Kijne 1996

CHAPTER 3
TIME AND MOTION STUDY: BEYOND THE TAYLOR - GILBRETH

CONTROVERSY
Hugo J Kijne, Rutgers University.
Taylor's time study
Frederick Winslow Taylor introduced stop watch time study in 1881 in the Midvale
Steel Company in Philadelphia (1). The idea was not his, but came from one of his
instructors at the Phillips - Exeter academy in Massachusetts, the mathematician
(Bull) Wentworth, who used a stopwatch to determine how long it would take an
average student to solve a specific problem. In 1895, at a meeting of the American
Society of Industrial Engineers (ASME), Taylor mentions his experiments for the
first time. In a lecture, entitled, "A Piece Rate System" he talks about the "estimating
department" at Midvale, also described as "rate-fixing department", which has the
task of setting elementary rates. The term "elementary" refers to elementary
operations of which any job is a combination. The times in which the study of
elementary operations result are called "unit-times". The combination of elementary
operations may be unique, but similar elementary operations will be performed in
differing combinations almost every day, and according to Taylor "a man whose
business it is to fix rates soon becomes so familiar with the time required to do each
kind of elementary work performed by the men, that he can write down the time
from memory" (Taylor, 1895, 16). The method may seem complicated, but is in fact
more simple and effective than what Taylor calls the "ordinary system of rate-
fixing", where a rate-fixer would look through his records until he finds a piece of
work as nearly as possible similar to the job for which he has to set a time-standard,
and then guess the time required to do the new piece of work.
Taylor compares the ordinary system with the mechanical engineering of fifty or
sixty years ago, which consisted "in imitating machines which were in more or less
successful use, or in guessing at the dimensions and strength of the parts of a new
machine; and as the parts broke down or gave out, in replacing them with stronger
ones. Thus each new machine presented a problem almost independent of former
designs, and one which could only be solved by months or years of practical
J.-C. Spender et al. (eds.), Scientific Management

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996
Spender & Kijne 64
experience and a series of break-downs" (Taylor, 1895, 13). Replacing this "rule of
thumb" with stop-watch time study paves the way for Taylor's "differential piece rate
system", which "consists briefly in paying a higher price per piece, or per unit, ifthe
work is done in the shortest possible time and without imperfections, than is paid if
the work takes a longer time or is imperfectly done" (Taylor, 1895, 17).
In "A Piece Rate System", Taylor advocates the composition of "a hand book on the
speed with which work can be done, similar to the elementary engineering
handbooks. ( .... ) Such a book should describe the best method of making,
recording, tabulating and indexing time-observations, since much time and effort are
wasted by the adoption of inferior methods" (Taylor, 1895, 21). However
perfectionist in his formulations, Taylor's elementary operations are not as
elementary as one might suspect. In "A Piece Rate System" for instance, a job done
on a planing machine is divided in:
Time to lift piece from floor to planer table minutes
Time to level and set work true on table minutes
Time to put on stops and bolts minutes
Time to remove stops and bolts minutes
Time to remove piece to floor minutes
Time to clean machine minutes
Next to unit-times for operations of the workman, machine-times are measured for
roughing off and finishing cuts, and a percentage for unavoidable delays is added
(Taylor, 1895, 16).
In his first major publication, "Shop Management" (S.M.), Taylor describes what the
elements of a job loading pig-iron to a car should be: "(a) picking up the pig from the
ground or pile (time in hundredths ofa minute); (b) walking with it on a level (time
per foot walked); (c) walking with it up an incline to car (time per foot walked); (d)
throwing the pig down (time in hundredths of a minute), or laying it on a pile (time
in hundredths of a minute); (e) walking back empty to get a load (time per foot
walked)" (Taylor, 1947, S.M. 48). For important elementary operations, which are
to enter into a number of rates, a large number of observations should be made,
when practicable on different "first class men" and at different times, and they must
be averaged. However "the most difficult elements to time and decide upon in this,
as in most cases, are the percentage of the day required for rest, and the time to allow
for accidental or unavoidable delays" (Taylor, 1947, S.M. 49). Taylor seems to
weaken this statement later in the same book, where he writes that "accidental and
avoidable delays can be studied with the same accuracy as other elements of an
operation"(Taylor, 1947, S.M. 168). In "Shop Management" he also complains
65 Scientific Management
about the fact that his method of time study did not get the attention it deserved when
"A Piece Rate System" was published. Taylor now calls the quickest time in which a
job can be done by a first class man the "standard time". The advantage of his
method is that this standard time is known to both management and the workmen,
and that complying with it as a time standard is a common goal. "Shop
Management" contains detailed information on how to perform stop watch
observations, and a description of a time study form, used by Sanford E. Thompson,
one of Taylor's first assistants.
The routine goes as follows: "After entering the necessary descriptive matter at the
top of the sheet, divide the operation to be timed into its elementary units, and write
these units one after another under the heading "Detail Operations". If the job is
long and complicated, it may be analyzed while the timing is going on ( .... ). In all
cases however, the stop watch times are recorded in the columns headed "Time" at
the top of the right hand half of the note sheet. The rest of the figures ( ... ) are the
result of calculation, and may be made in the office by any clerk" (Taylor, 1947,
S.M.156). About the division of a job into its proper elementary units, Taylor writes:
"If the job to be observed is one which will be repeated over and over again, or if it
is one of a series of similar jobs which form an important part of the standard work
of an establishment or of the trade which is being studied, then it is best to divide the
job into elements which are rudimentary. In some cases this subdivision should be
carried to a point which seems at first glance almost absurd" (Taylor, 1947,
S.M.168). The study of the smallest possible elements will enable the analyst to fix
the exact time for the largest possible number of jobs, and reduce the likelihood of
interruptions or accidents which would render the result obtained by the observer
questionable or even useless (2). In time study, accidental factors should be
eliminated and even the obvious must be recorded. A time study system can only be
considered a success, if the observer can predict accurately how long it will take a
first class man to perform any operation that is part of his job.
The most serious problem is that no two workmen work at exactly the same pace.
Hence Taylor's advice to study the work of first class men only, and to give them an
extra incentive while they are being timed, to make sure they work at full speed.
Once these results have been obtained, it is easy to determine an extra percentage to
establish a time standard for the average workman. Taylor does not believe at all in
the policy of spying upon the workman when taking time observations for the
purpose of time study: "If the men observed are to be ultimately affected by the
results of these observations, it is generally best to come out openly, and let them
know that they are being timed and what the object of the timing is" (Taylor, 1947,
S.M.153). Secret recordings are only allowed if otherwise the result might be a row,
or the workman to be timed will not be affected by the result of the study. The
practiced time student, moreover, "can not only figure out the time in which a piece
of work should be done by a good man, after he has become familiar with this
particular job through practice, but he should also be able to state how much more
time would be required to do the same job when a good man goes at it for the first
Spender & Kijne 66
time; and this knowledge would make it possible to assign one time limit and price
for new work, and a smaller time and price for the same job after being repeated,
which is much more fair and just to both parties than the usual fixed price" (Taylor,
1947, S.M.174).
In his next book "The Principles of Scientific Management" (P.S.M., 3), Taylor
describes how to determine the "one best way to do a job": "Owing to the fact that
the workmen in all of our trades have been taught the details of their work by
observation of those immediately around them, there are many different ways in
common use for doing the same thing, perhaps forty, fifty or a hundred ways of
doing each act in each trade, and for the same reason there is a great variety in the
implements used for each class of work. Now, among the various methods and
implements used in each element of each trade, there is always one method and one
implement which is quicker than any of the rest" (Taylor, 1947, P.S.M.25). Only a
scientific study of all the methods and implements can uncover the best of both. The
general steps to achieve this are: "First. Find, say, 10 or 15 different men (preferably
in as many separate establishments and different parts of the country) who are
especially skillful in doing the particular work to be analyzed. Second. Study the
exact series of elementary operations or motions which each of these men uses in
doing the work which is being investigated, as well as the implements each man
uses. Third. Study with a stop watch the time required to make each of these
elementary movements and then select the quickest way of doing each element of the
work. Fourth. Eliminate all false movements, slow movements and useless
movements. Fifth. After doing away with all unnecessary movements, collect into
one series the quickest and best movements as well as the best implements" (Taylor,
1947, P.S.M.117). This best method becomes standard and remains standard until it
is superseded by a quicker and better series of movements.
The "Principles of Scientific Management", however, does not contain Taylor's most
elaborated description of his time study method. In December 1912, in his
commentary on a report entitled: "The Present State of Industrial Management",
Taylor gives the ASME a taste of his latest insights. Time study, he argues, consists
of two broad divisions, first, analytical work, and second, constructive work. The
analytical work of time study consists of the following elements: "a) Divide the work
of a man performing any job into simple elementary movements. b) Pick out all
useless movements and discard them. c) Study, one after another, just how each of
several skilled workmen makes each elementary movement, and with the aid of a
stop watch select the quickest and best method of making each elementary
movement known in the trade. d) Describe, record and index each elementary
movement, with its proper time, so that it can be quickly found. e) Study and record
the percentage which must be added to the actual working time of a good workman
to cover unavoidable delays, interruptions, and minor accidents etc. f) Study and
record the percentage which must be added to cover the newness of a good workman
to ajob, the first few times that he does it ( .... ). g) Study and record the percentage of
time that must be allowed for rest, and the intervals at which the rest must be taken,
in order to offset physical fatigue. The constructive work of time study is as follows:
h) Add together into various groups such combinations of elementary movements as

