Machine Work Study - Machine Tool - Metal Cutting - Taylor - Part 2

66 A change is then made in the thickness of the shaving, and another set of 20-minute runs is made, with a series of similar uniform tools, until the cutting speed corresponding to the new thickness of feed has been determined; and by continuing in this way all of the cutting speeds are found which correspond to the various changes of feed. In the meantime, every precaution must be taken to maintain uniform all the other elements or variables which affect the cutting speed, such as the depth of the cut and the quality of the metal being cut; and the rate of the cutting speed must be frequently tested during each 20-minute run to be sure that it is uniform.

67 The cutting speeds corresponding to varying feeds are then plotted as points upon a curve, and a mathematical expression is found which represents the law of the effect of feed upon cutting speed. We believe that this standard or method of procedure constitutes the very foundation of successful investigation in this art; and it is from this standpoint that we propose to criticise both our own experiments and those made by other investigators. For further discussion of our standard method of making experiments see Par. 137.

68 It was only after about 14 years’ work that we found that the best measure for the value of a tool lay in the exact cutting speed at which it was completely ruined at the end of 20 minutes. In the meantime, we had made one set of experiments after another as we successively found the errors due to our earlier standards, and realized and remedied the defects in our apparatus and methods; and we have now arrived at the interesting though rather humiliating con- clusion that with our present knowledge of methods and apparatus, it would be entirely practicable to obtain through four or five years of experimenting all of the information which we have spent 26 years in getting.

69 The following are some of the more important errors made by us:

70 We wasted much time by testing tools for a shorter cutting period than 20 minutes, and then having found that tools which were apparently uniform in all respects gave most erratic results (particularly in cutting steel) when run for a shorter period than 20 minutes; we erred in the other direction by running our tools for periods of 30 or 40 minutes each, and in this way used up in each single experiment so much of the forging that it was impossible to make enough experiments in cutting metal of uniform quality to get conclusive results. We finally settled on a run of 20 minutes as being the best all-round criterion, and have seen no reason for modifying this conclusion up to date. 71 We next thought a proper criterion for judging the effect of a given element upon the cutting speed lay in determining the particular cutting speed which would just cause a tool to be slightly discolored below the cutting edge at the end of the 20 minutes. After wasting six months in experimenting with this as our standard, we found that it was not a true measure; and then adopted as a criterion a certain definite dulling or rubbing away of the cutting edge. Later it was found, however, that each thickness of feed had corresponding to it a certain degree of dullness or injury to the cutting edge at which point regrinding was necessary (the thicker the shaving the duller the tool should be before grinding); and a third series of experiments was made with this as a standard. While experimenting on light forgings a standard dullness of tool was used which was just sufficient to push the forging and tool apart and so slightly alter the diameter of the work.  All of these criterions were discarded, however, when in 1894 we finally bit upon the true standard, above described, of completely ruining the tool in 20 minutes.

72 As will be pointed out later in the paper, this standard demands both a very large and expensive machine to experiment with, and also large, heavy masses of metal to work upon, which is unfortunate; but we believe without apparatus and methods of this kind it is out of the question to accurately determine the laws which are sought. See paragraphs 210-263.

73 Experiments upon the art of cutting metals (at least those experiments which have been recorded) have been mainly undertaken by scientific men, mostly by professors. It is but natural that the scientific man should lean toward experiments which require the use of apparatus and that type of scientific observation which is beyond the scope of the ordinary mechanic, or even of engineers unless they have been especially trained in this kind of observation. It is perhaps for this reason more than any other that in this art several of those elements which are of the greatest importance have received no attention from experimenters, while far less fruitful although more complicated elements, have been the subject of extended experiments.

74 As an illustration of this fact we would call attention to two of the most simple of all of the elements which have been left entirely untouched by all experimenters, namely: a the effect of cooling the tool through pouring a heavy stream of water upon it, which results in a gain of 40 per cent in cutting speed; b the effect of the contour or outline of the cutting edge of the tool upon the cutting speed, which when properly designed results in an equally large percentage of gain.

