blamed it on the "incompetency in high places". He was then hired as a consulting engineer for the Frankford Arsenal.
After the U.S. entered the war, Gantt was actively applying the principles of scientific management for the government. He controlled the production of rifles, guns, ammunition, and other war material for the army. He was credited with speeding up the building of ships for the emergency fleet corporation. He also improved the operation of ships for the shipping board. To monitor productivity in building he used "rivets driven" as the unit of measure. For ship performance, he used "ship hours" as the measure. It was during this time that Gantt developed numerous managerial tools, the most well-known being the Gantt chart.
Gantt's devotion to the war effort was total. He was a great tribute
to the U.S. His work helped to increase production of artillery,
ammunition, airplanes, small arms and ships. He flatly refused any
compensation for his efforts.
Gantt's Thoughts on Scientific Management
Gantt said that for a system of management to deserve the term "Scientific" it should aim to meet the following four conditions :
(1) It should provide a means of utilizing all of the available knowledge concerning the work at hand.
(2) It should provide a means of seeing that the knowledge furnished is properly utilized.
(3) It should award liberal compensation for those who so use it properly.
(4) It should provide a means of acquiring new knowledge by scientific investigation with adequate rewards for success.
He also stated that to successfully conduct organization work, it is necessary to make certain the cooperation of all and to do that to make everyone understand the "purpose which is aimed".
Charts Developed by Gantt
Gantt felt that "We have all been wrong in scheduling on a basis of quantities. The essential element in the situation is time and this should be the basis in laying out any program". This philosophy is evidenced in the numerous control techniques (charts) which he devised.
The most well-known chart is the Gantt Chart (Developed 1917).
The Gantt chart was initially applied to the management of the ordinance
bureau and its manufacturing arsenals. It was the outgrowth of the
"Daily Balance Chart" (AM. Locomotive Co.), "Red and Black Bonus Chart"
(Brighton Mills), "Percentage Chart" (Saylesville), "Straight Line
Plotting" (Remington Typewriter Co.), and the "Idleness Expense Chart"
(Chaney Bros). The Gantt chart was used to record the progress of work,
to record machine operations, to record manual performance, and to show
work to be done. this chart forced management to "Plan Ahead".
Clear-cut tasks would have to be assigned, there was constant appraisal
of work progress, and future difficulties could be forecast and thus avoided.
The Gantt chart, or bar chart, is compact, shows continuity, is easy to
draw and is dynamic.
HARRINGTON EMERSON
Harrington Emerson was also one of the pioneers in scientific management. He published "The Twelve Principles of Efficiency" in 1911. These still have validity today. They can be summarized as follows:
1. Have clearly defined ideals. (There should be a clear focus and all energy should be pulling in one direction).
2. Use common sense. (Use the level-headed approach).
3. Employ competent counsel. (The world of business is complex whether it involves engineering, law, accounting, etc.).
4. Have discipline. (Do what you say you will do. Do not be arbitrary. Be organized).
5. Be fair. (Be imaginative and creative but do not lose your sense of justice).
6. Documentation. (Maintain reliable, current and adequate records of work performed).
7. Dispatch. (Do not delay. Work quickly).
8. Set standards and develop schedules. (Time and motion studies may be utilized or required.
9. Use standardized conditions. (Lighting, hours, etc.).
10. Use standardized operations. (The method used should be the correct one).
11. Have written standard-practice instructions. (This is helpful in training).
12. Employ rewards for efficiency. (Relate pay to performance,
but remember that there are non-monetary rewards also. A "pat on
the back" can go a long way in rewarding a worker for good performance).
DANIEL J HAUER
Daniel Hauer felt that the principles could be applied quite well to the construction industry. He felt that the construction industry is wrought with repetitive tasks that can be improved. He said, the "aim of scientific management is to find the best and cheapest way to accomplish a piece of work and provide means for doing it in this fashion." He also referred to scientific management as efficiency engineering.
Hauer identified two general areas in which to use scientific management. One is to apply it to details and the other is to apply it to the job itself. Although both are important, he felt that it is important to first look at the job itself. Otherwise, he said that you might improve on a shoveling operation when you shouldn't even be shoveling at all.
He stressed the need for previous planning, often called preplanning today. Lack of proper planning means lost profits. Management is often so busy "fighting fires" that it is hard to think about improvements in work. This means that some old traditions must or should die. Scientific management means the destruction of these old traditions. But, because of these traditions he recognized that one might have to focus first on the improvement of details.
Hauer saw a good place for both time and motion studies. He felt, however, that the motion studies should be done first. This is the general area while the time study is the detailed area. The progression should be from general to specific. Even then, he recognized that time studies could be somewhat general in nature. The time frame could be in seconds, minutes or even days.
Hauer gave an example of a worker's reach in a mass production environment. If the motion is repeated many times, it should be systemized to the most efficient motion. That will save a great deal of time.