are frequently used in the same sequence in the trade, and record and index these
groups so that they can be readily found. i) From these several records, it is
comparatively easy to select the proper series of motions which should be used by a
workman in making any particular article, and by summing the times of these
movements, and adding proper percentage allowances, to find the proper time for
doing almost any class of work. k) The analysis of a piece of work into its elements
almost always reveals the fact that many of the conditions surrounding and
accompanying the work are defective; for instance, that improper tools are used, that
the machines used in connection with it need perfecting, that the sanitary conditions
are bad, etc. And knowledge so obtained leads frequently to constructive work of a
high order, to the standardization of tools and conditions, to the invention of superior
methods and machines" (ASME, 1912, 1199/1200).
From Taylor's earliest descriptions of time study through the descriptions in "The
Principles" and at the ASME conference, a shift in terminology can be recognized.
Slowly but definitely, the term "elementary operations" is being replaced by the
words movements or even motions. Taylor's choice of words is not accidental. The
switch has everything to do with a phenomenon which he has come to consider both
an enrichment and a threat to his "Scientific Management": Frank Bunker Gilbreth's
motion study.
Gilbreth's motion study
Gilbreth and Taylor met each other for the first time at a meeting of the Engineering
Society in December 1907. Much longer, from 1898 on, Gilbreth had been in touch
with Sanford Thompson, who had made time studies on jobs connected with
Gilbreth's work as a contractor. Gilbreth, who had started as a brick-layer, already
had made an impressive career in the building industry. He had developed serious
improvements, both in implements and in work-methods, about which he would
publish his "Bricklaying System" in 1909 (Spriegel and Myers, 1953, 37 et seq.).
Taylor in the meantime had devoted himself completely to the propaganda for
scientific management. The meeting brought about an enormous enthusiasm for
scientific management in Gilbreth, who did not hesitate to label himself as a patient
of "Tayloritis" (4). Taylor on the other hand was impressed with Gilbreth's
achievements in the building trade, and he encouraged two of his closest assistants,
Thompson and Horace King Hathaway, to co-operate with Gilbreth. In 1908, both
of them made time studies on building projects that Gilbreth was involved with.
When it came to finding the right motions, especially in the building trade which he
knew as well as any man, Gilbreth's capacities were second to none. One chapter in
"Bricklaying System" is devoted to "motion study". The elimination of useless
motions is a golden rule in Gilbreth's "system" (Spriegel and Myers, 1953, 56/57).
But Gilbreth's activities went beyond the building trade. In 1911 his book "Motion
Study" was published, in which Gilbreth attempts to analyze jobs systematically, by
Spender & Kijne 68
making a division between variables of the worker, variables of the surroundings,

equipment and tools, and variables of the motion (Spriegel and Myers, 1953,
1521153). Gilbreth at this point still considers his work in line with Taylor's, and in
the chapter about the past, the present and the future he attempts to connect motion
study and time study (Spriegel and Myers, 1953, 1971198). He poses the problem
how to build up the "correct method" in accordance with "the laws of motion
economy". The approach looks more substantial than the generalities which Taylor
so far has produced about first class men and elementary operations, and its elements
can be recognized in his description of time study of 1912, without any mention of
the source.
There are signs however, that Gilbreth does not expect the final answer to come from
time study: "Any method which seems after careful study to have attained perfection,
using absolutely the least number of effective, shortest motions, may be thrown aside
when a new way of transporting or placing material or men is introduced. It is pitiful
to think of the time, money, strength and brains that have been wasted on devising
wonderfully clever but not fundamentally derived methods of doing work, which
must inevitably be discarded for the latter. The standardizing of the trades will
utilize every atom of such heretofore wasted energy. The standardizing of the trades
affords a definite best method of doing each element. Having but one standard
method of doing each element divides the amount of time study data necessary to
take by a number equal to the number of different equally good methods that could
be used. The greatest step forward can be made only when time study data can be
made by one and used by all"( ... ). His faith in Taylor remains unshaken: "Much
toward standardizing the trades has already been done. In this, as in almost countless
other lines of activity, the investigator turns oftenest with admiration to the work of
Frederick W. Taylor. It is the never-ceasing marvel concerning this man that age
cannot wither nor custom stale his work. After many a weary day's study the
investigator awakes from a dream of greatness to find that he has only worked out a
new proof for a problem that Taylor has already solved" (Spriegel and Myers, 1953,
198). On the last pages of "Motion Study" Gilbreth, almost accidentally, mentions
photography as a possible instrument of motion study, and about one year after the
book was published he starts sending Taylor pictures he has made in order to study
motions.
On April 18th, 1912, Gilbreth writes to Taylor: "I have just perfected a mechanical
device for taking time study by photographing the time of day in hours, minutes,
tenths of minutes and hundredths of tenths of minutes. In other words, I now
photograph to the thousandth of a minute the time of day that each of one thousand
photographs of a moving picture camera are exposed, and the actual time of any
motion can be obtained by subtracting the time of day in one picture from the time of
day of any other picture in the same series. I am able to go still further than this, but
it is difficult to explain to you in writing and therefore I hope to have an opportunity
to explain to you, soon after your arrival back in America, how I can measure these
motions in three directions; that is to say sideways, vertically and in and out. In
other words, I am able to record these motions by themselves, and relatively, in three
dimensions and so view them stereoscopically while making up from the time and
motion records the ideal method synthetically by cutting out those photographs that
show anything but time of each motion. Having thus corrected the negative film I
can then print the positive films at a cost of approximately six cents per lineal foot. I
do not believe that this method will ever wholly do away with the present stop watch
method, but it will have a tremendous use in teaching certain elements of processes
by the exhibition of these educational films. You will see that this process not only
enables me to take the time study to the thousandth of a minute, eliminating all error
due to the human element or to differences in mental time reactions but that it also
permits measuring the motions in three dimensions simultaneously"(4). After
signing the letter Gilbreth adds: "There is much more to it than this & I'm looking
forward to showing to you in operation".
Taylor can not really be blamed for not completely understanding Gilbreth's exalted
prose at first sight, but his reaction is too cool and comes too late. Only after a
couple of months he writes back that he doesn't know the first thing about
photography, but that Gilbreth's method may be useful in analyzing operations which
cannot be studied in any other way. Later he repeats that, with the help of the
"photographic scheme", eventually a good time study system can be developed for a
category of observations which cannot be made differently. He adds that it is indeed
difficult to predict the potential of the new system (5). In April 1913, Gilbreth
informs Taylor about a new invention. By putting small electric light bulbs on the
middle finger of an operator's hand or hands, and by having these lights flicker at a
known number of times per minute, Gilbreth can now photograph the path of a
motion and afterwards straighten out and simplify this path at very low cost. His
purpose is to "have a more perfect motion condition before taking time study"(6), but
Taylor's reaction makes clear that he still sees motion study as a part of time study,
and not as the separate activity Gilbreth seems intend on turning it into (7). At this
point of time the feelings b~tween Taylor and Gilbreth are no longer as warm as they
used to be. In 1912, Gilbreth has decided to establish himself as "consulting
engineer". Taylor doubts whether Gilbreth has enough patience to take the full five
years he considers necessary to install scientific management in an industrial
establishment, and he also suspects Gilbreth of being somewhat sloppy in financial
matters. Although he continuously keeps Gilbreth at more than an arm's distance
(8), he also feels involved, because Gilbreth is being identified with his name and
system of scientific management by the outside world no matter how Taylor feels
about him.
During the first year of Gilbreth's activities as a consultant, all goes well. Of Taylor's
associates, King Hathaway and Dwight V. Merrick are involved in the installment of
scientific management at the New England Butt company, Gilbreth's first client.
During the following year, however, Taylor receives a complaint from another of
Gilbreth's clients, Herr Herrmann of the Herrmann & Aukam handkerchief factory.
Gilbreth has not performed as agreed, and his bills have been extravagant.
Moreover, Gilbreth has taken good people away from the job and put an incompetent
Spender & Kijne 70
person in charge. When confronted with Herrmann's complaint, it takes Gilbreth a

