QUANTITY PRODUCTION AND STANDARDIZATION.

THE SPIRIT OF INDIVIDUALISM.

Great Britain has always been a country of extreme individualism, and this characteristic has had a marked effect upon its industrial life. Measured by American standards, its plants are in smaller units, while the variety of its output is greater. Despite the growth of the joint-stock company movement, individual and family proprietorship still persists. This spirit of individualism is shared by employers and employees alike. Employers have adhered to old types and methods, or have developed along new lines, or have copied from rivals, as they saw fit. Individual employees, actuated by a spirit of workmanship, have continued in touch with whole series of processes in preference to specialization upon a few; and, from motives less laudable, but often justified by their experience, they have been able to prevent the introduction of labor-saving methods and appliances or to neutralize the effect of their adoption.

THE WAR AND ITS LESSON.

During the war the urgent need for the production of great quantities of munitions and for the conservation of man power brought about changes that are likely to be permanent. These changes included the use of larger plants and semiautomatic and repetition machinery, specialization upon a smaller number of types, standardization of design and interchangeability of parts, and finer divisibility of labor. "Scientific management" has become a subject of wide interest. Publishers are putting out "efficiency" series; lecturers are expounding the benefits of proper industrial organization, motionstudy, and cost accounting; and the "efficiency engineer" is abroad in the land, though there is some tendency to decry the use of the term as "too American."

It must not be supposed that there had been no progress along these lines before the war. There are well-established enterprises in several lines that have developed the principles of standardization and quantity production to a degree unexcelled elsewhere; but these are exceptions, and one of the most conspicuous concerns has been built up by men, who, while British, are of alien blood.

EMPHASIS ON AMERICAN EXAMPLE.

The best evidence of the general interest in the subject is to be found in a number of reports issued within the last few years by the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Board of Trade, and other branches of the Government on the position of various trades after the war. They set forth the acknowledged need for betterment and the unsatisfactory progress made in comparison with other countries, particularly Germany and America. The unexpected completeness of Germany's defeat, which became apparent only after most of

these reports were written, has served to increase interest in American accomplishments and to arouse concern as to the relative equipment of Great Britain and the United States for the production of goods for sale in competitive markets. It is important, therefore, that American manufacturers and merchants should be informed; and this can be most readily done by presenting authoritative statements with reference to specific industries.

ELECTRICAL TRADES.

Probably the most conspicuous example of lack of standardization is to be found in electrical appliances. In London, for example, one can not purchase a simple electric bulb without specifying the particular type of socket to be used. A universal design would seem to be the first essential if a wide market is desired; yet in the report of the Board of Trade Committee on the Electrical Trades (April 18, 1917) there is but a single (and incidental) mention of standardization. This committee advocated the amalgamation or at least the association of the various companies engaged in the industry, and continued:

By association it would be possible to manufacture each class of apparatus in the most suitable factory, the management of which would thus be concentrated on its own specialty instead of being wasted on a variety of products. It is essential that output should be thus consolidated instead of remaining in the hands of a number of weak concerns, many of which, moreover, have further reduced their competitive power by dabbling in a variety of productions. * * *

An important advantage resulting from such combination would be the extension of standardization, which, the committee considers, is of the highest importance from a national as well as from an international point of view. It is to be hoped that the Government will do its utmost in future to accept recognized standard plant, as its example in the past in calling for modifications has had a pernicious effect on all other buyers.

IRON AND STEEL TRADES.

In the report of the Board of Trade Committee on the Iron and Steel Trades (June 13, 1917) the importance of production on a large scale is stressed, and it is declared that "large manufacturing units with economical production have enabled American manufacturers to drive British firms out of export markets for standard products such as barbed wire." Here, again, a closer association of organizations is advocated:

The American and German iron and steel industries are of relatively recent growth and have throughout been organized for large-scale production. The individualism of the British character has often led the iron and steel manufacturers to prefer to retain control over a small and relatively inefficient work rather than pool their brains and capital to the greater ultimate advantage of the industry. The United States Steel Corporation alone controls an output of iron and steel greater than the whole production of the United Kingdom. These immense concentrations of capital are the normal form of industrial organization in America and Germany, but are nonexistent in Great Britain.