75 Both of these elements can be investigated at comparatively small cost, and with comparatively simple apparatus, while that element which has received chief attention from experimenters, namely, the pressure of the chip on the tool, calls for elaborate and expensive apparatus and is almost barren of useful results.

76 This should be a warning to all men proposing to make experiments in any field, first, to look thoroughly over the whole field, and, at least, carefully consider all of the elements from which any practical results may be expected; and then to select the more simple and elementary of these and properly investigate them before engaging in the more complicated work.

77 The most notable experiments in this art that have come to the writer’s attention are those made at Manchester, England, during the years 1902 and 1903. All these experiments were made jointly by eight of the most prominent English manufacturing companies, among whom were Armstrong, Whitworth & Co.; Vickers’ Sons & Maxim, John Brown & (‘/0., Thomas Firth & Sons, and others, who combined with the Manchester Association of Engineers and the Manchester Municipal School of Technology, the latter being principally represented by Dr. J. T. Nicolson, who made the final report entitled “Report on Experiments with Rapid Cutting Steel Tools, ” for sale by Mr. Frank Hazelton, Secretary, 29 Brown St., Manchester, England.

78 In 1901, a committee of the V erein Deutscher Ingenieure (Union of German Engineers), together with the managers of some of the larger engineering works in Berlin, made an interesting series of experiments which was published September 28, 1901, in the “Zeit- schrift des Verein Deutscher Ingenieure,” and in November 15, 1905, there were published in Bulletin No. 2 of the University of Illinois, experiments made by Prof. L. P. Breckinridge and Henry B. Dirks.

79 The work of all these men belongs to the second type of experiments above referred to, in which the joint effect of two or more variables is studied at the same time. In the case of the Manchester experiments, the work appears to have been, to a considerable extent, a test as to the all-round knowledge in the art of cutting metals possessed by eight of the prominent English firms. These firms each presented tools made from their own tool steel, treated their own way, and ground to whatever shapes and angles the particular company considered would do the largest amount of work. Each company was allowed to have one guess on each of the qualities of metal worked upon, with each change of feed and depth of cut, as to the cutting speed at which they believed their tool would do the most work. If, under this cutting speed, the tool failed to hold out throughout the stipulated period of time, they were then given no opportunity to find the exact cutting speed at which the tool would do its best work. And, on the other hand, in those cases in which a tool did good work throughout its specified period of time, no effort was made to find how much faster it could have run and still do good work.

80 A glance at Plates 13, 14 and 15 at the end of Dr. Nicolson’s report shows the great variety in the shapes of the tools used in the experiments. Yet no effort was made to definitely determine which make of tool steel or which shape of the tool was best, or even in case a tool did exceptionally good work, no effort was made to determine whether this was due to the shape of the tool or to the quality and treatment of the tool steel.

81 As was to be expected from any such test, each one of the eight companies repeatedly made guesses as to the proper speeds for their tools to run which were very wide of the mark. Yet in spite of this, it is notable that in each case some one of the eight firms guessed fairly close to the proper cutting speed, so that by selecting the best of those various guesses Dr. Nicolson, in writing the report, gives a very valuable and interesting table on p. 250 of the Manchester Report, summarizing the best speeds attained in cutting the soft, medium and hard steels, and the soft, medium and hard cast irons experimented on, in each case with four combined changes of depth of cut and thickness of feed.

82 This table conclusively proves the practical value of experiments of this nature, even when carried on in a thoroughly unscientific manner. There is, however, one element in these experiments which was very carefully investigated, and the results of which are of general scientific value; namely, the determination of the pressure of the chip or shaving upon the nose of the tool.

83 That the conclusions reached as to pressure are of value is due to the fact that upon this particular element, neither the shape of the tool nor the composition or treatment of the tool has very great effect, and in each case the pressure of the chip upon the tool appears to have been carefully observed and tabulated, so that experiments which are valueless from a scientific standpoint for most of the elements, confirm substantially, as to the pressure of the chip on the tool, the results of some of our previous experiments on this element.