while to respond. He then blames the failures on Herrmann's incompetent staff and
denies all allegations. Taylor however has sent Hathaway to Herrmann's factory, and
his main troubleshooter confirms that Herrmann's complaints are justified. Taylor
suspects that there is a purpose behind Gilbreth's behavior, namely the fact that he
has a lucrative contract in Germany and wants to take his best people there. After
these events, until Taylor's death in 1915, the correspondence is continued between
Taylor's secretary and Mrs. Gilbreth. Frank Gilbreth only sends a postcard from
Germany once in a while.
In 1917 "Applied Motion Study" is published, written by Gilbreth and his wife, the
psychologist Lillian Moller. In this book the results of the experiments, about which
Taylor was the first to be informed, are shown. The Gilbreths describe the "micro-
motion" method of motion study, which consists of "recording motions by means of
a motion picture camera, a clock that will record different times of day in each
picture of a motion picture film, a cross-sectioned background, and other devices for
assisting in measuring the relative efficiency and wastefulness of motions" (Spriegel
and Myers, 1953, 221). When an experienced operator is being filmed, it is
expected that he performs at his best, because all his motions are being recorded. In
the meantime, the observer who operates the motion picture camera has the freedom
to observe all operations and to note possibilities for improvement, whereas at the
same time all the surrounding conditions of the job are recorded as well, and
therefore improvements become possible. For the registration of motion times, the
Gilbreths use "microchronometers", of which they developed several, the most
accurate one that records times to the millionth of an hour. Micro-motion study is
being completed with the "chronocyclegraph" method, about which Gilbreth
informed Taylor in the letter quoted above. The result of three-dimensional
registration of motions by stereoscopic photography is called a "stereocyclegraph".
The "standard method" is derived from both micro-motion studies and
chronocyclegraph studies (Spriegel and Myers, 1953, 222).
In "Applied Motion Study", the Gilbreths for the first time write systematically about
the difference between motion study and time study. After praising Taylor's
pioneering work in time study, they distinguish three elements to every
measurement: 1. The unit measured. 2. The method of measurement. 3. The
device by which the measurement is made. According to the Gilbreths, the
elementary operations that were distinguished by Taylor were only elementary in
relation to the stop watch as an instrument of measurement, whereas motion study
devices make smaller and more accurate divisions possible. Moreover, stopwatch
time study always has to deal with the human element, inaccuracy due to mistakes or
the reaction time of the observer. This weakness of stop watch time study is
eliminated in motion study, because the operation and the time needed are recorded
simultaneously. Thus motion study serves several goals: Elimination of unnecessary
movements, reduction of fatigue and instructing the operators in working according
to the standard method by means of "Simultaneous motion cycle charts" and other
tools to visualize what is expected of the workmen. Many of these tools were
developed during the time when Gilbreth devoted himself to the revalidation of
wounded soldiers in WW I. In their next book, "Motion Study for the Handicapped",
the Gilbreths publish what has probably been their most lasting contribution to work
study: An alphabet of human motions, of (some of) which every cycle of operations
is a unique combination. Without false modesty they call these basic motions
"Therbligs", an anagram of Gilbreths, and claim that they offer the same possibilities
in standardizing movements as scientific management initially offered in
standardizing work methods and tools (9).
An indictment of stopwatch time study
On April II th 1921, at a meeting of the Philadelphia section of the Taylor Society,

the Gilbreths present an indictment of stop watch time study. Their main target is
the book "Time Studies as a Basis for Rate Setting" by Dwight V. Merrick, which
had been published a year before. Merrick, who owed his knowledge about and
experience in time study mainly to Carl Barth, one of Taylor's first associates, asks
for trouble with the Gilbreths in the first chapter of his book. According to him, time
study has for its objects: "I. the determination of possible improvements in the
equipment and surrounding conditions for producing a given piece of work or for
discharging a specific piece of work. 2. the determination of possible improvement
in the method of actually performing the work, and 3. The determination of a unit
time in which a given piece of work, or task, should be finished, under satisfactory
conditions with effective use of the equipment provided for the task. Properly
speaking, the main object of time study is to determine the time for a task, the first
two enumerated objects being rather of the nature of analysis and simplification of
the motions preparatory to time study - in reality motion study" (Merrick, 1920,3/4).
One might assume that this recognition of the primacy of motion study over time
study would have pleased Gilbreth, but from his margin comments on Merrick's
book it is clear that he does not consider Merrick nor Barth, who wrote the
introduction, qualified to say anything substantial about motion study. His
objections also include Taylor's description of 1912: "Taylor's one thought in time
study always has been exactly as stated in this paragraph, "the proper rate of speed at
which work should be done". Taylor's many investigations with us emphasize the
"rate of speed at which work should be done" and that makes the definition of
Taylor's "Time Study" as the art of determining the speed at which work should be
done. This is the claim that we have always made and now make that Taylor's
definition is right. We therefore disagree and object to Taylor's definition changed in
1912, in discussion of the ASME paper on the "Present State of Industrial
Management" to include Motion Study as a part of time study. Barth in the
discussion written here (1919), page vii opposite emphasizes that time study is for
"equitable rate setting". In other words, Barth agrees with Taylor's definition of the
time previous to the time that we showed that stop watch timing was neither
scientific nor accurate and that it does not record the surrounding conditions; that it
did not treat (sic!) with elementary units and the so-called elementary units were
Spender & Kijne 72
elementary only so far as the stopwatch was concerned. We agree with Taylor,
Barth and Merrick that "Time study is for rate setting". It is not for the purpose of
finding the one best way to do work" (10).
According to Merrick, the time study procedure consists of, "first, a careful survey of
the work and all influencing conditions; second, an analytical division of the task in
simple elements; third, an observation and record of the time taken in performing
each of the element operations; and, fourth, an analytical study of the recorded unit
times" (Merrick, 1920, 5). The operator to be studied should be advisedly "a first-
class worker of somewhat better than average ability", so that with fatigue and other
allowances the resulting rates are within the range of the average worker. An
experienced observer however can arrive at accurate rates also from studying a
mediocre worker.
Merrick distinguishes different types of time studies. Operation time studies are
made if the product does not vary in type and character from day to day and is made
by repeating the same operation or set of operations. Then it is wise to study each
operation as a job complete in itself. If the product varies frequently, and is made
by a series of unrelated, elementary motions, the grouping of which is seldom the
same, "it is necessary to determine which of the several elements are to be grouped
and regrouped to perform the various fundamental operations. Time studies should
be taken on the individual fundamental operations either singularly or collectively,
and the data thus secured can be arranged and combined in such manner as to fix a
definite time for the performance of practically every job that may be performed in
the establishment" (Merrick, 1920, 7). Such studies are known as fundamental
operation time studies. The method of observing and recording the time required is
the same in both types of studies. The number of necessary observations depends on
the time of the fundamental operations and the ability of the operator. The smaller
the elementary operations, the more impact a mistake by the observer can have.
Twenty observations should be made when the average time of the fundamental
operations is less than one minute. Merrick does not explain where this number
comes from. The striking out of abnormal values is a detail that calls for fine
judgement on the part of the time study man. Merrick claims that while no general
rule can be laid down for the elimination of these abnormal items, 'minimum or
maximum isolated items 25% less or 30% greater, respectively, than an adjacent item
should usually be rejected" (Merrick, 1920, 13).
Merrick is uncharacteristically accurate when it comes to determining the standard

time: "Having determined the average, the abnormal readings being eliminated, the
individual times used in determining the average are scanned and the minimum
individual time ascertained. This is divided into the average, the quotient being
designated as the "deviation". The above procedure is followed for each of the detail
operations, and the individual deviations are listed as shown on the observation
sheet. These are then totaled and divided by the number of deviations. This
quotient, usually though incorrectly called the average deviation, is a factor that
divided into the average of the individual times for a detail operation will give the
"selected minimum" time for that operation. The "total selected minimum", or cycle
time, is not the time in which it is expected that the cycle be performed in practice,
although some one or more of the elements of the cycle might be performed within
their respected "selected minimum" times by an exceptional operator working under
unusually favorable conditions ( ... ) A shorter method for finding the deviation factor
is to divide the sum of the averages by the sum of the minima. It is, however,
desirable to note the fluctuations of the several individual deviations from the
deviation factor, since those elements that show the widest deviation are those upon
which the greatest improvements may reasonably be expected" (Merrick, 1920, 13).
According to Merrick, experience shows that the selected minimum times as

