Appeals and Investigations. The question of a workman appealing against a job rate is one justifying serious consideration. No arguments are required to support the contention that such appeals should be listened to. If they are not, unrest follows, and workers feel they are denied elementary justice. The usual and logical practice is for the appeal to be made to the production estimator, who, if he be fitted to fix job rates, and the appeal be based on genuine grounds, should be able either to convince the worker that he is mistaken or be convinced that he himself has made a mistake which requires rectification. Failing this, the shop foreman's opinion may reasonably be sought and in the absence of mutual agreement, a further appeal to the chief production estimator in a large works, or alternately, the works manager, should be definitely recognised as the worker's right. It is in such cases as this that the need for a mind of the right calibre becomes patent in the person of this official. Where he is wisely chosen and a straightforward honest policy be followed, very little trouble should be experienced. There is a tendency, however, to view this question of appeal in a wrong light, to assume that a grievance can only arise on the part of the worker, and, if none should be voiced, to consider all is well. Elaborate arrangements for appeal committees or the like are sometimes made whereby these voiced grievances can be investigated, and seeing that the activities of such an arrangement are always started by workmen, it is more or less necessary sometimes, whether right or wrong, to make concessions, if only to prove bona fides. Such an arrangement takes no note of cases where the worker may not have done a fair day's work, and consequently failed to earn the extra pay he is expected to earn. Any job which takes longer than is estimated should, as a matter of efficient administraF 62. tion, be investigated independently of workers' complaints. Records F 61. of all performances are necessary to achieve this end satisfactorily. If it be found that the job rate is insufficient, the same should be corrected, or, if special difficulties were encountered which were outside the worker's control, extra allowances should be made. On the other hand, where there were no extenuating circumstances justifying the excess, the worker should be brought to realise that he was at fault and would be expected to improve. While investigation can advisedly be all embracing, it would not be either politic or fair to take any steps implying a reprimand of the worker on isolated performances. By full investigation, the employer would be able to follow a straightforward policy, which, as it became known by the workers, would be respected as having right aims and be trusted accordingly. Collective bargaining, by which rates for the different jobs are Appeals and Investigafixed in conference between shop representatives or delegates and tions the management, may be thought to obviate appeals afterwards, but, excepting with highly repetition work, it is hardly practicable in working, being not only costly, but entailing much loss of time and output, as well as causing considerable delay in the administrative routine. A method sometimes practised for proving the correctness of a disputed job rate is an actual demonstration by the ratefixer, but this method is not fair to the ratefixer or the firm as the former is not likely to have the same familiarity with the machine to be operated as the worker has. The step-by-step method of estimating time allowances, set out previously, affords a basis for discussion of job rates that will be found altogether superior to any attempt at demonstration. It goes further and makes collective bargaining quite unnecessary as a safeguard against harsh job rates. Indeed the spirit of bargaining ought not to enter into rate-fixing, although this is not yet the case in many firms owing to their inadequate understanding of the principles of production estimating. The step-by-step method is the only safeguard against inconsistency in job rates. The fact that some jobs are fat" and some "lean" induces endless heart-burning and disaffection, even if the so-called "lean " job rate can be demonstrated as in itself fair and reasonable. Definition. Standardisation of Tools. II E TOOLS AND GAUGES PROVISION AND CUSTODY THE subject of tools generally in relation to production resolves itself into two divisions, viz., tool provision and tool custody. By the term tools is meant the loose equipment necessary to the operations of production, including therein the gauges necessary to obtain correct production. They comprise the tools of the hand-worker equally with the machine-worker, and while it might be correct to describe the former as hand tools it would not do to describe the latter as machine tools, but rather as machining tools. Machine tool signifies the machine itself used for performing formative operations on the work by means of tools; thus, a drilling machine is a machine tool utilising a drill as the operative tool, with probably the aid of accessory tools in the form of jigs or fixings for holding the work. A jig is primarily a device for ensuring the interchangeability of the work done, though it may be termed a jig when its usefulness only extends to facilitating the holding of the work relative to the tool and is really a fixing. It will be convenient for the purpose of discussion to consider loose equipment peculiar to the production of particular components as special, and therefore "non-standard," in contradistinction to tools that have a more general application and may, therefore, be called "standard." It is not altogether necessary that in any given