The iron and steel manufacturers of Germany and America have developed their industries on an immense scale, aiming at the production of uniform articles rather than variety of output. Large units specially designed for cheap production have been laid down. On the other hand, expansion in the United Kingdom has generally meant the remodeling and extension of existing works. * * *

To organize upon modern lines the iron and steel production of Great Britain demands a radical reconstruction of the commercial and industrial system. The problem is one of national importance. The iron and steel industries of Great Britain must raise themselves to a point of productiveness and efficiency at which they will bear comparison with their competitors in Germany and America. This purpose can not be achieved with instruments too old and too weak for the function which they have to perform.

** *

In order to attain this purpose the steel production of this country must reach 15,000,000 ingot tons per year. This means the laying down of complete new units, blast furnaces, coke ovens, steel furnaces, rolling mills. The plants themselves must be designed on such a scale that continued expansion is easily possible, and expansion should take the form of the filling out of a predetermined design and not of successive accretions to existing plants.

Little is said of the matter of standardization as such. However, complaint is made that "the British iron and steel industries have suffered considerably by reason of the comparative want of uniformity in the requirements of British consulting and supervising engineers," and it is declared that "the sizes and weights of sections used in shipbuilding, bridge and structural engineering are too numerous and should be revised by competent joint committees of manufacturers, engineers, and users."

SHIPBUILDING.

The position of the shipbuilding and marine engineering industry, as described in the second report of the Board of Trade Committee on Shipping and Shipbuilding (July, 1917) is more satisfactory, as might be expected; but the spirit of excessive individualism is again singled out for adverse comment:

We have made careful inquiries into the question how far it is desirable and feasible to standardize ships and their various component parts with a view to increasing output and reducing cost of production. The problem of standardization in normal times is in some measure different from the problem of standardization in times like the present, since the question of the suitability of a vessel for the particular trade in which it is to be used becomes in war time subordinate to the rapid completion of the largest possible tonnage.

During the last few months, special attention has been given by the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee appointed by the Shipping Controller to the quick and economical production of new tonnage. Standard vessels and standard engines have been designed, and are being built by a large number of firms; and the experience gained so far indicates that, under normal conditions, successful results might be achieved on similar lines. It should, however, be borne in mind that after the war efforts at increased standardization will rest with individual builders and not with the Government.

Standardization had been carried to considerable lengths before the war in details of outfit and even to the extent of building complete standard designed vessels. Generally, however, standardization had been carried out works by works, and naturally in ordinary cargo boats alone.

As in the case of the hulls of cargo vessels, so with marine engines, a considerable amount of standardization has been effected within the works of individual firms building marine engines, and we learn from the evidence of one of the witnesses that an effort is being made further to standardize marine engines of the reciprocating type for cargo vessels. This standardization has taken the form of a guidance specification and is being drawn up under the auspices of the North-East Coast Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders.

In any type of engine such as is adopted for the plain cargo boat, where the general design is similar, difference being chiefly of detail, the universal use of such a specification should tend to an increase and cheapening of production. In the case of turbines and oil engines, where design is still in the early stages of development, standardization is more difficult, but should be attempted.

We view any movement toward standardization with satisfaction and are of opinion that further effort should be made to secure progressive standardization

in all directions. We are aware of the very valuable work which has been done by the engineering standards committee for the benefit of shipbuilding and marine engineering, in which work shipbuilders and engineers have taken a large part, and we therefore recommend that the Government suggest to shipowners, shipbuilders, and marine engineers the desirability of forming a joint committee under the engineering standards committee to consider these proposals.

Shipbuilders and marine engineers who gave evidence before us considered that the question of increased standardization of production depended largely upon shipowners and their marine superintendents, and that it had not hitherto been practicable to carry it so far as it could have been, had shipowners and their technical advisers been prepared to forego insistence on their own ideas in general design and details. It is for this reason that we recommend that shipowners (or their representatives) be joined with shipbuilders and marine engineers on the above standards committee. We recognize, however, that, even so far as cargo-carrying vessels are concerned, the extent of standardization as to dimensions and general design must necessarily be limited in ordinary peace times by difference of the draft of water at various ports, variations in cargo itself, speed requirements, etc.

RAILWAY EQUIPMENT.