determined from observations on one operator agree closely with those obtained
from observing other operators. After the time study is finished, the selected
minimum time is simplified into the "selected time" and this selected time is enlarged
with an allowance in order to reach the standard time. The percentage of the
allowance depends of the amount of "handling" time included in the job. In order to
determine this percentage Merrick uses curves developed by Barth. Allowances can
be given for delays and as "preparation time", to the latter according to Merrick "an
arbitrary allowance of 25% to offset any variation, interferences etc." should be
added (Merrick, 1920, 16). When machine work is concerned, 2,5% is added to
cover oiling the machine and washing at noon and night. A study that is made to
determine the cause of failure of an operator to reach the standard set is known as a
"production study". This type of study should preferably begin when the operator
starts work in the morning, and it should continue throughout the day, possibly even
for several days. The last type of time study Merrick distinguishes is a production
study of automatic machinery, which differs from other studies in that only the time
lost by stoppages and delays is recorded.
Maybe Merrick's book was not the only reason for Gilbreth's anger. From April
through September 1920 William O. Lichtner, Sanford Thompson's partner,
published a series of articles on "Time and Job Analysis in Management" in a
magazine called "Industrial Management". At the end of the fourth article Gilbreth's
motion study is mentioned. In two sentences the author declares that the method is
still too expensive for general application (11).
The Gilbreths start their indictment as follows: "Planning and control and all other
functions of management depend first, last and all the time upon the standards on
which they are based. These standards, in tum, depend upon the fundamental data
from which they are derived. The fundamental data for determining standards are
obtained by motion study and time study" (B.T.S. June, 1921, 100). Taylor is quoted
as saying that his whole system rests upon an accurate and scientific study of unit
times, and the Gilbreths emphasize the words "accurate" and "scientific". Then they
continue: "At the time that Taylor wrote this, in 1903, in his classic "Shop
Management", ( ... ) the stop watch was the most accurate device and method extant.
Today the stop watch is known to be vastly inferior to the method of timing and
Spender & Kijne 74
recording the motions and the attending conditions simultaneously. It has been
proved absolutely worthless and also misleading so far as assisting in skill study is
concerned. It is unethical because it does not clearly define the subject matter of an
implied contract on which the wage payment is based, and it is economically
wasteful because it does not preserve the best that has been done" (B.T.S., 1921,
100). After this declaration of war the Gilbreths come to the essence of their critique
of time study: "Every statistician knows, and to most students of science it would
seem almost axiomatic, that final averages are no more accurate than the data from
which they are derived" (B.T.S., 1921, 100).
Apparently in ignorance of this fact, according to the Gilbreths, "papers and books
have been written on time study in which are advocated the practice and method of
crossing out, and discarding, times recorded by the inaccurate stop watch method,
which at the time the time study data are worked up are guessed to be "abnormal",
because they seem to be much higher or much lower than the others. In these papers
and books is recommended the practice of making arithmetical calculations based
upon averaging the remaining times to the fourth decimal, or the ten-thousandth of a
minute, although the watch on which the original readings or pressings were made
had no divisions smaller than a hundredth, and no observer claims that his records
are always accurate to a fiftieth of a minute" (B.T.S. June, 1921, 100). Merrick's
book is furthermore criticized because: - According to Barth's foreword, time studies
should be made of workers not extraordinarily expert; - the data are inaccurate; - the
quality and ability and suitability of the man observed are not properly recorded; -
judgment instead of measurement is used when a mediocre worker is observed or
when "soldiering" is suspected; - judgment, not measurement, determines the
number of observations to be taken; - selections of the records to be used and
averaged is left to judgment, not determined by measurement; - the curves cannot be
more accurate than the data from which they are derived; - the preparation time is
inaccurate; - the time allowed for delays is inaccurate;
The standard by which the Gilbreths want to replace the in-accuracies of time study
is the "one best way to do work". The method to do this is motion study, or "the
science of recording motions, of which "time" is but one of scores of variables"
(B.T.S., 1921, 103). The Gilbreths declare that loyalty to Taylor's principles is more
important than loyalty to his method, they appeal to prominent mathematicians to
support their basic thesis, and they declare their devotion to the workers and the
youth of the United States. Then they emphasize the use of the word "average" by
practitioners of time study: "In the first place, it is customary to make records of the
"average" worker" or "one slightly above the average" and some advocates of the
stop watch recommend making records only of the indefinite "first-class man". As a
matter of fact, there is no such thing as an "average man", and if there were it would
require much research to determine and to locate him. The border lines of defining
the "first-class man" are as indefinite as the location of a rainbow. There is but one
type of worker that is fixed, at least for the time being, that is the best man obtainable
at the time, at that particular kind of work" (B. T.S. June, 1921, 104). Motion study
is only done with this category of workers, whereas time study advocates emphasize
"average" because they expect less resistance from the workers, once the standards
have been set. The only use of time study consists in the fact that it is better than
nothing. Still the use of the stop watch furnishes admirable training for the young
management engineer, according to the Gilbreths, who, without experience with the
inaccurate stop watch method, will never fully appreciate the possibilities of
interchangeable data obtained by micromotion study, and their lasting value.
The closing statement of the Gilbreths starts as follows: "As advocates of real
science in management; as interested in the progress of the art of management; as
vitally concerned in the future welfare of this country, and as ready to fight for it
industrially as in war; as engineers trying to do our bit in the problem of the
elimination of all kinds of human waste and for better management, we, therefore,
feel compelled at this time to indict stop watch time study as having outlived and
extended beyond its field of usefulness; as having failed to co-operate with
micromotion study; as having failed - and in some cases deservedly - in obtaining the
hearty co-operation of the workingman; as having failed to put into the hands of the
workingmen and the trade and manual-training schools fundamental data regarding
craft knowledge and craft skill, and as having failed to furnish interchangeable data
relating to time study elements usable in synthesizing the one best way to do work"
(B. T.S. June, 1921, 107). According to the Gilbreths, the judgment of the Taylor
Society will determine whether it intends to live up to its name as a "Society to
Promote the Science of Management".
In the Bulletin of the Taylor Society (B.T.S.) in which the indictment of the
stopwatch by the Gilbreths is published, a parade of former Taylor-associates tries to
save the endangered honor of the stop watch. Carl Barth is the first in line with
arguments that basically come down to a justification of the deficiencies of the stop
watch method. The objective of time study, according to Barth, is to determine a fair
time to allow a worker for the performance of a task, and thereby to establish a fair
contract between the worker and management. However accurate Gilbreth's motion
picture methods may be, the stop watch is still a lot cheaper, according to Barth, and
Gilbreth's instruments "cannot - any more than a stop watch - automatically pick the
most suitable in a group of workers to which to apply it, or overcome the variations
in the performance of any worker selected" (B.T.S. June, 1921, 109). Barth has
reason to believe that Gilbreth's studies have been mostly connected with repetitive
work implying exceedingly minute motions and individual time elements, whereas
his and Merrick's studies have mainly been of machine operations, in- which the time
of machining a piece exceeds largely the time the operator applies himself directly.
Here the gains come from the re-speeding and often the re-building of machines, the
institution of improved tool rooms and so forth, rather than from the subsequent time
study of the operations involved. Barth concludes by stating that the magnifying
glass still has its legitimate use along with the microscope and the telescope, and that
planning in industry will always be inaccurate, because of modified requirements by
customers and unforeseeable accidents to materials and machines.
Spender & Kijne 76
Dwight V. Merrick adds little to Barth's statement. He repeats that in many instances
feed and speed data are more important factors than the handling time data. He sees
a useful field for both methods, but is convinced that "for ordinary, practical
purposes the stop watch will continue to be the most convenient time measuring
device" CB.T.S., 1921, 112). Another associate of Taylor, Morris L. Cooke, uses the
opportunity to express his and Taylor's absolute opposing secrecy in time study.
Thomas W. Mitchell supports the Gilbreths, by pointing out that the time study
methods of Merrick, Thompson and others are not identical. If they cannot figure
out the "one best way" to do time study, how can they ever expect to fig~re out the
"one best way to do a job" by means of time study? Reynold A. Spaeth more or less
transcends the debate by stating that the stop watch is already too accurate. He does
not challenge the arguments of the Gilbreths on theoretical grounds, but in the future
he expects better results from psychology and physiological research than from
perfecting time study methods.
After this defense of the stop watch it is not too hard for the Gilbreths to claim
victory. Their reaction to Barth's statement is the most extended, and not
surprisingly, they agree with him on one point, namely that the object of time studies
is to determine "a fair time to allow a worker for the performance of a task" CB.T.S.,
1921,118). Hereby they consider Taylor's views of 1912 reversed, and correctly so.
Only their own method can establish the "one best way to do a job", and fixing time
standards is only a byproduct of this procedure. They answer Barth's suggestion that
their method would be too expensive by entering his metaphor: No biologist or
astronomer would prefer the magnifying glass to the microscope or the telescope,
unless forced by insufficient means. This fact can hardly be considered a strong
argument for the magnifying glass. Moreover, the Gilbreths claim that the
micromotion method will pay for its entire cost almost from the beginning of its use.
Their answer to Barth's only substantial point, namely that the motion picture camera
will not select the most suitable worker, is too easy: It won't advise the observer to
pick an operator just above average either, like Barth does in his foreword to
Merrick's book. The Gilbreths reject Barth's and Merrick's suggestion that
micromotion study becomes more valuable when the work to be studied becomes
more repetitive. They claim experience with all kinds of work, industrial and non-
industrial. Their last words for Merrick are the following: "We have invited Mr.
Merrick many times to visit us and to become familiar with our methods, and he has
not yet availed himself of the opportunity. We have enjoyed an uninterrupted
friendship with him for fourteen years, have advised him as to cameras, which he did
not buy, sent him a copy of our latest book, and indicted his methods in this paper,
and we do not know what more we can do for him" CB.T.S., 1921, 125).
Time and motion study
The conflict between the intellectual heirs of Taylor and the Gilbreths has not yet
been solved when Gilbreth suddenly dies in 1924. In the preface to their book "Time
and Motion Study and Formulas for Wage Incentives" Lowry, Maynard and
Stegemerten CL.M.S.) write in 1927: "It should be understood by the reader that the
tenn "time study" as used in this book carries with it the fullest interpretation.
Common usage has decreed that "time study" shall be used to identify what is in
reality "time and motion study". The two are inseparable, and one is of little use
without the other. There should be no confusion, however, with the methods of
some modem authorities who have chosen to identify their practices by the tenn
"motion study". This tenn standing alone is fully as misleading as is the tenn "time
study" when standing alone. Motion study does not eliminate the time element any
