In industry on the other hand, previous to the industrial revolution (if we except such works as the building of the pyramids and of the cathedrals and similar construction proj ects) we find no grouped labor. Passing through the successive stages of industrial development as described by Bucher, of housework, wage work, handicraft and commission work, and up until the development of the factory sys tem, we find production carried on entirely by individuals or small groups of home-workers. The problems of control —as expressed in organization — therefore were extremely sim ple and in many cases non-existent, seldom necessitating more than a one-man organization and perhaps entirely naturally the organization of the army served as the model and was literally copied by those engaged in industry.
With the rise of the factory system of pro duction, however, conditions were revolu tionized. Then arose the intricate questions of human relations and material management out lined in the opening paragraphs. The problems encountered were far different from those of warfare, not the least significant of which was the substitution in industry of duty and the good of the individual, for the idea of force and the good of the state which forms the background of military discipline and control.
It is, however, perhaps not strange that the traditional forms of organization of the army should have still been embodied wholesale in the activities of industry, where they remained firmly entrenched until comparatively recently. It was not until near the last of the past cen tury that these fundamental differences as be tween military and industrial aims and methods became consciously recognized and embodied in the various forms of industrial organization which are offered to-day as more nearly ap plicable to industrial needs. In closing the discussion of organization, bare mention may be made of these modern tendencies and fur ther details must be sought in the numerous writings on the subject. One of the earlier forms was the committee system. This exists in two forms — the committee with power to enforce its decisions and the committee with advisory duties only. In the latter case the organization retains most of the disadvantages of the staff, with few compensating advantages.
Both forms are found to a limited extent in industry to-day. The departmental and the divisional forma differ somewhat in operation, but are little more than the extension of the principle of division of labor. None of these forms of organization necessarily differs in principle or operation from the regular line form of the military. A fundamental depar ture from the military, however, is found in the modern functional organization devised by Mr. Taylor in connection with the develop ment of scientific management. Here the staff idea is utilized, but with this fundamental dif ference: in the staff the individual expert per forms an advisory function only, while in the Taylor functional these same experts are given administrative authority to embody the results of their knowledge in orders issued direct to men under them as regards their particular sphere of action. Under conditions where this form of organization is necessary and applicable, surprising results are secured.
So much for the various forms of organiza tion from which the factory manager must choose that best adapted to his particular cir cumstances. Of the other broad division of factory management as an art—the directing, the management of personnel and material— little need be said. Sufficient outline of the various factors to be considered has been sug gested to give an insight into the nature of the problems involved. The problems of finance, of division of duties, of delegation of authority and responsibility, of purchasing, of storage of materials, of planning, of shop ad ministration, of cost, of central control of all of these and the innumerable other necessary activities of the modern factory—all such questions arise in never-ending variety in the management of the plant — problems nowise different intrinsically from those of organiza tion previously discussed, and problems re quiring for their proper solution the same care ful analysis and the same adherence to fun damental principles of proved soundness and practicability. See FACTORY SYSTEM ; LABOR