84 The writer has a great respect for Dr. Nicolson as an experimenter, as his later work in this field has shown him to be a thoroughly scientific investigator; but feels it necessary to call attention to an error which even he has fallen into, namely, that of attempting to deduce a formula for the cutting of metals from a summary of the Manchester and German experiments. These experiments, from a scientific standpoint, were so defective as to make it out of the question to deduce formulae, because no effort was made to keep the following variables uniform: (1) the shape of the cutting edge and the lip and clearance angles of the tool varied from one experiment to another; (2) the quality of the tool steel varied; (3) the treatment of the tool varied; (4) the depth of the cut varied from that aimed at; (5) the cutting speed was not accurately determined at which each tool would do its maximum work throughout a given period of time; and (6) in reading the report of these experiments it does not appear that any careful tests were made to determine whether each of the various forgings and castings experimented on was sufficiently uniform throughout in quality to render the tests made upon them of scientific value. The same criticism, broadly speaking, applies to both the German and the University of Illinois experiments.

85 In fact, in none of these sets of experiments have they appreciated the necessity of MEASURING sarxnxrany the effect produced upon the cutting speed of two of the most important elements in the problem, (a) the thickness of the feed, and (b) the depth of the cut. In all of these investigations and in formulae given by Dr. Nicolson on p. 249 of the Manchester report, as well as in a formula published by him in “Technics,” for January, 1904, summarizing the results of the Manchester and German experiments, the area of the cut “a” is used as though it were a single variable, whereas the sectional area of the shaving is, in fact, the product of the depth of the cut multiplied by the feed. The fact is, however, that the thickness of the shaving or the feed has a greater effect upon the cutting speed than any other element, while the depth of the cut has only a comparatively small effect. When this is realized, it becomes apparent that any formula or even any data containing the area of the cut (or shaving) as a single element is valueless from a scientific standpoint. To illustrate: a cut which is 1} inch deep with 311 inch feed has the same sectional area as a 1; inch depth cut by § inch feed; namely, 7;‘; inch sectional area. Our experiments show that if a cutting speed for a § inch by § inch cut were 10 feet per minute, then the cutting speed for a 1} inch by 31; inch cut would be 18 feet per minute. From which the impossibility of using the area of the cut as an element in a formula is apparent.

86 Broadly speaking, it is unwise to draw conclusions and make formulae from experiments in which more than one variable is allowed to vary in the same trial. This criticism is made in no sense to
belittle the value of the work done by others, but with the object to pointedly call the attention of future experimenters to such errors as have been made primarily by ourselves and also by others.

87 The results obtained by Dr. Nicolson from the Manchester experiments led him to make another set of experiments for the purpose of determining accurately the pressure of the chip or shaving upon the cutting edge of the tool. In carrying out this work Dr. Nicolson has designed and constructed what appears to be by far the most scientific apparatus which has yet been made for this purpose. In his paper (published in Transactions, Vol. 25), he has very fully illustrated the apparatus with which he weighs separately the pressure of the chip upon the tool in three directions: a the VERTICAL raassunn; b the outward pressure or the pressure horizontally at right angles to the axis of the piece being turned; called by him SURFACING PRESSURE; c the feeding pressure or the pressure horizontally parallel to the axis of the piece being turned; called by him TRAVERSING PRESSURE.

88 His determination of that lip angle of the tool which cuts the metal with the least pressure was of great interest; but, in the writer’s judgment, by far the most important and original fact developed by him was brought out by a series of experiments in which he determined the wave-like increase and decrease of the pressure upon the nose of the tool which occurs in cutting metals.

89 In these experiments the chip was removed at a cutting speed of about one foot in five hours. It is notable that no other apparatus heretofore designed was sufficiently scientific and accurate to demonstrate this fact.

90 The writer has taken the liberty of reproducing on Folder 12, Figs. S2 and S6, Dr. Nicolson’s diagram, showing this variation in pressure. His discovery is most important in explaining one of the causes for the chattering of tools, and becomes a thoroughly scientific aid in selecting the shape or contour of the cutting edge for standard tools to be used in “roughing work.”