more than time study eliminates the scientific analysis and standardization of
motions. The distinction lies in the fact that motion study, by means of motion
picture cameras and comparatively elaborate and expensive methods, lays greater
stress on the minute analysis of motions under more or less ideal or laboratory
conditions, while time study as advocated in this book is designed along simpler,
more practicable, and more comprehensive lines (L.M.S., 1932, X).
It is not too hard to recognize the followers of Gilbreth and particularly his widow as
those "modem authorities". In spite of the fact that these authors do not value
motion study properly, they use a number of elements from the work of the
Gilbreths. They produce, for instance, a list of elementary subdivisions of an
operation which differs only slightly from Gilbreth's therbligs. Also, their book
contains a number of "laws of motion economy", that have their origins in Gilbreth's
work. As far as time study is concerned, Lowry, Maynard and Stegemerten's
approach means an enonnous step forwards. Their contribution lies in a field which
Gilbreth considered one of the fundamental weaknesses of stop-watch time study,
namely the rating of the skills and efforts with which operations are perfonned.
Although it is hard to specify degrees of skill exactly, for they are purely relative and
affected by many factors, it is possible, according to L.M.S., to subdivide skill in to
six general classes, and to set forth the general characteristics exhibited by an
operator, that will detennine to which class he belongs.
These classes and characteristics are: "Poor. - An operator whose skill would be
considered poor is usually one to whom the work is new or one who is misfitted by
nature for the work he is doing" (L.M.S., 1932, 112). "Fair. - The man who may be
considered to possess fair skill may be a misfit who has been doing the job for so
long that he has been able to overcome some of his natural handicaps and has risen
from the poor class" (L.M.S., 1932, 113). "Average. - The man who possesses
average skill is the one who is most discussed and the one to whom all other are
compared. He is the one who has been on the job long enough to be considered
proficient in the work, although he has not been at it long enough to gain that
proficiency which comes only of long practice" (L.M.S., 1932, 114). "Good. - The
man whose skill may be considered as good is noticeably better than the ordinary run
of men found doing the same class of work. He seems more intelligent and
possesses reasoning ability to a marked degree. He will produce more and better
work than the average man, with seemingly less effort" (L.M.S., 1932, 115).
"Excellent. - An operator whose skill may be considered as excellent is distinguished
by precision and certainty of action, speed and smoothness of perfonnance, and self-
Spender & Kijne 78
confidence. At the beginning of the operation, this man visualizes each step from the
first to the last. He knows what he wants and where to find it. The tools he selects
for each element of the operation are the best and the most efficient available, and
his set-up is such that it will permit the systematic performance of the elements in
their proper sequence. This sequence is never varied" (L.M.S., 1932, 115).
"Superskill. - The supers killed operator is not common in industry. Superskill comes
from long years at the same line of work or is found where intensive training in the
one best method for doing the work is possible ( ... ) The superskilled operator has all
the characteristics of the operator of excellent skill developed to as near perfection as
it is possible for a human being to attain" (L.M.S., 1932, 116).
The effort, with which operations are performed, is also subdivided in six classes:
"Poor. - A poor effort may be given by an operator possessing any of the six degrees
of skill. A poor effort may be malicious or may be caused by lack of interest or may
be, so the operator thinks, given as a matter of self-protection" (L.M.S., 1932, 119).
"Fair. - A man exerting a fair effort will be somewhat more reasonable in his attitude
towards his work, but he will exhibit a number of the same tendencies which the man
giving a poor effort shows. He takes little interest in his work and seems to regard it
as a necessary evil" (L.M.S., 1932, 121). "Average. - The average effort falls on the
border line between the fair and the good effort. It is the effort to which all others
are compared, and yet it is perhaps the hardest to define specifically. It is a little
better than the fair effort and a little poorer than the good" (L.M.S., 1932, 122).
"Good. - A man giving a good effort has the following tendencies. He works
steadily and systematically and does not lose time doing operations foreign to the
work. He takes an interest in the job he is doing, and takes pleasure in turning out a
good job. He works steadily at a pace which he will be able to maintain day after
day and week after week. He works hard but not hard enough to endanger his
health. He is conscientious about his work, and, when he is not under observation,
does not try to use short cut methods which he knows will detract from the quality of
the finished product" (L.M.S., 1932, 123). "Excellent. - An excellent effort differs
from the good effort in several respects. The operator exerting an excellent effort
works fast and uses his head as well as his hands. He works with a will, and makes
his mind direct his efforts to the best advantage. He takes a keen interest in the
work. Not only does he readily follow any good suggestions which the time-study
man may make, but he is also on the alert himself to better tools and methods
through ideas of his own" (L.M.S., 1932, 123). "Killing. - A killing effort is given
by some few individuals who cannot work normally when anyone is watching them.
... From the consideration of effort alone, the killing effort is best from every
standpoint but that of health" (L.M.S., 1932, 124).
Skill and effort are rated in values between +0.15 (superskiIl) and -0.22 (poor skill)
and +0.13 (killing effort) and -0.17 (poor effort). Next to skill and effort, the
conditions under and the consistency with which operations are performed are rated
in values between +0.06 (ideal conditions) and -0.07 (poor conditions) and +0.04
(perfect consistency) and -0.04 (poor consistency). After the time study is made, the
resulting "average" time is multiplied with the "leveling factor", the algebraic sum of
the numerical values for skill, effort, conditions and consistency added to 1.0
(L.M.S., 1932, 135). According to Lowry, Maynard and Stegemerten, these
calculations are far more accurate than the ones resulting from the method Merrick
advocated in 1919. Of course Gilbreth's critique of stop watch time study basically
still stands, in spite of these refinements. Subjective judgment to determine into
which class of skill and effort the workman falls is the core of the system, and the
possibility of human error in making the time study has not been eliminated.
Where Lowry, Maynard and Stegemerten try to respond to the criticism, Sanford
Thompson and Dwight Merrick show receptiveness of a different kind. Thompson
writes in 1928: "As long ago as 1885, Frederick W. Taylor developed the principle
of unit times; that is, the breaking up of an operation into motions or elements which
can be used for recombination into various other operations in the same way that the
twenty six letters of the alphabet in different combinations can be made to spell
many thousands of words" (B.T.S. April 1928, 70). Thompson's use of the words
alphabet and motions suggests identity of time and motion study, in this case
achieved by incorporating some of Gilbreth's terminology. Merrick repeats, in one
of the following Bulletins of the Taylor Society, the pretentious description of time
study Taylor gave in 1912 (B.T.S. June 1928, 109). This pUblication, however,
contains the first signs of improved relations between the Taylorists and the
followers of Gilbreth. Lillian Gilbreth contributes an article on "The Relations of
Time and Motion Study", in which she states: "Micro-motion study and stop-watch
time study are two ways of recording work methods and the time that they take.
Each has its place. Motion study as practiced by our group, uses the stop watch
where it can do the work adequately. We believe, however, that the film data are
more accurate, and more useful for teaching purposes, and therefore that the micro-
motion method is advisable in many more cases than are generally recognized. The
decreasing cost of films, cameras, etc., often makes the micro-motion record cheaper
than the stop watch record" (B.T.S. June 1928, 127).
Nobody contradicts Lillian openly, and in 1930 Hathaway shows more generosity
than Thompson and Merrick in 1928, when he writes: "The late Frank B. Gilbreth,
probably to a greater extent than anyone else identified with the scientific
management movement, realized the full importance of study of the motions
involved in the performance of work. ( ... ) The scientific management movement is
indebted to the Gilbreths not only for focusing attention upon this feature of Taylor's
philosophy and setting it forth in the light of its true importance but for refining and
developing its technique along truly scientific lines, for reducing and codifying its
fundamentals and setting, by years of persevering effort, a new standard which
industry is just beginning to understand and make an effort to attain" (B. T.S. October
1930, 214). In a reaction to this article, Stegemerten finds reasons to modify the
approach he developed with Lowry and Maynard: "When the supposedly best
method has been determined, every operator involved is taught its use. ( .... ) In this
way the element of individual skill is almost eliminated by teaching each operator to
be highly skilled" (B.T.S. October, 1930,243). In the future, he therefore predicts,
Spender & Kijne 80
the focus of "methods study", as Hathaway calls time and motion study, will be on
effort rather than skill.
Motion and time study
When one of Gilbreth's pupils and an assistant-editor of the magazine "Factory and
Industrial Management", Allan H. Mogensen, publishes a collection of articles in
1932, the title is: "Common Sense Applied to Motion and Time Study". For the first
time the order is reversed, and Mogensen has convincing arguments to settle the
debate: "Reams of paper and much good time have been spent in futile discussions of
the best method to use. I believe that this was furthest from the minds both of Taylor
and of Gilbreth, and the sooner we see that we must consider both together and that
we cannot use one without the other, the sooner we realize the goal of scientific
management - elimination of waste in industry" (Mogensen, 1932, 9). According to
Mogensen, who quotes Taylor's time study-definition of 1912, there are many
indications that Taylor, in his work at Midvale, practiced what is now considered
"Motion Economy". What Gilbreth, following Taylor, tried to emphasize, was the
method rather than the time. His criticism was directed against the misuse of the
stop watch, not against the stop watch as such, as Gilbreth himself used it when
occasion demanded. An important reason for misunderstanding motion study has
been the emphasis on laboratory methods in Gilbreth's writings. From this many
people have gathered that it is not at all a method that can be used in a shop. With
the help of a quotation from Gilbreth's book "Applied Motion Study" Mogensen tries
to show this interpretation in error (12). Those who have failed to grasp Gilbreth's
fundamental philosophy "have merely taken the greatest refinement - micro-motion
study - and, having immediately convinced themselves that it is impractical for their
purposes, dismiss the whole field of methods study with the conclusion that it is a
laboratory method - impractical and uneconomical" (Mogensen, 1932, 12).
Mogensen writes about "Motion and Time study" in that order, because "it is
necessary to know, before finding out how long it should take to do a job - first,
whether the job should be done at all; and second, if so, the best way of doing it"
(Mogensen, 1932, 13). He quotes Mrs. Gilbreth in saying: "There is too much study
of work that should be eliminated, not studied". To demonstrate that Gilbreth's
contribution to management is not limited to motion study, Mogensen describes the
separate "process charts" which Gilbreth used to visualize processes taking place on
the shop floor, in order to locate possible improvements in routing and work
methods (13). These process charts enable the answering ofthe following questions
concerning the work: 1. Why should the work be done? 2. What is to be done? 3.
How is the work to be performed? 4. Who is to do the work? 5. Where is the work
to be done? 6. When is the work to be done? According to Mogensen "this
questioning attitude develops a point of view that considers the good of the plant
rather than that of a department or individual; it brings out the best type of operator
and equipment needed; it determines where the work can be most economically
performed, and evens out the flow of work. By asking the first question at each step,
it often develops that a particular piece of work, or sometimes the whole work, is
unnecessary" (Mogensen, 1932, 39). Mogensen appreciates the work done by

