Ask the Scholar
Page 63 of 363
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Box 5
Sector Survey Findings, United Kingdom, July 1948
Mass Production Industries
The most significant differences in production practice and output per man-hour were noted in
the industries employing line or mass-production methods. In general, less specialized manufacturing
methods were employed. The flow of work and analysis of employee operations were not as carefully
studied and integrated as in the U.S. In most cases, the use of non-specialized machinery, and
insufficiently critical allocation of labor, and an accumulation of numerous small losses in efficiency
throughout most of the factory combined to bring man-hour requirements considerably above average levels
for American plants. Only a half dozen or so of the plants visited appeared to have the production
speed and low labor requirements of comparable American plants. In most cases, man-hours expended per
unit of product were higher than for U.S. factories, ranging in excess of from 50% to 400%. Plants with
American patent or financial ties were not apparently in a better position than independent factories.
These observations apply to both the metal and electrical products and the apparel industries.
State of Manufacturing Equipment
The lower productivity of English industry has generally been attributed to less modern
manufacturing equipment than is found in this country. While it is difficult to generalize on this
matter, the distinct impression was obtained on this trip that there were only minor differences in age
or condition between the plants visited in England and establishments in the U.S. In France, on the
other hand, machinery was frequently older and in poor repair.
There was a very significant difference in the types of equipment selected for production.
Even in very large plants with large-scale output, non-specialized equipment was generally installed.
Machine tools, for example, were usually of an all-around general-purpose type, with specially built
multi-operation tools infrequently encountered. Equipment such as welding and riveting units were
almost always of a single-point, single-operation type. There were few conveyor systems, and they were
not highly developed. Compared to the U.S., there was less material-handling equipment, and the
shortage of powered hand tools was striking.
One could not help but feel that the general-purpose equipment in use in these countries was
selected because of a lack of acquaintance with highly organized line-type production methods. It
seemed clear that unless these countries quickly obtained first-hand experience with large-scale
manufacturing methods of the American type, future investment in equipment would tend to follow the
pattern of the machinery installed at present, and thus freeze possible productivity gains.
Factory Organization and Work Subdivision
Production was most commonly organized on a bench-type basis, and the subdivision of
manufacturing operations, where line assembly was encountered, was not as great as is practiced in this
country. From conditions observed in the plants visited, it was apparent that less attention was
devoted to scientific time-and-motion analysis, the positioning of work, and the arrangement of the flow
of materials through the plant. There was considerably less utilization than in the U.S. of the
potential employee working time in the production cycle, such as two-machine operation, rapid machine
cycles with work positioning and extraction closely coupled, and similar operations.
Plant layouts were not always planned for smooth work flow and minimum handling of materials,
parts, and work in process. Less planning than in this country seems to be devoted to the timing and
balance of operations to maintain a steady flow of work. The production runs are relatively short, and
there is less production of standardized parts for stock than in this country.
An important divergence from practice in this country is the predominance of manual work in
operations which are generally mechanized here, such as filing of casting, polishing, drilling,
screwdriving, and riveting.
The maintenance of well-organized plant space free from congestion and with adequate work
areas, lighting, and ventilation was not as common as in the U.S. In addition, it was noticed that
seating and working facilities for the operators were not always carefully designed for the minimization
of fatigue as they often are in this country.
In general, there appeared to be less thorough maintenance of machines, equipment, and tools,
which resulted in more frequent breakdown and work interruptions.
The maintenance of well-organized plant space free from congestion and with adequate work
areas, lighting, and ventilation was not as common as in the U.S. In addition, it was noticed that
seating and working facilities for the operators were not always carefully designed for the minimization
of fatigue as they often are in this country.