The need for standardization is nowhere more evident than in the case of railway equipment. It is true that individual companies have begun to institute reforms. One which now has 33 types of locomotives has developed three standard types, and has also largely standardized locomotive parts such as connecting rods, coupling rods, piston rods, injectors, and cylinders.

Standardization as between companies has also been considered by committees appointed by the Association of Railway Locomotive Engineers one on locomotive standardization, the other on wagon and carriage standardization. Only a partial statement of the results is available, from which it appears that two standard types of locomotives have been approved and that two engines of each type are to be designed, one light and one heavy, with many of the parts common to all four.

This is evidence that the railway interests recognize the necessity for reform, and as the companies themselves build the major part of their locomotives the outlook is promising. However, there is a tendency just now to depreciate the immediate introduction of new types of standard locomotives on account of the new jigs, patterns, and templates that would be required and the increase in the number of parts to be kept in stock. As to the locomotives purchased from outside manufacturers, it is agreed that economy could be effected and output increased if certain parts were to be standardized for all railway companies-for example, wheels, axles, wheel curves, and tires, as well as running gear, draw gear, buffing gear. bogies, brakes, and underframes.

It has been pointed out by the Board of Trade Committee on the Engineering Trades (March 21, 1917,) that the locomotive manufacturers exist almost wholly upon foreign trade because of the practice of home railways in building their own equipment, and that standardization would give the country a firmer hold upon the export market. "German manufacturers, like American 1 manufacturers, largely build locomotives from stock," says this committee.

1 This is true only in the case of certain small models for industrial use.

"No such method of manufacture is possible with the British maker, as the British engineers employed by foreign railways almost inevitably require small alterations of their own, so that a number of distinct patterns and templates are necessary, and separate working plans and drawings are required for almost each locomotive produced. The waste is considerable; the additional value obtained by the railway company is problematical."

This subject was also considered by a section of the advisory council of the Ministry of Reconstruction, from whose brief report (July 4, 1918) the following illuminating statement is presented, showing the unfortunate results of unbridled individualism:

Competition between the big railways has tended to progress on the whole, but has resulted in quite unnecessary multiplication of types. The evidence before us showed that on British railways there are 200 different types of axle boxes; that every railway company has adopted different types of tires, springs, and axles; that there are over 40 variations of the ordinary wagon hand brake; that although the railway companies have laid down standard dimensions governing the construction of private owners' wagon stock, as to their own wagons they claim independence of action, and do not comply with the clearing-house regulations; and we would call attention to the fact that there are two different systems of continuous brakes involving a dual brake fitment in the cast of stock that has to be run over lines where the systems are different. In no other country has individuality been allowed so much free scope, with the result that British railways are severely handicapped, and the working of them is not so economical as it might be.

Other countries have not suffered as much from this riot of individuality, because almost without exception locomotives and rolling stock are purchased from private firms or manufacturers.

As might be expected the advisory council indorsed the idea of standardization, but it did not confine its recommendations to the domestic railways. It viewed the situation internationally, and recommended "that the consulting engineers and representatives of railways financed by British capital in foreign parts and in the Dominions be brought together to confer with the locomotive and wagon manufacturers in this country to determine what standardization can be effected, and that, with a view to the possibility of effecting partial international standardization, the separate committees should take cognizance of each other's investigations."

Should this last suggestion be carried out, not only standardization but a raising of standards in Great Britain would be the certain result, for progress has been greater in some of the outlying portions of the Empire than in the mother country. The Canadian Pacific Railway at once suggests itself as far in advance of British railways in many particulars. Standardization has been adopted by railways in India, and in South Africa there are freight cars of steel. În Great Britain the rolling stock is generally of wood, and the freight cars are small and uneconomical." We would call attention to the amount of deadweight carried on the British railways," said the advisory council. The tare of an 8-ton wagon built to clearing house regulations is 70 per cent of the load, as against 40 to 45 per cent of the wagons of other countries."

The situation is further complicated by multiplicity of ownership. Of the 1,400,000 "goods wagons" (freight cars) nearly half, or 650,000, are privately owned, and under the old law their owners have a right to continue to use them. Private cars are repaired under long-term contracts by repairing firms which are stocked up with