91 These experiments form a substantial and permanent addition to our knowledge of the art of cutting metals; and the writer regrets that Dr. Nicolson has not since then investigated other elements immediately affecting the more vital problem of the cutting speed in a similarly thorough manner; since he chose for investigation that element which on the whole is least fruitful in its practical results upon the art of cutting metals, namely, the pressure of the chip upon the tool.

92 However, in choosing this element for investigation Dr. Nicolson made the same error (if such it may be called) into which a most every experimenter in this field fall's sooner or later. From all theoretical standpoints it appears to the novice that a thorough investigation of the effect of the pressure of the chip upon the tool under varying conditions must furnish the key to the whole problem of the variation of cutting speed due to varying feeds, depths of cut, shape of the tool, etc. The fact is, however, that every one who exploits this field finds out sooner or later that there is no traceable relation whatever between the pressure of the chip on the tool and the cutting speed, and but little connection even between the hardness of the metal and the pressure upon the tool. The following is the reasoning which has led us all, at one time or another, into the same error:

'93 The ultimate cause for a tool giving out when cutting metal is the dullness or wear of the tool produced by the rubbing or pressure of the chip upon the lip surface of the tool and the chief element causing this wear, particularly at the high speeds at which tools should he run to do their best work, is the softening of the tool due to the heat produced by the friction of the‘ chip upon its lip surface. Now, it seems perfectly evident that this heat ‘will be increased directly in proportion to three elements: a the pounds of pressure of the chip upon the tool ; b the speed with which the chip slides across the nose of the tool ; c the coefficient of friction between the chip and the surface of the tool. And yet, paradoxical as it may seem, the writer again repeats that there is no traceable relation between the pressure of the chip upon the tool and the cutting speed. (The reasons in detail for this will be found later in paragraphs 503 to 519.)

94 So convincing, however, is the above theory that each successive experimenter who has joined the writer in his work has been thoroughly convinced that, through some error in our early experiments upon the pressure of the chip on the tool, we failed to establish the relation between the pressure and the cutting speed which would be demonstrated by a more carefully tried set of experiments; and the writer thinks it is not an exaggeration to state that each of these men in succession remained unconvinced until he had had the opportunity of verifying this fact for himself. 1 Dr. Nicolson, in his criticism of this paper, calls attention to the fact that more heat is generated in bending the chip or causing the molecules of the metal of the chip to flow past one another, than through the pressure of the chip on the tool.

95 As an illustration of the mental effect of this theory upon these experimenters: In one case, a bright and thoroughly honest young man, who was employed by the writer to help on the mathematical side of this work, became so thoroughly convinced through the above reasoning that the main lines on which we were carrying on our investigation would be rendered entirely unnecessary by a series of pressure tests made by himself, that upon being told by the writer that he would not allow the expense to be incurred for another series of pressure tests, he wrote a memorial of many pages to the Board of Directors of the company in which the experiments were being carried on, explaining his own thorough scientific attainments and the m'iter’s lack of the same, and that, therefore, our relative positions ought to be reversed, that he should do the directing and the writer should do the work. And, finally, when his protests were not heeded, he resigned his position; and the writer has been told that he subsequently induced another company to allow him to experiment on his own account. However, up to date there has not appeared any published record of these experiments.

96 We are dwelling at such length upon this element in the art because it has constituted the pit into which so many experimenters have fallen; and upon failing to trace any scientific relation between the pressure and the cutting speed they are very apt to conclude that the whole subject of cutting metals belongs to the domain of “rule of thumb" rather than to that of exact science, and give up further work in this field.

97 It may almost be said that investigations heretofore made upon the general subject of the pressure of the chip upon the tool have proved barren of useful and practical results, except in so far as they have furnished the knowledge needed by tool builders for giving their machines the proper driving power. It is with little hesitation that the writer makes the assertion that if no experiments whatever had been made in this field, the knowledge of the art of cutting metals would be on the whole in a more advanced state than it is now, since experimenters in all countries instead of studying pressures would have given their attention to some one of the other lines of investigation which bear directly and yield valuable information upon the one most important subject of cutting speed.