Lowry, Maynard and Stegemerten: "The thoroughness with which these men have
covered the whole question of skill and effort is to be commended" (Mogensen,
1932, 43). He does, however, expect better results of the rating of skill and effort if
motion pictures were used to establish standards.
Apparently Mogensen's reader has convinced Lowry, Maynard and Stegemerten of

the importance of motion study. In the second edition of their book, which also
appears in 1932, they write: "When the first edition of this book was prepared, the
authors did not attempt to give a detailed description of methods of making motion
studies, feeling at the time that time study and motion study were inseparable, and
that a high grade time study man would not think of taking a time study without first
having made a careful analysis of all motions involved in performing the particular
operation being studied. During the five years that have elapsed since the book was
first issued, however, it has become increasingly apparent that this method of
handling motion study did not sufficiently emphasize its paramount importance,
especially among those training themselves for time-study work through the aid of
this book. The tendency has been for the reader to learn thoroughly the technique of
taking time studies and then go ahead with the actual taking of the studies after only
a casual consideration of the motions involved or, in extreme cases, no consideration
at all. Such slighting of motion study on the part of the time-study man is, of course,
quite likely to render the results secured of little value unless the motions employed
happen to be the best possible, which is seldom the case" (L.M.S., 1932, V). The
authors have therefore called upon Mrs. Gilbreth for assistance in describing the
motion picture technique for making motion studies. Mogensen has made some
suggestions for improvements as well. The order of importance seems to have been
established, and in 1937, when Ralph Mosser Barnes publishes his standard work
through which generations of industrial engineers will be educated, the title is
"Motion and Time Study".
Barnes, Holmes, Maynard & Stegemerten
In the preface to the first edition of his book, Barnes writes: "The terms "time study"
and "motion study" have been given many interpretations since their origin. Time
study, originated by Taylor, was mainly used for rate setting; and motion study,
developed by the Gilbreths, was largely employed for improving methods. One
group saw time study only as a means of determining the size of the task that should
constitute a day's work, using the stop watch as the timing deVice. Another group
saw motion study only as an expensive and elaborate technique for determining a
good method of doing work. Today the discussion of the comparative value of using
either the one or the other of the two techniques has largely passed; industry has
found that motion study and time study are inseparable, as their combined use in
many factories and offices now demonstrates. Taking cognizance of present trends
and recognizing the fact that motion study always precedes the setting of a time
standard, we shall in this volume use the term "motion and time study" as referring
Spender & Kijne 82
to this broad field" (Barnes, 1937, 1949 3rd edition, vii). Barnes defines motion and
time study as follows: 1. Finding the most economical way of performing the
operation. 2. Standardizing the operation - written standard practice. 3. Determining
the time standard. 4. Training the operator (Barnes, 1949, 1/3).
According to Barnes, the standard time, once derived, should permit a qualified
operator to work at a normal pace indefinitely without undue fatigue. In fact, he
writes, the time standard is usually set at such a level that the average employee can
readily do 20 to 30 percent more work than the standard requires (Barnes, 1949, 3).
New in Barnes's book is the attempt to classify more and less intense types of work
study. He distinguishes five types. The most detailed type A consists of full micro-
motion study and the use of movie pictures for analysis and instruction. The most
simple type E does not even involve the use of the stopwatch. Barnes gives
sufficient examples of these different types of work study, but the criteria to choose
which type to apply are too vague and lack quantification. Factors to be considered
are: 1. The extensiveness of the job, that is, the average number of man hours per
day or per year used on the work. 2. The anticipated life of the job. 3. Labor
considerations of the operation, such as: (a) The hourly wage rate (b) The ratio of
handling time to machine time (c) Special qualifications of the employee required,
unusual working conditions, labor union requirements etc. 4. The investment in the
machines, tools, and equipment required for the job (Barnes, 1949, 19).
In the field of what he calls "operation analysis" Barnes's book is more detailed than
any publication before. Systematic checklists are used to analyze the various
elements of a job, such as materials, materials handling, tools & jigs & fixtures,
machines, operation, operator and working conditions. To a description of the
therbligs (14) Barnes adds not only the therblig "hold", but he also proposes a
checklist per therblig, for instance for "grasp": 1. Is it possible to grasp more than
one object at a time? 2. Can objects be slid instead of carried? 3. Will a lip on front
of the bin simplify grasp of small parts? 4. Can tools or parts be pre-positioned for
easy grasp? 5. Can a special screwdriver, socket wrench, or combination tool be
used? 6. Can a vacuum, magnet, or rubber finger tip, or other device be used to
advantage? 7. Is the article transferred from one hand to another? 8. Does the
design of the jig or fixture permit an easy grasp in removing the part (Barnes, 1949,
153/154). The "principles of motion economy" in Barnes's book are more extended
than Gilbreth's, and divided in three categories: Use of the human body, arrangement
of the work place, and design of tools and equipment. Understandably so, there is
not much news about stop watch time study, even though an increasing use of
formulas in establishing standard times, as first practiced by Merrick and later by
Lowry, Maynard and Stegemerten, is registered by Barnes. A separate chapter
contains information about the establishment of time standards for assembly line
work.
Compared to Barnes's book, Walter G. Holmes's "Applied Time and Motion Study"
is in some respects a further step forwards. Although Holmes considers motion
study an intensified form of time study, he is the first who provides data on which a
comparison of the results of motion and time study can be based. In percentages,
motion study reduces the standard time considerably more than time study (Holmes,
1938, 16117). Special attention is paid by Holmes to the qualifications and senses of
the operator. Holmes's focus is on the eyes. His subtitles are: Moving eye balls
lessens fatigue; How a picture is formed in the eye; The eye movement cycle;
learning movements and their sequence; How the eyes direct movements; Confine
use of eyes to a small area; Use of eyes in inspecting; Eye supervision of workplace.
Given the fact that Holmes uses standard time elements for certain activities of the
senses and the brain, Barnes, in one of the later editions of "Motion and Time
Study", calls him the designer of one of the first Predeterminated Time Data systems,
but not without pointing to the fact that it is unclear where Holmes's data come from.
Next to eye movements and neurological processes, Holmes pays attention to
illumination and fatigue. With regard to the latter, he distinguishes the work of a
clerk, light assembly or machine work, active but not heavy work, medium labor and
heavy labor. After dividing the working day in eight hours sleep, eight hours work,
3 - hours recreation and five hours rest, the number of calories used per day is
established for these different kinds of work. Then the fatigue range is related to the
required number of calories, and thus fatigue allowances are established. Finally,
work, fatigue and food cost are related (Holmes, 1938, 131). In a chapter on time
study Holmes does not only develops formulas to establish standard times, but also
to determine the efficiency of management, the whole workshop, and the workmen
(15). To the therbligs Holmes adds "acquire", "start", "stop", "deviate", "nerve
reaction" and "mind decision". The therblig "start" has six varieties, whereas there
are eight ways of stopping (16).
To the question "which type of work study should be applied when" a substantial
part of Maynard and Stegemerten's second book, "Operation Analysis", is devoted.
Different from Barnes, they distinguish six types, A through F, of which A is the
most detailed and F the most superficial. The authors succeed in developing some
quantitative criteria to answer the initial question. A job is distinguished by the
repetitiveness of the operation cycle, which can be high, medium, low and jobbing;
the labor content, which can be high, medium or low, and the life of the job, which
can be over 12 months, 6 to 12 month, or under 6 months. For a job with a high
repetitiveness, a high labor content and a life of over 12 months, the type A work
study should be applied. For a job with a jobbing repetitiveness, low labor content
and a life of under 6 months, the type F work study should be applied. the other
types are to be applied to jobs that are located between these two extremes (Maynard
& Stegemerten 1939,67). Formulas are used to determine the repetitiveness ofajob
(17). Next to these criteria, the book contains an operation analysis check sheet of
fourteen pages that makes Barnes's checklist look like a futile attempt.
Presgrave, Mundel and methods-time measurement
Ralph Presgrave's "The Dynamics of Time Study" can be seen as a reaction to

