at the back of the main floor, and beyond them the two upright drills were placed, and still further beyond the sensitive drill H. Beyond this were located the bolt cutter L and the chucking lathe D. A large radial drill was added at T, and a vertical boring mill at U. The old-time suspension drill at G was replaced by a modern "railroad" drill at V, that is, one over the shop track upon which was fitted a special truck for supporting heavy lathe beds to be drilled. An ordinary jib crane was set up at W, for the use of the planers.

By this arrangement most of the castings were received at the door S, weighed on the scale located there, and then moved on shop cars to the large

FIG. 211.- Plan of Department as Re-arranged for Greater Efficiency.

planers. Beds were scraped and afterwards drilled at V, and sent on shop cars to the erecting floor. Work requiring the use of the radial drill or the vertical boring mill was handled near the point of receiving castings and sent on in the same way. Face plates and spindles were finished on machines near each other and forwarded over the same line. Forgings were received through the door P and sent over the shop tracks to whatever machines were to perform the next operations upon them. Thus nearly all the work, particularly all the heavy work, was kept moving in the same direction toward the erecting floor, and the finished machines shipped out of the door at X.

By this arrangement there were no blockades, the cost of transporting materials was enormously reduced, and the output of the shop very considerably increased. An annual outlay of nearly $4000 for handling material was reduced to less than one-fourth of that amount and the work of the shop ran smoothly and satisfactorily.

The discarding of the six lathes paid for the vertical boring mill and the radial drill added, so that there was only the expense of the change from the old suspension drill to the railroad drill to add to equipment expenses, other than the shop tracks and cars and the two cranes, all of which were made in the shop. These were paid for out of the savings in transporting and shipping during the first twelve months and quite a balance left on the right side of the ledger.

Such results, or those of similar nature, can nearly always be achieved in very many of the older shops by systematic planning of machine operations, re-arranging the machines to suit a proper sequence of operations necessary for efficient and economical work, and providing proper transportation facilities. The subject so treated will tend greatly to increase the efficiency of the machines.

CHAPTER XXXIV

INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF MEN

Many methods for increasing the efficiency of men. Direct and indirect methods.

Classification of methods. Special rewards. Personal instruction. Planning machine operations. Better machines, attachments, and tools. Better drawings. System of payments. Personal interest in the work. Agreeable shop conditions. The Bonus System. The Premium Plan. The Piece Work Plan. Requirements for a successful system. Causes of dissatisfaction. Shop operation sheets. Selection of Foremen.

THERE are many methods by which we may increase the efficiency of the men employed in the average manufacturing establishment. These will quite naturally fall into one of the two classes as follows, namely:

First. Methods directly affecting efficiency.

Second. Methods indirectly affecting efficiency.

Of methods which may properly be included in the first class, those tending directly to increase efficiency, we have:

(a) By giving him a special reward for performing an amount of good work over and above that which has been determined to be a fair day's work. This is commonly called "the bonus plan."

(b) By personal instruction as to the best methods by which the operative may handle his work.

(c) By planning machine operations and describing them clearly upon Shop Operation Sheets.

(d) By providing the operative with better machines, attachments, and tools.

(e) By providing better, clearer, and more easily understood drawings than those of former years.

Of matters and methods which operate indirectly to increase the workman's efficiency the more important will be:

(a) By adopting a system of payments that is agreeable to him as to methods and time intervals.

(b) By increasing his personal interest in his work.

(c) By making shop conditions more agreeable to him.

Referring to direct methods of increasing the efficiency of the workman, it may confidently be said that experience has amply proved that the greatest incentive to a workman is a special reward for unusual effort in turning out

his work. This work is sought to be accomplished by the Bonus System, the Premium Plan, and the Piece Work Plan, etc. Each of these has its essential principle, intended more or less to interest the workman as well as to benefit the concern.

The work for daily wages, without regard to the kind of work or the amount of the output, is usually monotonous and unsatisfactory to a man ambitious to better his condition. He may endeavor, by demonstrating his ability and energy, to attract the attention of his superiors and so lead to an increase in his pay. In this he is often disappointed, and all the more when he thinks he sees another man getting more pay for less effort and ability. The result is liable to be discouragement and a lessening of the output.

The Piece Work Plan is intended to remedy some of these difficulties. Sometimes it has done so, but frequently it has only served to aggravate them, depending to a considerable extent upon how it was managed. The results sought by this plan were:

First. To reduce the actual cost of the work to the employer.

Second. To insure a fixed cost which might be used as a basis in calculating total labor costs.

Third. To lower the amount and therefore the unit cost of supervision of the work by providing an incentive to the workman to use greater interest and energy in performing it.

Fourth. To increase the output of the plant.

Generally speaking, the question of the financial interest of the workman has seemed to receive rather slight consideration. The principal thought of the employer has appeared to be, at least from the workman's point of view, that of reducing the cost per piece to a less figure than it had been by the day pay plan, and to assure himself of a fixed price.

The plan is to have all mechanical work done "by the piece," whether it was a single operation by hand or machine, the entire work of making a single piece, or the making and assembling of a group of parts. As in day work the employer furnished everything but labor, although occasionally the workman furnished such small consumable tools as files, etc. The promise held out to the workman was that by a little extra effort he would be enabled to add considerably to his wages.

The success of the piece work plan depended almost entirely upon the accuracy with which the piece work rate was determined, and, secondly, on how well the rate fixed was adhered to, when the workman's wages were increased beyond what the employer thought was reasonable. The usual methods were crude and inefficient in comparison with those now in use. Generally the rate was based upon the ordinary output of a day's work on the day rate plan, and therefore computed by the interested workman him

The

self. "Working for a rate" became the usual comment on a slow man. result was that piece work rates were usually set much too high at the outset. This angered the employer, who retaliated by cutting the rate, generally to a lower point than it should have been. Then the workman would object and threaten to quit. Perhaps the next man "working for a rate" would do a fairer day's work, and the employer, remembering his former experience, would set the rate so low that even a good man could not make day pay at it. The difficulty might be patched up, but the situation was very likely to become an armed truce in which each party watched the other suspiciously. Friendly relations between the employer and the workmen were destroyed and the piece work plan was discredited by both.

The causes which were contributing factors to this condition appear to be as follows:

rates.

First. An improper system, or lack of system, for fixing piece work

Second. The desire of the employer to make the rate as low as possible, or at least so that the workman should be able to earn little more than day pay, yet to turn out considerably more work.

Third. The desire of the workman so to manipulate conditions as to get as high a rate as possible notwithstanding his past experience that "a cut" would follow. All this is wrong in theory and worse in practice. The ethics of good business teaches us that no plan of adjusting the differences between the employer and the workman will long endure and give satisfaction that does not equitably provide for the mutual financial benefit of both parties without encroaching upon the rights of either. This is no visionary theory, but rather a condition that may be realized if proper methods are pursued and modern systems made use of. The importance of the question demands the greatest care and consideration in its solution. Like the development of all valuable methods and systems, it will cost something, although it should not be expensive as compared with the benefits that will accrue from it.

There are three methods for accurately determining equitably the piece work rate for the workman. The first method is that described of using the output of a workman on a day rate basis.

The second plan is to have the work done, not by the men who are afterward to do the work at the piece work rate determined, but by two different reliable and skilled mechanics, and then to average the results. This makes a much fairer, but usually a rather close rate when the work is done by the average operator.

The third plan is to carefully calculate the time of every movement in the various operations and to simplify them until every unnecessary waste