98 It is a noteworthy fact that when thorough investigations are attempted by earnest men in new fields, while frequently the object aimed at is not attained, yet quite often discoveries are made which are entirely foreign to the purpose for which the investigation was undertaken. And it may be said that the indirect results of careful scientific work are, generally speaking, fully as valuable as the direct. Two interesting illustrations of this fact have been furnished by our experiments.

99 The discovery of the Taylor-White process of treating tools by heating them almost to the melting point, or, in other words, the introduction of modern high speed tools the world over, was the indirect result of one of our lines of investigation.

100 The demonstration of the fact that the rules for using belting in common practice furnished belts which were entirely too light for economy was also one of the indirect results of our experiments.

101 The manner of making these discoveries was each time in a way so typical of what may be expected in similar cases that it would seem worth while to describe it in some detail.

102 During the winter of 1894-1895, the writer conducted an investigation in the shop of Wm. Sellers & Co., at the joint expense of Messrs. William Cramp & Sons, shipbuilders, and Messrs. Wm. Sellers & Co., to determine which make of self-hardening tool steel was, on the whole, the best to adopt as standard for all of the roughing tools of these two shops.

103 As a result of this work, the choice was narrowed down at that time to two makes of tool steel: (1) the celebrated Mushet self- hardening steel, the chemical composition of the particular bar analyzed at this time being as follows:

PER CENT PER CENT PER CEN’1'l PERCENT PER CENT PER CENT PERCENT HIUM , 5.441 0.398 1 2.150 l 1.57s 1.044 BRO E i TUNGSTEN C CARBON HIANGANESE SILICON l PHOSPHORUS SULPHUR and
(2) a self-hardening steel made by the Midvale Steel Company of the following chemical composition:
4 ] 1 TUNGSTEN CHRO— CARBON MANGANIEE SILICON ‘ PHOSPHORUB SULPHUR PER CENT PER CEN'l‘,PEIl CENTl PERCENT PER CENT PER CENT PER CENT MIUM 1 | . , , 1.723 1.s30 ; 1.143 ' 0.180 l 0.246 0.023 0.00s 104

‘Of these two steels, the tools made from the Midvale steel were shown to be capable of running at rather higher cutting speeds. The writer himself heated hundreds of tools of these makes in the course of his experiments in order to accurately determine the best temperatures for forging and heating them prior to grinding so as to get the best cutting speeds. In these experiments he found that the Mushet steel if overheated crumbled badly when struck even a light blow on the anvil, while the Midvale steel if overheated showed no tendency to crumble, but, on the other hand, was apparently permanently injured. In fact, heating these tools slightly beyond a bright cherry red caused them to permanently fall down in their cutting speeds; and the writer was unable at that time to find any subsequent heat treatment which would restore a tool broken down in this way to its original good condition. This defect in the Midvale tools left us in doubt as to whether the Mushet or the Midvale was, on the whole, the better to adopt as a shop standard.

103 In the summer of 1898, soon after undertaking the reorganization of the management of the Bethlehem Steel Company, the writer decided to continue the experiments just referred to with a view to ascertaining whether in the meanwhile some better tool steel had not been developed. After testing several additional makes of tools, our experiments indicated that the Midvale self-hardening tools could be run if properly heated at slightly higher speeds than those of any other make.

106 Upon deciding to adopt this steel as our standard the writer had a number of tools of each make of steel carefully dressed and ground to exactly the same shape. He then called the foremen and superintendents of the machine shops of the Bethlehem Steel Company to the experimental lathe so that they could be convinced by seeing an actual trial of all of the tools that the Midvale steel was, on the whole, the best. In this test, however, the Midvale tools proved to be worse than those of any other make; 1'. e., they ran at slower cutting speeds. This result was rather humiliating to us as experimenters who had spent several weeks in the investigation.

107 It was of course the first impression of the writer that these tools had been overheated in the smith shop. Upon careful inquiry among the smiths, however, it seemed as though they had taken special pains to dress them at a low heat, although the matter was left in much doubt. The writer, therefore, determined to make a thorough investigation before finally adopting the Midvale steel as our shop standard to discover if possible some heat treatment which would restore Midvale tools injured in their heating (whether they had been underheated or overheated) to their original good condition.