developments that took place after the United States joined the allied forces in WW
Spender & Kijne 84
11. With the need of increased productivity in the national interest, the market for
simple time studies grew enormously, and a number of corresponding publications
appeared in the first half of the nineteen forties. Presgrave warns already in 1944
that "the excellent work of the few may become submerged in the inferiority of the
many" (Presgrave, 1945,8). He does not claim that time study and motion study are
identical, and considers the latter a superior method of analysis, but as soon as
measurement is at stake motion study, no matter how detailed, results in time study.
In order to restore quality, however, a number of pretensions connected with time
study have to be abandoned. Time study is not a science, the formulation of "laws"
is therefore too presumptuous, and when formulas are applied, no more accuracy
should be claimed than can be accounted for. According to Presgrave, time study
developed in the following order: At first, the whole job was timed, then the main
operations it consisted of, then the logical elements, then the therbligs and finally
even more detailed body motions. He pays special attention to methods of arriving
at standard times from recorded times, by roughly dividing these in three groups: 1.
Application of mathematical formulas. 2. Application of external correction factors
derived from "leveling", "rating", "element selection" etc. 3. Comparison of specific
motion times with predetermined standards.
Pres grave considers the first method outmoded, because the way the operation is
performed and the rapidity of the operator's motions are not taken into account.
About the latter method, of which he sees Holmes as the prime practitioner, he is
skeptical. Although it has the "germ of the ultimate" in it, thus far its applicability is
so limited by complicating factors and so affected by non-standard elements that its
value is "largely academic" (Presgrave, 1945,56). Moreover, the time within which
a motion, no matter how elementary, can be executed, is also determined by the
preceding and the following motions, a fact which cannot be taken into account
when standardized therblig times are used. Presgrave leaves open the possibility that
this method will develop into a valuable approach, but for the time being he likes the
second method best, provided that some necessary improvements are introduced.
Two cardinal errors have to be corrected, namely pretending to measure when
actually grading is the case, and pretending to measure a quality that cannot be
measured. For these reasons "skill" cannot be quantified and used as a leveling
factor in any "work measurement" system, according to Presgrave. Especially when
motion patterns become standardized, both skill and effort express themselves in the
speed with which the operator works, and quantification should be limited to the
relationship between effort and performance. Presgrave states that a 55% difference
in output, caused by a difference in effort, may occur between the fastest and the
slowest worker (Presgrave, 1945, 99/120). When it comes to effort-rating, Presgrave
poses the following questions: 1. Is it possible to give a universal mathematical
value to operator speed? 2. Is it possible to determine this value by mental processes
only? 3. If this last is possible, can it apply to all types of manual work? 4. Can it be
done consistently over the whole range of speeds? 5. Is the method consistent as
between different observers? 6. Is it reliable as between operators? 7. How can it be
learned or taught? 8. Is everyone capable of rating (Presgrave, 1945, 145)? After
answering these questions with yes, Presgrave devotes the last chapters of his book
to the application of effort rating and the problem of allowances, namely how to
prevent the accuracy of the time study to be affected by inaccurate allowances.
In the field of estimating the speed, with which an operator works, in fact the same
as Presgrave's effort-rating, Marvin Mundel publishes about the following method in
1947: The standard time is the time which a skilled worker, working under standard
conditions and according to a standardized method needs to perform an operation at
1001130 of the maximum speed. Of this worker, working under these conditions and
with this speed, Mundel takes a motion picture, which is used as an objective
standard to instruct the practitioners of time study and to compare their results. To
this standard time, allowances can be added, depending for instance on the degree of
eye-hand coordination, the number of body parts involved or the percentage of
machine time. Mundel calls all standard times, which result from previously
performed time studies, synthetic times, and expects that the number of time studies
can be enormously reduced by synthesizing (Mundel, 1947, 178).
Synthesized standard times are also the goal of "Methods-Time Measurement", about
which Maynard, Stegemerten and Schwab (M., S. & S.) publish a book in 1948,
with the claim to have set the final step towards an objective time data system: "For
many years management has felt the need for a procedure for establishing production
standards that would eliminate the element of judgment on the part of the methods
engineer. When a time study is made under the conventional time-study procedure,
it is necessary for the observer to form a judgment of how the performance of the
operator compares with the average or normal performance level. Regardless of the
fact that such judgments can be made quite accurately by the experienced observer,
because the intangible element of judgment is involved, it is difficult to prove that a
correct determination has been made. There is often a tendency on the part of the
worker to question the accuracy of standards determined in this manner, particularly
if industrial relations are strained, and management has no way of proving the
rightness of its production requirements except by studying and restudying the job
until an overwhelming mass of evidence has been gathered. This is costly and time
consuming" (M., S. & S., 1948, V).
Methods-Time Measurement (M.T.M.) is the answer to these problems: "M.T.M. is a

procedure which analyzes any manual operation or method into the basic motions
required to perform it, and assigns to each motion a predetermined time standard
which is determined by the nature of the motion and the conditions under which it is
made (M., S. & S., 1948, 12). The objectivity which the authors claim to have
established should be considered relative, because the standard times for basic
motions are derived by the same rating procedures they had developed before. The
real advantage of M.T.M. however lies in the fact that the most efficient work
method and the standard time for the whole operation can be established before the
work is started. This way the workers are confronted with data that at least seem to
be objective. Therefore conflicts will be reduced, and moreover, when friction
between management and labor occurs, M.T.M. can be used as an instrument of
Spender & Kijne 86
arbitration. Although M., S.& S. have little or no doubt about the general
applicability of M.T.M., they cannot completely counter Presgrave's fundamental
objection against standard times for basic motions, namely that the time within
which a motion can be performed is a function of the previous and the following
motion. M., S. & S. use both therbligs and other body motions to establish time
standards.
M.T.M. makes the most detailed analysis of the therbligs "reach" (5 cases), "move"
(5 cases), "tum", "grasp" (7 cases), "position" (9 cases), "disengage" (3 cases) and
"release" (2 cases). In the case of "tum" the standard time depends on the number of
degrees of the turning movement. These therbligs, together with "do" and "examine"
are considered the therbligs that contribute to the completion of the operation. "Do"
and "examine" however are to abstract to establish time-standards. "Change
direction", "pre-position", "search", "select", "plan" and "balancing delay" usually
slow down the operation, and should when possible be avoided by improving the
lay-out of the workplace. "Hold", "avoidable delay", "unavoidable delay" and "rest
to overcome fatigue" do not exactly contribute either, therefore should be eliminated
unless proven absolutely necessary. When a hand is already in motion, a different
standard time is used than when it still has to begin moving. The distances which
have to be bridged by a motion are independent variables, and given the distance and
the type of hand motion a standard time can be read from a curve. The standard
times are expressed in the "Time Measurement Unit (T.M.U.)", which equals
0.00001 hour, 0.0006 minute or 0.036 second. The standard times are based on
average skill and effort. Body motions, for which standard times have been
established, are walking, foot motions, leg motions, side step, bend, stoop, kneel on
one knee, kneel on both knees, sit and stand from a sitting position. Although
standard times for these motions cannot be established with the same accuracy as
standard times for hand motions, a sufficient amount of reliable data has been
gathered, according to the authors. In the case of combined motions by the same
part of the body, for instance "move" and "tum", the general rule is that all motions
can be made during the longest standard time needed for any of these motions. The
case of simultaneous motions by different body parts may be more complicated, but
after some practice also in this case it is possible to establish time standards with the
help of M.T.M. According to M., S. & S., the application of M.T.M. can lead to
considerable savings, not only because motion and time studies become obsolete, but
also through improvements in product design, tools and other equipment.
From Taylorism to Fordism
In the previous paragraphs, a selected number of decisive steps towards the

development of Predetermined Time Data (P.T.D.) systems has been mentioned.
With the introduction of these systems, the original wishes of Taylor and Gilbreth
seem to have been fulfilled. M.T.M. (and other systems such as Basic Motion
Times) can be considered "a hand book on the speed with which work can be done"
(Taylor), and contains "data made by one and used by all" (Gilbreth). M.T.M. has
remained the most advanced P. T.D. system, not in the least because of its proprietary
status and the fact that users were encouraged to suggest improvements. In later
versions ofM.T.M., remaining subjective elements, which with the actual time study
had already been banned from the shopfloor, have been eliminated. And although
stop-watch time study also did gain increased accuracy with the help of statistical
methods, such as work sampling, the market for M.T.M. was especially found in the
more standardized, mass-producing industries. A number of serious questions,
however, remains to be answered. The question, for instance, whether the conflict
between Taylor, his followers, and the Gilbreths eventually was only a matter of
conflicting personalities, trying to achieve the same goal, or whether it tells us
something about the very nature of Taylor's system of scientific management and the
development of the industrial labor process in the twentieth century.
Taylor found himself, first as an apprentice in a small machine shop in Philadelphia,