Time studies too can be a source of improved productivity. He did a study with horse-drawn scrapers. He timed the results of changing the cut depth and the number of horses when they were pulling scrapers. This yielded an increase in production of 20%.
Hauer saw a great opportunity of applying time and motion studies to the construction industry. The industry is full of many tasks that are repeated on each project.
FAMOUS QUOTE ON SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT
"Scientific management is the application of the conservation principle to production. It does not concern itself with the ownership of our natural resources. But in the factories where it is in force it guards their stores of raw materials from loss and misuse. First by finding the right material ......... which is cheapest and best for the purpose. Second, by getting the utmost of finished product out of every pound or bale worked up. ................Now the time, health, and vitality of our people are as well worth conserving, at least, as our forests, minerals and lands. And scientific management seems to do even more for the workman than for raw materials."
by THEODORE ROOSEVELT
MODES OF COMPENSATION
It might have been noticed that many of the persons who were instrumental in scientific management mentioned compensation of the workers. The modes of payment for workers were quite varied. These are briefly described to show how diverse the system of payment could be.
"Day pay". As the name implies, this was a form of payment in which the workers were paid a stipulated sum for a day's work.
"Piece work". This method relies on wages being determined on the basis of a given payment for each piece of work produced. It was this system that Taylor referred to as being misused if management reduces the piece rate if workers get creative and drastically increase their productivity. Gilbreth said the piece rate can be cut, but "so can the throat of the goose that laid the golden eggs." The piece rate system is particularly unfair to a worker who is in training.
"Task pay". This method pays the worker for completing a given tasks. When the task is done the worker can go home. There is no bonus for early completion other than being able to go home early.
"Task with bonus". With this system (developed by Gantt) the worker has the regular pay guaranteed. The base pay is adjusted for a personal increase in productivity. That is, the pay is increased if the productivity goes up. It assures a minimum day's pay.
"Differential piece rate". (Developed by Taylor). This is a form of the piece rate system, but the rate per piece is adjusted in accordance with total performance of an individual. For example, the piece rate might be 35 cents per piece if 10 are produced in a day, but the rate is only 25 cents per piece if less than 10 are produced. This gives high pay for high output and low pay for low output.
METHODS TIME MANAGEMENT
by MAYNARD 1948)
also ENGINEERED WORK MEASUREMENT
by KARGER & BAYHA (1957)
Maynard described methods engineering as a "technique that subjects each operation of a given piece of work to close analysis in order to eliminate every unnecessary operation in order to approach the quickest and best method of performing each necessary operation; it includes the standardization of equipment, methods, and working conditions; it trains operators to follow the standard method; when all this has been done, and not before, it determines by accurate measurement the number of standard hours in which an operator working with standard performance can do the job. Finally, it usually, although not necessarily, devises a plan for compensating labor which encourages the operator to attain or surpass standard performance>' One problem with this sequence is that the methods often have to be timed to see which is best. The method determines the time and the time determines the method.
Methods-time-management (MTM) is a tool of methods analysis that gives answers in terms of time without needing stopwatch time studies. It is method-time measurement rather than motion-time as the consideration of the method enters into the determination of the motion. "When a method is examined motion by motion and when the exact time required to perform each motion and every other motion which might be used is known, it would be difficult indeed to find an operation on which some improvement could not be made."
The MTM system had its beginning around 1940. It was observed that most time savings were being made in methods corrections. MTM dealt with the problem on a micro level. Essentially all of the basic human motions that occur during work were catalogued and time. The time required to perform all of these basic motions was established. With that inform, it was possible to establish the proper method before actually timing a worker. The individual times of all the motions required to perform a task were simply added together to yield the total. The appropriate allowances were then made for fatigue, personal and unavoidable delays. Thus methods engineering replaced methods correction.
The MTM system made it possible to establish good methods before production began. The operators could be immediately trained to learn the best methods and the need for more improvements was reduced.
The MTM work was started on drill press operators. The results were striking. Truly basic motions were isolated, along with their times of execution. The drill press operators were studied from the point of view of the time and motion involved for minute tasks. The entire operation was filmed. By counting the frames the time of execution for the various motions were determined. "MTM is a procedure with analyzes any manual operation or method into the basic motions required to perform it and assigns to each motion a predetermined time standard which is determined by the nature of the motion and the conditions under which it is made."
It is a simple concept. A method is simply a set of motions (sequenced and logical). The MTM system works best if the method is selected first as the time required will be determined from the motions that make up that method. That is the methods must be set before the task times can be set, since the time and method are integrally related.
Maynard used a time unit of .00001 hours as a unit of measure. This was called a time measurement unit and was used as it could be easily converted to hours. This unit was probably derived from the films that were taken. When filmed at 16 frames per second, each frame represented about .0625 seconds or .00001737 hours.
Although the time units are not typical of those used on a construction
site, the basic ideas can definitely be applied to construction.
Perhaps a larger time unit would be justified. Perhaps a bit of ingenuity
can still add to what has been learned.