108 For this purpose Mr. White and the writer started a carefully laid out series of experiments, in which tools were to be heated at temperatures increasing, say, by about 50 degrees all the way from a black heat to the melting point. These tools were then to be ground and run in the experimental lathe upon a uniform forging, so as to find: a that heat at which the highest cutting speed could be attained (which our previous experiments had shown to be a cherry red); b to accurately determine the exact danger point at which if over or underheated these tools were seriously injured; c to find some heat treatment by which injured tools could be restored to their former high cutting speeds.

109 These experiments corroborated our Cramp-Sellers experiments, showing that the tools were seriously broken down or injured by overheating, say, somewhere between 1550 degrees F. and 1700 degrees F.; but to our great surprise, tools heated up to or above the high heat of 1725 degrees F. proved better than any of those heated to the best previous temperature, namely, a bright cherry red; and from 1725° F. up to the incipient point of fusion of the tools, the higher they were heated, the higher the cutting speeds at which they would run.

110 Thus, the discovery that phenomenal results could be obtained by heating tools close to the melting point, which was so completely revolutionary and directly the opposite of all previous heat treatment of tools, was the indirect result of an accurate scientific effort to investigate as to which brand of tool steel was, on the whole, the best to adopt as a shop standard; neither Mr. White nor the writer having the slightest idea that overheating beyond the bright cherry red would do anything except injure the tool more and more the higher it was heated.

111 During our early Midvale Steel Company experiments, extending from 1880 to 1883, the writer had so much trouble in maintaining the tension of the belt used in driving the boring mill upon which he was experimenting that he concluded: (1) that belting rules in common use furnished belts entirely too light for economy; and (2) that the proper way to take care of belting was to have each belt in a shop tightened at regular intervals with belt clamps especially fitted with spring balances, with which the tension of the belt was accurately weighed every time it was tightened, each belt being retightened each time to exactly the same tension.

112 In 1884, the writer designed and superintended the erection of a new machine shop for the Midvale Steel Company, and this gave him the opportunity to put these conclusions to a practical test. About half the belts in the shop were designed according to the ordinary rules and the other half were made about two and one-half times as heavy as the usual standard. This shop ran day and night. The belts were in all cases cared for and retightened only upon written orders sent from the shop ofice; and an accurate record was kept through nine years of all items of interest concerning each belt, namely: the number of hours lost through interruption to manufacture; the number of times each belt interrupted manufacture; the original cost of each belt; the detail costs of tightening, cleaning and repairing each belt; the fall in the tension before requiring retightening; and the time each belt would run without being retightened. Thus at the end of nine years these belts furnished a record which demonstrated beyond question many important facts connected with the use of belting, the principal of these being that the ordinary rules gave belts only about one-half as heavy as should be used for economy.‘ This belting experiment illustrates again the good that often comes indirectly from experiments undertaken in an entirely different field.

113 After many years of close personal contact with our mechanics, I have great confidence in their good judgment and common sense in the long run, and I am proud to number many of them among my most intimate friends.

114 As a class, however, they are extremely conservative, and if left to themselves their progress from the older toward better methods will be exceedingly slow. And my experience is that rapid improvement can only be brought about through constant and heavy pressure from those who are over them.

115 It must be said, therefore, that to get any great benefit from the laws derived from these experiments, our slide rules must be used, and these slide rules will be of but little, if any, value under the old style of management, in which the machinist is left with the final decision as to what shape of tool, depth of cut, speed, and feed, he will use.