[Source: BLS, Productivity Survey of English and Travel Manufacturing Plants, May 24-July 10, 1948]
22
Page data
- Page
- 63
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 0b0358143d8a0ef3
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 6235211
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "6235211",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6235211",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "\"History of the Technical Assistance Programs of the Marshall Plan and Successor Agencies, 1948-1961\"",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6235211",
"collections": [
"James M. Silberman Papers",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-jms/6039382/6235211/6235211-001.tif",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-jms/6039382/6235211/6235211-001.tif",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-jms/6039382/6235211/6235211-001.tif",
"imageCount": 363,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "6235211",
"label": "\"History of the Technical Assistance Programs of the Marshall Plan and Successor Agencies, 1948-1961\"",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6235211"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "6235211",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6235211",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "\"History of the Technical Assistance Programs of the Marshall Plan and Successor Agencies, 1948-1961\"",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6235211",
"collections": [
"James M. Silberman Papers",
"Subject Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-jms/6039382/6235211/6235211-001.tif",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-jms/6039382/6235211/6235211-001.tif",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-jms/6039382/6235211/6235211-001.tif",
"imageCount": 363,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6235211",
"naId": 6235211,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 63,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-jms/6039382/6235211/6235211-063.tif",
"mediaId": "0b0358143d8a0ef3",
"ocrText": "Box 5\nSector Survey Findings, United Kingdom, July 1948\nMass Production Industries\nThe most significant differences in production practice and output per man-hour were noted in\nthe industries employing line or mass-production methods. In general, less specialized manufacturing\nmethods were employed. The flow of work and analysis of employee operations were not as carefully\nstudied and integrated as in the U.S. In most cases, the use of non-specialized machinery, and\ninsufficiently critical allocation of labor, and an accumulation of numerous small losses in efficiency\nthroughout most of the factory combined to bring man-hour requirements considerably above average levels\nfor American plants. Only a half dozen or so of the plants visited appeared to have the production\nspeed and low labor requirements of comparable American plants. In most cases, man-hours expended per\nunit of product were higher than for U.S. factories, ranging in excess of from 50% to 400%. Plants with\nAmerican patent or financial ties were not apparently in a better position than independent factories.\nThese observations apply to both the metal and electrical products and the apparel industries.\nState of Manufacturing Equipment\nThe lower productivity of English industry has generally been attributed to less modern\nmanufacturing equipment than is found in this country. While it is difficult to generalize on this\nmatter, the distinct impression was obtained on this trip that there were only minor differences in age\nor condition between the plants visited in England and establishments in the U.S. In France, on the\nother hand, machinery was frequently older and in poor repair.\nThere was a very significant difference in the types of equipment selected for production.\nEven in very large plants with large-scale output, non-specialized equipment was generally installed.\nMachine tools, for example, were usually of an all-around general-purpose type, with specially built\nmulti-operation tools infrequently encountered. Equipment such as welding and riveting units were\nalmost always of a single-point, single-operation type. There were few conveyor systems, and they were\nnot highly developed. Compared to the U.S., there was less material-handling equipment, and the\nshortage of powered hand tools was striking.\nOne could not help but feel that the general-purpose equipment in use in these countries was\nselected because of a lack of acquaintance with highly organized line-type production methods. It\nseemed clear that unless these countries quickly obtained first-hand experience with large-scale\nmanufacturing methods of the American type, future investment in equipment would tend to follow the\npattern of the machinery installed at present, and thus freeze possible productivity gains.\nFactory Organization and Work Subdivision\nProduction was most commonly organized on a bench-type basis, and the subdivision of\nmanufacturing operations, where line assembly was encountered, was not as great as is practiced in this\ncountry. From conditions observed in the plants visited, it was apparent that less attention was\ndevoted to scientific time-and-motion analysis, the positioning of work, and the arrangement of the flow\nof materials through the plant. There was considerably less utilization than in the U.S. of the\npotential employee working time in the production cycle, such as two-machine operation, rapid machine\ncycles with work positioning and extraction closely coupled, and similar operations.\nPlant layouts were not always planned for smooth work flow and minimum handling of materials,\nparts, and work in process. Less planning than in this country seems to be devoted to the timing and\nbalance of operations to maintain a steady flow of work. The production runs are relatively short, and\nthere is less production of standardized parts for stock than in this country.\nAn important divergence from practice in this country is the predominance of manual work in\noperations which are generally mechanized here, such as filing of casting, polishing, drilling,\nscrewdriving, and riveting.\nThe maintenance of well-organized plant space free from congestion and with adequate work\nareas, lighting, and ventilation was not as common as in the U.S. In addition, it was noticed that\nseating and working facilities for the operators were not always carefully designed for the minimization\nof fatigue as they often are in this country.\nIn general, there appeared to be less thorough maintenance of machines, equipment, and tools,\nwhich resulted in more frequent breakdown and work interruptions.\nThe maintenance of well-organized plant space free from congestion and with adequate work\nareas, lighting, and ventilation was not as common as in the U.S. In addition, it was noticed that\nseating and working facilities for the operators were not always carefully designed for the minimization\nof fatigue as they often are in this country.\n[Source: BLS, Productivity Survey of English and Travel Manufacturing Plants, May 24-July 10, 1948]\n22"
}