works "standard" tools shall conform to any other than a purely local standard. The distinction might be, perhaps, better conveyed by the terms "special" and" ordinary," though the principle of standardisation ought to be kept always in view, and so far as practicable, trade standards should have preference over purely local works standards. In some works, for instance, a tap of any pitch or diameter once made is held to be a standard tool, and screw threads of the particular dimensions are supposed to be thereafter standard screw threads. This is unsound practice as leading to the perpetuation Standardisa- To produce standard dimensions of work. It is highly important that standardisation of design shall be developed on lines at least favourable to the standardisation of tools. In the case of mass production the consideration may be less important in that the supply of tools may have to be on such a scale as to create in themselves an obvious local standard. In that case, too, less weight needs to be given to the possibilities of buying tools ready-made—a practice that the high quality of tools now on the market very properly encourages, to the mutual advantage of both parties. The most important stage in the development of the tool organisation of any works is the preparation of a standard tool list, and this must be agreed with the drawing office if it is to be really effective. It must be possible to add to the list as occasion arises. Assuming such a reference list, tables can be prepared for drawing office use showing the range of dimensions accepted as standard. It is more important to aim at adopting a table of sizes in accordance with existing tools-sizes thus confirmed as having local application —rather than setting out to acquire a tool equipment adequate to cover a range of sizes that may never be brought into use completely. Provision. When the design of a component is in the final " pencil" stage, Tool much advantage to production might result from conference between the chief designer, tool designer and production estimator. Whether in the pencil stage or in the photo print stage, all designs must come under review by some suitable person for the purpose of settling what jigs and special tools must be put in hand. At this point the manufacturing policy must bear fruit and guide the amount of expenditure appropriate to each case. There may be little or no option as to much of the expenditure if the component is to be made even approximately interchangeable, while mass production conditions are usually necessary to justify the recognition of every possibility in the way of reducing manufacturing costs. The exercise of this judgment is largely the expression of efficient works management, but the task is commonly no light one. The works manager may be expected to achieve his end through the medium of the tool designer, though the production estimator, in P 88. p. 9. P. 23. Tool p. 90. F 58. a given case, might have the better qualifications for exercising discretion. In some works the responsibility is put wholly, or nearly so, on the departmental foreman. This may be right in certain cases, even to the extent of letting the foremen design the jigs and tools, but generally speaking, the right line to take is to utilise the services of a specialist and rely on obtaining a high average efficiency by virtue of his special knowledge and opportunities. This high average may be a more satisfactory net result than occasional exceptional performances by foremen, who have so many calls on their time, that prolonged concentration on one aspect of the shop management, as summed up in tool designing, is hardly possible for them, or altogether desirable, if it were possible. Apart from the provision of jigs and cutting tools, consideration should be given to the gauges necessary to ensure adherence to dimensions. Following from this, the adoption of a system of limits on the lines discussed elsewhere has an important bearing on the special provision necessary, and the whole question of standardisation of dimensions will be seen to affect expenditure in various directions. Where the tooling equipment is at all important in relation to production efficiency, it may be taken as sound practice to draw up a tools provided list as early as possible after the issue of each drawing to the Works. This list must needs take cognisance of the sequence of operations and therein is apt to lie a stumbling block if the foreman is not the sponsor for this sequence. It can be argued that improvement in shop practice is prevented by fixing the sequence of operations, but against that must be set the fact that proficiency usually comes from practice, which continual variation of operation sequence puts out of the question. Obviously, considerable knowledge is required, if these operation sequences are to be drawn up to better purpose than the chance decision of the shops: Although actual tool design is not the province of the production estimator he is certainly likely to be the best man to draw up tools provided lists. To be fitted for his post he must be fully qualified to indicate where standard tools apply and the type of jigs, special tools and gauges required. The formality of the routine, necessitating as it does a notification of the tools contemplated, to the foreman concerned with the ultimate use of the tools, and an instruction to the tool designer to design the same, can be made a cause of delay and trouble if there is not proper co-operation between all parties. The difficulty that is apt to arise when decisions have to be written down is the implied necessity for having convictions as to what is right and taking the trouble to put them into words. The natural |