Manufacturing operations have been classified as unsystema tized, systematized and scientific. Work may be systematized when it is relatively very simple and with little or no variation, each worker doing the same thing continuously, and using little or no machinery, so that the flow of work is automatic. Cigar-making by hand is an example of such an industry. Also complicated work may be carried through in such large volume as to make possible minute subdivision of it, each worker performing a simple opera tion upon a single part as it reaches him on a moving conveyor. This last is mass production, and is systematized as an incident to or as a necessary consequence of the volume of the work. But it will be apparent that scientific management differs radically from all of these, not only because it is applicable in some degree to practically every kind of work, but also because, like every true science it is based not upon notions or traditions, but upon facts developed by careful study with a definite object.
Forms and Reports.—Among the blank forms used in scien tific management is the work-ticket, on which an assignment of work to be done, and its accomplishment, are recorded, and which, when the specified work has been finished, forms the basis of the pay-roll and of the cost accounting; the balance of stores cards, which are the basis of the perpetual inventory and show at all times, not only the stock on hand but when the order point for additional material has been reached, and render unnecessary an annual inventory. The use of these and other forms is not, however, scientific management, but only a part of its mechanism. But there must go with these mechanisms that state of mind or that attitude which inspires mutual confidence and a feeling of partnership in an enterprise in which success comes to those who achieve actual results and not through favouritism.
Cost of Idleness.—Though Gantt was not, perhaps, the first to note the great importance of the idleness of equipment, he was the first who called attention to its importance and made manufacturers realize that a machine-tool standing idle is a burden of cost; and to point out that the cost of this idleness should be known to the management, though it should not be included in the cost of the work actually done. All possible effort should be made to reduce the idleness of equipment and, when estimating the cost of work in prospect or determining the cost of what has been done, only charges for the equipment actually used should be made. Entering this cost in the profits and loss
account, where it belongs, does not, of course, lessen the actual loss; but it eliminates the chance of self-deception, and brings into view actual facts that are otherwise concealed and often seriously misleading—particularly when preparing cost estimates in competitive business, or in making financial statements.
Influence of Gantt.—Both Taylor and Gantt declined to work with owners who were not willing to share the benefits of improved production with their workers. But with all of Taylor's intellectual keenness and in spite of his excellent intentions he was not a good psychologist. He had difficulty in perceiving why a proposition made by him, and which he believed to be entirely fair and even advantageous to the workers, should not be readily accepted by them, and their co-operation secured forthwith. Gantt, who worked with Taylor for a number of years, was well and broadly educated, but had had no industrial experience. Some time after he had been in practice on his own account, he became consultant to a group of factories in which the so-called human element had received much attention. His task was to unify the varying management systems and gradually supplant them with the Taylor system modified somewhat by his personal experience. It soon became apparent that, in order to make satisfactory prog ress, Gantt had to be relieved of all responsibility for bringing minor executives and employees "into line." Taylor's unmodified system showed weaknesses where it came into contact with f ore men who had been in the habit of thinking, making suggestions and having them met with at least appreciative attention. These men lost interest at first and had to be taken in hand by some one whom they knew, and in whom they had confidence. After his work was completed, Gantt declared that this, the largest and most important installation made by him, was also the easiest, and the most suc cessful, because he had the interested co-operation of everyone. Gantt had learned a great truth—that it is better to enlist, at the beginning, the interest of the workers and foremen by giving them recognition and a part to perform. The entry of the United States into the World War forced Gantt into what may be called a new and much better method of approach ; one which is in accord with the demonstrated fact that, at least in America, most of the losses called industrial wastes are attributable to faults for which management and not the workers, is responsible.