improvements in administration and methods have been made by many engineers and managers, and not a few of them have been developed by a method which might truly be called scientific. Where, then, can we draw the line between modern management in general and what has come to be known technically as "scientific management"?

Out of the mass of engineers and managers who are responsible for present-day methods, there has grown a group originating with Mr. Frederick W. Taylor of Philadelphia, who have perceived certain principles underlying the practices of management hitherto unrelated and uncoördinated. A collation of isolated successful experiments in various details of factory administration and methods has apparently shown a possibility of classification and generalization. Such classification and generalization are the basis for the development of a science, and the term "scientific management" is applied generally to the body of principles deduced from experience by Mr. Taylor, and the engineers associated with and trained by him, and to the methods by which the resultant principles are applied to industry. "Scientific management," therefore, is distinctively scientific, since it aims to correlate and systematize all the best of modern developments in factory administration, and to push development further in accordance with the principles discovered.1

On the basis of this definition it is not difficult to select that portion of the large current literature of factory management which deals with scientific management from that other portion which describes and outlines the many unrelated improvements, methods,

Mr. Charles B. Going has published an article, "The Efficiency Movement — an Outline," Transactions, The Efficiency Society, vol. 1, p. 11, showing the place of scientific management in the modern developments of factory organization and pointing out the common element in many movements.

and principles which are continually being evolved. The literature of scientific management as such is that which has been published by those who approach the subject in a scientific manner. Of these Mr. Taylor is the acknowledged pioneer and leader both in practice and theory.1

The literature of scientific management is found in a few books written by practitioners of the science, a few official reports growing out of disputes as to railroad rates and labor difficulties, technical articles which have appeared in the transactions of engineering societies and in engineering and other technical magazines, and a considerable mass of "popular" articles written to satisfy the recent widespread popular interest in the subject.

These books and articles may be classified, for the purposes of the present review, in six groups.

The first group includes those incidental to or dealing with the development and theory of scientific management as a whole. It consists of the original publications of the pioneers and such popular statements as reveal a clear grasp of the movement.2

The second group includes descriptions of scientific management in operation, written as a rule by managers of plants which have developed the system.

As a result of the injection of scientific management into the discussion of railroad rates, there has arisen a considerable body of literature on the possibility of the application of the system to railroads. This is of sufficient consequence to constitute the third class.

In the fourth class are the many detailed descriptions of methods which are either distinctive of scientific 1 With the possible sporadic exception of Charles Babbage, whose book, The Economy of Manufactures, was published in 1832, fifty years ahead of its time.

2 Many of the popular articles are evident pot-boilers, too ill-considered and ephemeral to be worthy of discussion and preservation.

management, or, tho not peculiar to scientific management, coördinated and assimilated by it into its own system.

Those methods of scientific management which affect most directly the human factor in production have stimulated a literature which is of sufficient importance to warrant being put into a fifth class by itself.

In the sixth and last group is the series of discussions dealing with the relation of scientific management to organized labor.

The more important books and articles are discussed briefly in the text. Others not sufficiently distinctive or noteworthy to call for special review, but important for students of the movement, are referred to in the notes. The text and notes together cover nearly ninety per cent of all that has been published on the subject in English.

1. DEVELOPMENT AND THEORY OF SCIENTIFIC

MANAGEMENT AS A WHOLE

In 1832, Charles Babbage, the eminent mathematician, published a book 1 in which he attempted to deduce from the practice of manufacturing as it existed in his time, the general underlying principles which apparently controlled it. This piece of work, tho crude in the light of modern advance, was so far ahead of the state of contemporary manufacturing intelligence that its significance was entirely overlooked, and it is only today that the force of his analysis is evident. Altho it does not appear that the modern group of scientific managers are in the slightest degree indebted to Babbage's work, it is interesting to observe in it the suggestion of the extension of specialization beyond manual labor to

1 The Economy of Manufactures. London, 1832. (Out of print.)

mental labor, which is at the basis of the Taylor doctrines of functional foremanship and the separation of planning from execution. Babbage also foreshadows the use of timing as an aid in the development of processes; but in this he was not so fortunate, and the undeveloped method he used is not even remotely connected with modern time study.

The important stimulus to the modern development is found in the work of a group of managers and engineers, members of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, who drew the attention of their fellowmembers to the influence of wages on the output of workmen. The earliest of these was Mr. Henry R. Towne, president of the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company. Mr. Towne has always been essentially a thinker in industry. Early in the '80s he wrote a paper1 which was a plea for the technically trained engineer to concern himself in the financial and profit making aspects of management - to be an economist" because he effects economies. As a result of taking his own advice in his own plant, and after a realization of the practical inefficiency of profit sharing as an incentive to production, Mr. Towne evolved 2 and described a modified type of profit sharing which he called "Gain Sharing." It consisted in modifying profit sharing by applying it to departments instead of to the business as a whole, and basing it upon demonstrable gains in the efficiency of departments as evidenced by careful accounting. Out of the discussion of this paper grew practically the entire modern literature on wage systems as incentives.

Prominent on this subject were the papers of Mr.

"The Engineer as Economist," Transactions, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 7, p. 425. These transactions will be abbreviated hereafter Trans. A. S. M. E.

Gain Sharing," Trans. A. S. M. E., vol. 10, p. 600.

F. A. Halsey and Mr. James Rowan 1 and an article by Mr. Rowan. The object in the mind of these managers was to provide a definite basis on which gains in efficiency could be measured, and to bring the gain and the consequent bonus home to the individual workman. It was an attempt to remedy the defects both of profit sharing with its indefiniteness and of piece rates with their temptation to cutting; and it amounts practically to the rough determination of a standard of individual performance and the announcement in advance of a systematically graded and expected cut.

While this discussion (the very considerable literature of which is outside the scope of this paper) was in progress, Mr. Frederick W. Taylor, an engineer of Philadelphia, who had become foreman and master-mechanic of the Midvale Steel Company, was trying to solve the problem of individual and plant efficiency by another and an essentially different method. One result of his experiments was the development of a new form of piece rate now known as the " differential piece rate," according to which a workman is paid a low rate per piece for ordinary production and a considerably higher rate for production according to a standard, determined by careful and accurate time study, and made possible of attainment by systematic training of the workman and by such management of the plant as facilitates to the utmost the operations performed by the laborer. Mr. Taylor's first statement of his methods and results was submitted to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in a paper3 which has

1 44 The Premium Plan of Paying for Labor," Trans. A. S. M. E., vol. 12, p. 755. Reprinted in Sibley Journal of Engineering, vol. 16, p. 219, and in "Trade Unionism and Labor Problems," chap. xi, edited by John R. Commons.

"A Premium System Applied to Engineering Workshops." tute of Mechanical Engineers, March 20, 1903, p. 203.

Boston, 1905.

"A Piece Rate System," Trans. A. S. M. E., vol. 16, p. 856.

Proceedings, Insti