116 The slide rules cannot be left at the lathe to be banged about by the machinist. They must be used by a man with reasonably clean. hands, and at a table or desk, and this man must write his instructions as to speed, feed, depth of cut, etc., and send them to the machinist well in advance of the time that the work is to be done. Even if these written instructions are sent to the machinist, however, little attention will be paid to them unless rigid standards have been not only adopted, but ENFORCED, throughout the shop for every detail, large and small, of the shop equipment, as well as for all shop methods. And, further, but little can be accomplished with these laws unless the old style foreman and shop superintendent have been done away with, and functional foremanship has been substituted,—consisting of speed bosses, gang bosses, order-of-work men, inspector, time study men, etc. In fact, the correct use of slide rules involves the substitution of our whole task system of management for the old style management, as described in our paper on “Shop Management” (Transactions, Vol. 24). This  involves such radical, one might almost say, revolutionary, changes in the mental attitude and habits both of the workmen and of the management, and the danger from strikes‘ is so great and the chances for failure are so many, that such a reorganization should only be undertaken under the direct control (not advice but CONTROL) of men who have had years of experience and training in introducing this system.

117 A long time will be required in any shop to bring about this radically new order of things; but in the end the gain is so great that I say without hesitation that there is hardly a machine shop in the country whose output cannot be doubled through the use of these methods. And this applies not only to large shops, but also to comparatively small establishments. In a company whose employees all told, including officers and salesmen, number about one hundred and fifty men, we have succeeded in more than doubling the output of the shop, and in converting an annual loss of 20 per cent upon the old volume of business into an annual profit of more than 20 per cent upon the new volume of business, and at the same time rendering a lot of disorganized and dissatisfied workmen contented and hard working, by insuring them an average increase of about 35 per cent in their wages. And I take this opportunity of again saying that those companies are indeed fortunate who can secure the services of  men to direct the introduction of this type of management who have had sufficient training and experience to insure success.‘

118 Unfortunately those fundamental ideas upon which the new task management rests mainly for success are directly antagonistic to the fundamental ideas of the old type of management. To give two out of many examples: Under our system the workman is told minutely just what he is to do and how he is to do it; and any improvement which he makes upon the orders given him is fatal to success. While, with the old style, the workman is expected to constantly improve upon his orders and former methods. Under our system, any improvement, large or small, once decided upon goes into immediate use, and is never allowed to lapse or become obsolete, while under the old system, the innovation unless it meets with the approval of the mechanic (which it never does at the start) is generally for a long time, at least, a positive impediment to success. Thus, many of those elements which are mainly responsible for the success of our system are failures and a positive clog when grafted on to the old system.

119 For this reason the really great gain which will ultimately come from the use of these slide rules will be slow in arriving—mainly, as explained, because of the revolutionary changes needed for their successful use—but it is sure to come in the end.

120 Too much emphasis cannot be laid upon the fact that standardization really means simplification. It is far simpler to have in a standardized shop two makes of tool steel than to have 20 makes of tool steel, as will be found in shops under the old style of management. It is far simpler to have all of the tools in a standardized shop ground by one man to a few simple but rigidly maintained shapes than to have, as is usual in the old style shop, each machinist spend a portion of each day at the grindstone, grinding his tools with radically wrong curves and cutting angles, merely because bad shapes are easier to grind than good. Hundreds of similar illustrations could be given showing the true simplicity (not complication) which accompanies the new type of management.

121 There is, however, one element in which the new type of management to all outward appearance is far more complicated than the old; namely, no standards and no real system of management can be maintained without the supervision and, what is more, the hard work of men who would be called by the old style of management supernumeraries or non-producers. The man who judges of the complication of his organization only by looking over the names of those on the pay-roll and separating the so-called non-producers from the producers, finds the new style of management more complicated than the old.

122 No one doubts for one minute that it is far simpler to run a shop with a boiler, steam engine, shafting, pulleys and belts than it would be to run the same shop with the old fashioned foot power, yet the boiler, steam engine, shafting, pulleys and belts require, as supernumeraries or non-producers on the pay-roll, a fireman, an engineer, an oiler and often a man to look after belts. The old style manager, however, who judges of complication only by comparing the number of non-producers with that of the producers, would find the steam engine merely a complication in management. The same man, to be logical, would find the whole drafting force of an engineering establishment merely a complication, whereas in fact it is a great simplification over the old method.

