BRITISH-U.S. FACTORIES: METHODS COMPARED

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23715, 13 August 1942, Page 4

BRITISH-U.S. FACTORIES: METHODS COMPARED

WAR PRODUCTION

[By ELDRIDGE HAYES. Editor of th< [Reprinted from th<

' American ind-jstrycanlearn hree valuable lessons from the expenen of Britain; and, m my can learn three important lessons from A ?SeLU ng feSe thi s assertion as a result of a study of British war production which I have been privileged can more K* duce for by emulating the British in three directions: First: By mobilising her labour force as completely as has Britain. , , While American war production is already establishing some new records, while the volume of tanks, aeroplanes, and ships now being made m the United States exceeds the volume ever before produced by any nation, yet it could be more. Shortages of materials can be overcome only partly, by revsrch - M We feel that we have found effective substitutes for rubber and some of the other materials cut off by the war in the Pacific. Therefore production of raw materials, as well as the finished tools of war, will be roughly proportionate to the man-hours invested in production. '. . British experience in mobilising, directing, and training millions of people who have never before been inside a plant obviously should be immensely useful to the United States and the United Nations’ war effort. Second: This applies particularly to the employment of women in industry. One cannot go through British factories, as I have, without being impressed by the fact that practically every manufacturing operation is at some place being performed successfully by a woman, American’ women, like British, are doing most of the work in munitions plants, and millions more are eager to Join the war effort. Britain has pioneered in discovering all the things women can do well in production. Her discovery that women produce, on many jobs, more per hour than do men; her experience with fatigue; her discovery that the most efficient workers of all are the part-time women—these are facts which can be enormously helpful to America. V Third: Employer-employee relations seem to be smoother in England.; , Perhaps if is because Britain’s trade union movement is older, more mature. Perhaps it is because labour leaders in England have been given public responsibilities in the legislative and administrative branches of Government to a far greater degree than have American labour leaders. Perhaps it is because of the system of shop stewards, which we do not have in America. Perhaps it is because the labour force of England is a more homogeneous group, all (or almost all) English people, while ours is far more heterogeneous. I am inclined to believe that all of these important differences contribute to the greater industrial harmony prevailing in England. To achieve equal harmony, I’ suspect that America should seek to apply some of the principles which you have found so, successful. Mass Production I find considerable confusion' about the meaning of the term “mass production.” It is often said that America specialises in mass production and England in craftsmanship. It is further assumed that if England were to strive for mass production she would sacrifice a great deal of her craftsmanship.

In so far as the war effort is concerned, I believe this is demonstrably untrue. I am quite aware that ho machine has yet been, developed which can effectively substitute for the art of the craftsman in the making of certain fine fabrics, leather goods, smoking pipes, and other peace-time products, in the quality production of which England leads the world. But these arts and crafts are seldom applicable to the production of the necessarily heavy tools of modern war made of iron and steel ‘'apd non-ferrous metals. Production is a word used to describe the entire process of conversion from raw materials to finished products. Production involves the movement as well as the working of materials. Rhythm of Production Production in a factory really begins on the receiving platform. Goods received are flffet weighed or counted and inspected, and then moved into raw materials storage. Then they are moved to the point of first process, where they are cut, or ground, or drilled, or mixed, or cooked. They are moved through thpse conversion processes until the various parts are finished. Then they are moved to an assembly point, and then moved past inspectors, and then moved to finished goods storage, and then moved to the shipping platform. Mass production is achieved when most or all of these operations are done mechanically, and therefore more quickly. In the actual working materials, such as cutting, drilling, mixing, and so op, England uses largely the same meth-

American Journal "Modern Industry*! •‘Daily Telegraph.’’]

ods and equipment as America usar I believe America pioneered the idS of making standard, interchanged parts in large quantities. This tributed enormously to the mass tST duction of quality goods, for previously’ each single part was made separately' and made to fit together with the othn. single gaits which went into the fto ’ ished product. Refinements in machine took gauges, and’ cutting metal now permit large-scale production of standardise* parts which are within oS' ten-thousandth, of an irri q r Generally speaking, EhgfcadT® adopted this principle. Many of Eaa ' land’s plants are equipped with thli ‘ most modern machine tools, which are operated by highly skilled people - On the other hand, little has been invested in equipment for all of the other operations involved in produc. tion. A plant cannot be said to 'bin adopted mass-production methods un, less all its operations are mechanised The quality of the finished at stake only when materials are Bp ing changed in their shape or contenr Moving goods through a plaaf : |fl;'’ ciently has no bearing on tneqiSt?!’ of the finished product, but it, great influence on the quantity pf ished products produced., . , I doubt very seriously whet)#America could contribute much'rtfJ, the methods England uses actually/(o change the scope and. character, of materials; but I am sure that we ian contribute much to the methods Eue.' : land employs in moving the plant. It is in this duction where I believe we couM Slws England, specifically in three ant directions: ’ First—Materials Handling I am sure that there must' he than one conveyor in England.VhSkmall the plants I visited TiotudloUi one, and this one handled mataSp less than 10 per cent. ' plant. I did not see a industrial truck or tractor—or hj twnip system of materials handling," o ., The rule seems to be: if It cwiiiM lifted by one, or even two or. threat men, handle it by hand.. If tmf jfi physically impossible install a-.h6By;) overhead crane. - Lack of modern materials hanilt!r>w equipment is taxing British duction in two directions: hours-- are being invested. inV|ppvjnM materials through the plant tlppt| necessary, man-hours which devoted to the more skilled of cohversion. Hand methods make for smooth flow of and therefore tend to glut onel&foil| ment of materials and to;item3|Pi other. Second—Lighting the In two small rooms, devoted tfc& i inspection of gauges, I saw-m«&1J fluorescent lighting. Otherwise |m»;| was none in the many plants Many of England’s plants structed for single-shift dayUgh£#is| ation. They are well windows and. skylights, wmch'ldEWß pretty completely blacked suit is that the illumination of plus' is far below standards known essential to efficient production. mum rejects and accidents, and f protection of eyesight. ■ ;®|S» Many, if not most, of the awM of conversion are equipped attached to the machine, so actual process of conversion IsuKgi carried out under fair i ditions. But all of the other-DWW'i tions, from th'e raw material to the shipping platform, jure.MSf:

performed under genera®Jf*7,.l factory - lighting conditioraWlglJl have shown conclusively thrt'finSfp quate lighting increases dents, spoiled work, and these are, sOpi|! of the prices being paid for thls-gw*. dition. Third—Equipment'’ Several' operations' with equipment rendered obsolete;®,!, developments: dji'; the last. which have not- been widely aqopSJI in England. I was impressed' by ; *S<li| especially. b In America we are drying, (including painted metal pMtsIJJM# infra-red lamps in a fraction time required by orthodox. meraftt Practically every plant I visitMW cessarily had one or more dwiafJOT* orations, but none was using infri-iw is gaining in in the plants I visited it was. mat used most sparingly, and lene welding. Electric welqmgjjl the arc, thermit, and reststtot-tyif is being widely used m Amerift'i speed war production, and qgWW »' used in England, too. . Actually, modern equipment *P. as, materials handling, lighting, red, welding equipment, afe.Jtm.fi vital as aeroplanes and guns. I sincerely hope that means niayw found for a better exchange of info.pl ation about industrial practices l discoveries, so that America can Dray fit by the great advances Englawuw made and that we may conWWg what we can to England s magnfflWW effort ~ ■ '. jy .