tion, such difference being mostly comprised in the working habits.

Fifth, the best tools and equipment should be scientifically determined and provided for the performance of each step, after which, the method of their use should be prescribed.

Sixth, clerks should be properly trained to perform the work, and especially to "make decisions" upon it quickly, for most operations require that a decision be made as to which of several things should be done. These decisions are mostly very simple and are based upon policies determined by the management, so that they do not demand profound original thought on the part of the worker. Nevertheless, they are decisions, and if the worker is slow to decide which move to make or which thing to do, the over-all time required for the operation will be greatly increased.

Seventh, habits of speed should be developed, for whether a clerk works slowly or speedily is also a matter of habit; and where speed is requisite, the habit must be inculcated.

Lastly, accuracy is essential. This, too, is a habit and must be developed. Inaccuracy is mainly due to lack of concentration, and this in turn to lack of interest in the work; therefore, such interest should be cultivated and the importance of accuracy emphasized. It may be noticed that I have placed the development of accuracy last, though it is commonly assumed that it should be developed first.

But if too much emphasis is placed upon accuracy before the clerk has learned correct methods of working, the habit of indecision will become fixed, and it will be impossible to develop the habit of speed. The correct order is (a) right working methods, (b) the habit of speed, and (c) accuracy. In this sequence the emphasis is first placed upon right working methods, so that the worker may perform them subconsciously or with little conscious thought.

When this has been achieved, the habit of speed is then quickly developed, as there are no inhibitions as to motions, and when both have become habits, the insistence upon accuracy does not then interfere with or cause a slowing up of the work.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

To avoid confusion of thought, the consideration of the different kinds of routines has been left untouched until now. While the same general method is applicable to all routines, there are usually some predominant factors to which special attention must be given.

While a routine should invariably be designed with its main objective in mind, it must not be assumed that the objective will always be the same. For example, it may be imperative that above everything else a routine should be designed with a view to giving speed and service. In making a sale, the management of a department store must always keep in mind that the customer objects to waiting, and in order to serve the customer promptly, all other considerations must be subordinated to speed. On the other hand, the dominating factor may be accuracy and care, and speed may not be a factor at all, or if so, a very minor one. The preparation of an executive report may be cited as a case in point. It is of the first importance that such a report be accurate, neatly prepared, and well arranged, and though it should be completed on scheduled time, it should not be rushed.

Economy of operation is another consideration that is sometimes dominant. A mail-order house, which labors under many disadvantages in competition with local dealers, cannot afford to spend too much for clerical work, and each routine must be designed with this limitation in mind. But whatever the dominating objective may be, it should be thoroughly understood and the routine designed accordingly.

THE IMPORTANCE OF FLOW OF WORK

As the term is used in scientific management, flow of work signifies the character of the continuity of passage of the work through the various operations, and is a consideration of the highest importance. A steady, constant flow of work through a routine will result in high efficiency, and if the flow is obstructed or interrupted, there will, on the contrary, be a much lower efficiency, owing to wastage of time on the part of clerks waiting for work; for unless a clerk is supplied with sufficient work to keep him steadily employed during the entire working day, his efficiency will be low even though when he is working, he works at a high speed. It will be seen, therefore, that flow of work is a problem to be solved by the management and not by the clerks.

In some cases, lack of equable flow may be due to a cause that is altogether outside the control of the management; as, for example, when orders come in by mail, one day's receipts may be very heavy and another very light. If the office is manned to handle the heavy day, it is obviously overmanned for the light one. Again, if orders come in by telephone or by person, work may be very heavy at certain parts of the day and very light at others. Such causes are, of course, practically beyond the control of the office.

But in the majority of cases where flow is impeded, the cause is due to certain internal conditions which are well within the control of the management. Some particular department, for instance, may, because it is undermanned, hold up the work of another, or again the same result may be produced because the department is engaged on other work part of the day.

Another impediment which obstructs the flow is frequently contained in the routine itself. If the time required to perform a piece of work on one step is greater than is

required on other steps, the work will obviously remain at that step longer, and succeeding operations will have to wait. This case is illustrated in Figure 11.

One of the chief causes of defective flow within the routine itself is due to lack of standard methods for moving the work from one operation to another.

The unit plan of flow may be described as follows: A unit may be any number of pieces from one up. As soon as one unit is finished on any operation, the work is passed to the next step. If the unit consists, say, of 10 pieces, work will flow from one step to another in units of 10; if the unit is one, it will flow one at a time. The size of the unit will depend upon the number of steps in the routine and the length of time it is desired to have the work take. If the number of steps in a routine is 20, and the average time required for each step is one minute, the order can flow through all the steps in a little more than 20 minutes, if the unit is one piece; if it is 10 pieces, 200 minutes would be required. The unit plan of flow is, therefore, an organized method, and undeniably superior when contrasted with the haphazard process of flow obtaining in most office routines.

X

COMPARABLE UNITS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF WORK

Measurement as the test of a science. The purposes of measurement in office work. Requirements of a unit of measurement. The unit for over-all measurement. A unit to determine the cost of certain features. A unit for measuring clerical output. Unit for purpose of control. Using these units of measurement.

It has been well said that the possibility of measurement is the beginning of all science, and the science of management is no exception. When management depends upon such unstable and indefinite things as offhand judgments, "hunches," and luck, there can be no science, and but little progress; but when results accomplished can be measured and compared with a definite standard, when the accomplishments of an executive can be definitely measured and the efficiency of a worker can be compared, not with other workers who may or may not be efficient, but with a definite standard or unit of measurements, then and then only can science in management be said to appear. Until then there is no foundation upon which to construct a science.

Measurement of any kind must be in terms of a unit, and the kind of unit to be used depends, of course, upon the purpose of the measurement and the end to be achieved. It is true that a single unit may be used for many different kinds of measurement, but such usage is not always convenient. In astronomical measurements, star distances could be measured in inches, if instruments sufficiently delicate could be made, but it would be neither convenient nor necessary. In some cases a very minute and accurate measurement is needed; in others one less fine will serve