A STUDY OF THE EVOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By DAVID FLOYD BAKER, B.I.E., K.Sc. ***** The Ohio State University 1957 Approved by: W . L 1 6 ^ __________ Adviser 7 J Department of Industrial Engineering PREFACE It is considered proper and customary to acknow­ ledge the aid of those who had a part in the formula­ tion and creation of the study in its final form. Much of the contribution of others is clear and ex­ plicit, and because it is documented in print it is readily recognized in the conventional manner by re­ ference to the Bibliography. The writer acknowledges the influence of those in the industrial enginnering profession who have contributed to the understanding of the methodology and pedagogy of the industrial engineer. As an undergraduate and graduate student in an area of study undergoing relatively rapid change at The Ohio State University, the writer readily admits the Influence of teachers and colleagues who permitted and encouraged critical investigation of industrial engineering techniques and their supporting value systems and opinions. As adviser and counselor, Dr. Paul N. Lehoczky has had a direct influence on the study undertaken. It was through him that interest was stimulated in the industrial relations aspects of industrial engineering. He arranged and made possible the author's particip­ ation as an observer in arbitration proceedings which he conducted. The hearings provided information con­ cerning the conflict of values and opinions arising from the industrial relations aspects of industrial engineering. The long trips with Dr. Lehoczky to and from the hearings afforded valuable opportunity for discussion of issues and current problems of labor relations. The assistance of Dr. Loring G. Mitten in con­ structively criticizing the development of the manu­ script is gratefully acknowledged. In addition to his encouragement during the writing of this study, Dr. Mitten in his role as teacher and colleague has been a significant and stimulating influence. Others who in a similar way were helpful to the author in the course of the background preparation for the study were Dr. Glenn W. Miller of the Department of Economics, Dr. Robert P. Bullock of the Department of Sociology, and Dr. Harold 0. Davidson, formerly of the Department of Industrial Engineering. My heartfelt thanks are extended to my wife, Martha, who willingly helped in many ways in the pre­ paration of the manuscript* iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION........... 1 II. THE ORIGINS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION (to 1800).. 8 Introduction................................. 8 Science - Prologue to Technology.......... 9 The Role of Innovation..................... 13 The Beginning of Engineering in Industry.. 16 Socio-Economic Factors........ 19 III. NINETEENTH CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1800-1870) .. 28 Introduction................................. 28 The Role of Science....... 29 Innovation and Invention.......... 3 4 Early Nineteenth Century Engineering 39 Political and Economic Influence.......... 42 Social Groups and Social Pressures........ 48 IV. THE AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION (1870-1910) 56 Introduction................... 56 The Role of Science ..... 57 Industrial Technology...................... 62 Industrial Reform........ 6? Socio-Economic Groups and Influences 76 V. CONFLICT AND PROGRESS (1910-1930)........... 8? Introduction ..... 87 iv • • 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER PAGE V. The Growth.of Science.................. 87 Innovation and Engineering Technology. 94- Industrial Ideology and Reform 102 Social and Economic Influences........ 119 VI. THE EVOLUTION OF THE "ONE WORLD" CONCEPT (1930-1950's ) .......................... 130 Introduction........... 130 Social Groups afid Pressures........... 132 Technology................ 142 Science 158 The End of the Era of Industrial Reform 164 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................. 179 BIBLIOGRAPHY. .................................. 188 v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is the purpose of this study to examine the practice of industrial engineering in terms of the fundamental determinants which have tended to shape its development. The belief persists on the part of many members of the industrial engineering profession that organized labor and the macro-environment of shop economics are two of the most significant factors in the evolution of the relatively new discipline of industrial engineering. It is to be shown that neither of these factors has had more than a transient effect upon Its development and that the primary factors lie much deeper in the cultural stream assoc­ iated with industrialization. It Is for this reason that emphasis is often directed to the evolution of organized labor, but the major development of the study is oriented to the development of science, technology, engineering, and the socio-economic conditions and In­ stitutions of the environment in which industrial en­ gineering developed. It is not easy to establish the beginning of in­ dustrial engineering, nor indeed to identify industrial engineering by a precise definition that is entirely satisfactory. The Long Range Planning Committee of 1 the American Institute of Industrial Engineers, com­ posed of nineteen industrial engineers representing the fields of industrial, academic, and consulting practice, agreed on the following definition: ...Industrial Engineering is concerned with the design, improvement, and installation of integrated systems of men, materials, and equipment. It draws upon specialized know­ ledge and skill in the mathematical, physical, and social sciences together with the prin­ ciples and methods of engineering analysis and design to specify, predict, and evaluate the results to be obtained from such systems (121, p. 98). This definition is certainly not precise, and it would require further extensive definition in order to be effective as an operational tool for the education, selection, and/or assignment of work to an industrial engineer. As to the problem of the "beginning1*, it becomes immediately clear that the start of industrial engineering so defined would be obscured and lost in antiquity. It is not the purpose here to pursue either the beginning point or the definition of industrial en­ gineering except in terms of broad trends that are a part of the development of the modern industrial com­ plex. In general, it is not considered sufficient to limit the search for trends to a consideration of . 3 techniques alone, for, in the broad sense of the terra, a case could be presented for the existence of in­ dustrial engineering and industrial engineers in the early phases of the Industrial Revolution. For almost every phase of industrial organization and control an isolated example can be found which is precedent to the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) and other engineers of his era. In support of this contention Urwick and Brech (117, II) cite the work of those who, at this early stage in industrial development, recorded their practice and philosophy of industrial organi­ zation and control. The documentation is, for the most part, to be found in original company records only relatively recently studied and interpreted by the historian. A case is made for the contention that the establishment of Soho (the factory of Boulton and Watt) had incorporated much of the system of Taylor, with respect to organization, planning, standards, specialization, etc., as early as 1795* The authors quote from Professor J. G. Smith’s introduction to Professor Eric Roll's study, An Early Experiment in 4 Industrial Organisation; ...Neither Taylor, Ford nor other modern experts devised anything in the way of plan that cannot be discovered at Soho (the Birmingham factory of Boulton and Watt) before 1805, and the Soho system of costing is superior to that employed in very many successful concerns today. This earliest engineering factory therefore, possessed an organisation on the management side v/hich was not excelled even by the technical skill of the craftsmen it produced (117, II, 24). Ironically, Professor Roll's work was~not published until 1930, over one hundred years after the occur­ rence of the events supporting the thesis that no new basic techniques were original to the "scientific management" era. In spite of the fact that there had been no previous published account of the state of development at Soho, all factors considered, the basic contentions are plausible. The not unusual combina­ tion of Matthew Boulton, the practical engineer and businessman, and James Watt, practical engineer and inventor, could have produced a significantly ad­ vanced approach to manufacturing management. In the vicious competition of the day it would probably have been regarded as unwise to reveal too much of either the technical development or the tech­ niques of planning, organizing, and controlling the 5 production process itself. Roll does, however, support the contention that, in fact, extensive consideration had been given to planning and controlling the pro­ duction process one hundred years before Taylor's work was known. There is no evidence that this relatively high level of industrial systematization had any in­ fluence on other industrialists of the day or that there was any continuing influence in the development of techniques for production management and control. In addition to the evidence of subdivision and specialization