123 Now our whole system of management is quite accurately typified by the substitution of an elaborate engine to drive and control the shop in place of the old fashioned foot power. There is no question that our human managing machine, which is required for the maintenance and the effective use of both standard shop details, and standard methods throughout the establishment, and for giving each workman each day in advance a definite task which must be finished in a given time, calls for many more non-producers than are used with the old style management having its two or three foremen and a superintendent. The efficiency of our engine of management, however, compared with the old single foreman is like a shop engine as compared with foot power or the drafting room as compared with having the designing done by the pattern maker, blacksmith and machinist.

124 A study of the recommendations made throughout this paper will illustrate the fact that we propose to take all of the important decisions and planning which vitally affect the output of the shop out of the hands of the workmen, and centralize them in a few men, each of whom is especially trained in the art of making those decisions and in seeing that they are carried out, each man having his own particular function in which he is supreme, and not interfering with the functions of other men. In all this let me say again that we are aiming at true simplicity, not complication.

125 There is one recommendation, however, in modern machine shop practice in making which the writer will probably be accused of being old fashioned or ultra-conservative.

126 Of late years there has been what may be almost termed a blind rush on the part of those who have wished to increase the efficiency of their shops toward driving each individual machine with an independent motor. The writer is firmly convinced through large personal observation in many shops and through having himself systematized two electrical works that in perhaps three cases out of four a properly designed belt drive is preferable to the individual motor drive for machine tools. There is no question that through a term of years the total cost, on the one hand, of individual motors and electrical wiring, coupled with the maintenance and repairs, of this system will far exceed the first cost of properly designed shafting and belting plus their maintenance and repairs (in most shops entirely too light belts and counter shafts of inferior design are used, and the belts are not systematically cared for by one trained man and this involves a heavy cost for maintenance). There is no question, therefore, that in many cases the motor drive means in the end additional complication and expense rather than simplicity and economy.

127 It is at last admitted that there is little, if any, economy in power obtainable through promiscuous motor driving; and it will certainly be found to be a safe rule not to adopt an individual motor for driving any machine tool unless a clearly evident and a large saving can be made by it.

128 In concluding let me say that we are now but on the threshold of the coming era of true cooperation. The time is fast going by for the great personal or individual achievement of any one man standing alone and without the help of those around him. And the time is coming when all great things will be done by the cooperation of many men in which each man performs that function for which he is best suited, each man preserves his own individuality and is supreme in his particular function, and each man at the same time loses none of his originality and proper personal initiative, and yet is controlled by and must work harmoniously with many other men.

129 And let me point out that the most important lessons taught by these experiments, particularly to the younger men, are:

THAT SEVERAL MEN WHEN HEARTILY COOPERAT1NG, EVEN IF OF EVERYDAY CALIBER, CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT WOULD BE NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR  ANY ONE MAN EVEN OF EXCEPTIONAL ABILITY.

THAT EXPENSIVE EXPERIMENTS CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY CARRIED ON BY MEN WITHOUT MONEY, AND THE MOST DIFFICULT MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED BY VERY ORDINARY MATHEMATICIANS; PROVIDING ONLY THAT  THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE IN TIME, PATIENCE AND HARD WORK.

THE OLD ADAGE IS AGAIN MADE THAT ALL THINGS COME TO HIM WHO WAITS, IF ONLY HE WORKS HARD  ENOUGH IN THE MEANTIME.

------------------



‘The writer feels free to give this advice most emphatically without danger of having his motives misinterpreted, since he has himself given up accepting professional engagements in this field.


‘The danger from strikes coznes from the false steps often taken by men not familiar with the methods which should be used in introducing the sf s‘em. The writer has never had a single strike during the 26 years he has been engaged in ti-is work. - - — * i->>-~‘


‘The writer presented a paper to this Society in 1893 (published in Transactions, Vol. 15) upon this series of experiments. He has since found, however, that in the minds of many readers the value of the conclusions arrived at have been seriously brought into question largely through the criticism of one man, which at the time appeared to the writer so ridiculous that he made the mistake of thinking it not worth answering in detail. This should be a warning to writers lo answer carefully all criticism, however foolish.

Part 3