later as employee of the Midvale Steel Works and a student of Stevens Institute of
Technology in Hoboken NJ, in the heart of the changes that took place in mechanical
engineering in the US during the second half of the 19th century: The replacement of
workshop-trained engineers, partly operating by rule of thumb, by college-trained
engineers, with a background in science and mathematics (Calvert, 1967). And
although he got the best of both worlds, having been confronted with Sellers at
Midvale and with Thurston, be it from a distance, at Stevens (18), there can be no
doubt to which side he belonged. His remarks from 1895, quoted on the first page of
this chapter, are clear enough. But Taylor's impact of course goes beyond
mechanical engineering and machine-design. The standardization of tools & work
methods and time study, the core of his system of management, play the same part as
the knowledge of materials and mathematical analysis in mechanical engineering.
By knowing how much work a worker, given the work method, can tum out over a
certain period of time, operations become calculable and can be planned. Taylor's
ideal factory is like a machine, designed according to the highest standards of his
trade during his time. The knowledge of materials is synonymous with the
standardization of tools, the creation of "first class men" and the establishment of
"the one best way", whereas determining the life cycle of parts and calculating
tolerances is synonymous with measuring the amount of work a workman can tum
out and designing tasks according to this knowledge. The routing of the production
process in the end represents the total design, the final integration of the elements of
his management system.
This interpretation of Taylor's scientific management enables us to understand the

conflict between Taylor and Gilbreth. Time study was an important element of
Taylor's system of management, arguably the most important element, but not more
important than the total system, the total design. As a trained and inventive
engineer, Taylor knew as well as any of his colleagues that a change in one part does
not necessarily mean an improvement of the total design, and might even affect other
parts in a negative way. For this reason, Taylor always insisted on the complete
installment of his system. He wrote for instance to his later biographer, Copley:
"Now, I almost invariably have had the same experience, particularly with men who
Spender & Kijne 88
had been managers themselves of their own business for a great many years; that
when I told them that I wished them to use such and such mechanism, they came
back at me with the statement that they had something else in their company which
was equally good, and when I insisted that the mechanism which they liked might be
even better than our mechanism for the other type of management, but that it was not
suited and would not dovetail in properly with the mechanism which we had found
best suited to scientific management, then many of them honestly thought that I was
prejudiced and made a "fetish" of details. These men had no notion of the fact that
the greater the number of the elements which are used in management, the more
necessary it is that all of these details should harmonize one with the other, and that a
great part of our experience and study, throughout thirty years, had been in getting
together a series of details or elements which did dovetail properly in, one with
another, and work harmoniously, instead of clashing" (19).
This attitude explains why he was more than skeptical of Gilbreth's improvements.
Even though Taylor probably had no way of knowing that Gilbreth's claims went far
beyond his actual achievements (Price, 1992, 62), and in addition to his fear that
Gilbreth might antagonize labor on a scale detrimental to scientific management
(Price, 1992, 59 and 62), there was a more principal reason for Taylor to reject
motion study. In Taylor's system, in spite of the chosen terminology, the "one best
way to do work" is a relative concept, subordinate to the total design, calculable and
controllable, meant to analyze and connect operations and make the machine work,
whereas Gilbreth tried to tum it into an absolute category, the effect of which on
other elements of the system (for instance the control as exercised by functional
foremen) could not be foreseen. And not only did Gilbreth not have Taylor's
background in mechanical engineering, in Taylor's opinion he had not shown
sufficient understanding of the nature of scientific management by not taking enough
time to install the total system in at least one occasion. At the same time Taylor
realized that Gilbreth's methods were far more accurate than his own, and therefore
the highest form of recognition he could grant Gilbreth was presenting some of the
latter's contributions as his own findings. Gilbreth of course could not understand
this, and thought it was a case of ordinary theft. Taylor's associates, who defended
stop watch time study against Gilbreth's attack, understood even less of it, and
therefore withdrew on the only sound argument they had, namely that for a
machinist's work speed and feed are more important than the work method, thereby
limiting themselves to the machine tool industry, arguably the most important branch
of industry of their days, but not of days to come.
This interpretation of the Taylor system of scientific management also explains the
following statement, made by Taylor in front of a congress committee in 1914:
"There is nothing positively accurate about time study from end to end" (20).
Gilbreth had shown him most convincingly that he could not claim a high degree of
accurateness for stop watch time study, but at the same time Taylor understood its
place in scientific management better than ever before. And Taylor was right, even
though he never gave the right reasons why Gilbreth's "one best way" was a foreign
element to his system, and probably only intuitively suspected them. The minute
subdivisions of movements Gilbreth's methods would lead to were not to be

combined with control exercised by foremen and with piece rate systems. Therefore
Gilbreth never bothered tOQ much about control and negative or positive sanctions,
but rather emphasized training and a moral appeal on the worker to work according
to the one best way. Apparently he could not imagine a control system, solely based
on human intervention, fitting his work study methods. Motion study thus did not
get recognized until after the Taylor system had lost most of its meaning, and had
been replaced, in important new branches of industry, by the control system in which
motion study finds its place and optimal use, Henry Ford's assembly line. Under
Fordism skill is not reorganized and codified, as did Taylor, but destroyed and
replaced by the shortest possible work-cycle with the lowest number of the most
simple motions, whereas the control is mainly exercised by the technology itself, the
moving conveyor belt. Brian Price explains the increased appreciation of motion
study in the 1920's by pointing at the introduction of new and cheaper camera's and
the diligence and perseverance of Lillian Gilbreth, but he misses the connection
between motion study and Fordism (Price, 1992, 70). Gilbreth himself however was
well aware of the potential forceful connection between motion study and assembly-
line work, as is shown in a video with parts of the original films of Frank B.
Gilbreth: "The Quest for the One Best Way", edited by James S. Perkins and Ralph
Mosser Barnes, with a commentary by Mrs. Gilbreth, distributed by the American
Institute of Industrial Engineers. The movies reveal that Gilbreth did numerous
experiments with conveyors, criticized Ford's early assembly lines because they left
the workers with too much idle time, and claimed that motion study would increase
the efficiency of these assembly lines by at least 25%. Indeed, motion study
essentially belongs to Fordism, and Gilbreth was a figure of the transition which
would give mass production its labor process. Although they were contemporaries,
analytically speaking Taylor and Gilbreth partly belonged to another era. Taylor laid
the foundations for a new time, and Gilbreth set the first steps into it.
Notes:
(1) Transactions of the ASME, 1912, 1198.
(2) If the length oftime of an elementary operation or element of an operation is so small that it is hard to
record, elements can be timed together. For instance, if an operation is divided in four elements a,
b, c and d. three of them can be timed together, and after repeating this observation five times, the
time of each separate element can be derived. Thus:
a + b + C = A; b + C + d = B; c + d + e = C; d + e + a = 0; and e + a + b = E.
Then A+ B +C + 0+ E= S
now: a = A + 0 - 113 S; b = B + E - 113 S; c = C + A - 113 S; d = 0 + B - 113 S;
and e = E + C - 1/3 S.
Carl Barth, one of Taylor's associates, found that the number of successive elements observed
together must be prime to the total number of elements in the cycle, in order to obtain satisfactory
results (Taylor, 1947, S.M. 172/173).
(3) Wrege and Slotka claim that "the Principles" were in fact written by Morris L. Cooke. See Charles
D. Wrege and Anne Marie Slotka, "Cooke Creates a Classic, the story behind Frederick Winslow
Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management", Academy of Management Review, October 1970.
Spender & Kijne 90
(4) Gilbreth to Taylor, 2-6-1908. The correspondence between Taylor and Gilbreth is part of the
Frederick Winslow Taylor collection at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken NJ. folders
59A and 59B.
(5) Taylor to Gilbreth, 8-24-1912.
(6) Gilbreth to Taylor 4-3-1913.
(7) Taylor to Gilbreth 4-8-1913.
(8) cf. H. Kijne, De correspondentie tussen Taylor en Gilbreth (The correspondence between Taylor and
Gilbreth) in "Techniek en Arbeid in Perspectief', Alphen aid Rijn, The Netherlands, 1990.
(9) The therbligs in "Motion Study for the Handicapped" are: 1. Search 2. Find 3. Select 4. Grasp 5.
Position 6. Assemble 7. Use 8. Disassemble or take apart 9. Inspect 10. Transport, loaded 11.
Position for next operation 12. Release load 13. Transport, empty 14. Unavoidable delay 15.
Avoidable delay 16. Rest, for overcoming fatigue (Spriegel and Myers, 1953,284).
(10) Mr. Frank Gilbreth's margin comments on "Time Studies as a Basis for Rate Setting" by Dwight V.
Merrick, Frank B. and Lillian M. Gilbreth collection, CIS NAPTTA 0427-8, Purdue University,
West-Lafayette Ind.
(11) Price asserts that Thompson and Lichtner already in 1920 were explicitly giving Gilbreth credit for
his achievements (Price, 1992, 67). I believe that they just stuck with Taylor's extended definition
of time study of December 1912, in which motion study was incorporated, and therefore could
claim the results of the work of the Gilbreths and term them "job analysis", as was still their
position in 1928 (B.T.S. April and June, 1928).
(12) Motion study consists of dividing work into the most fundamental elements possible; studying these
elements separately and in relation to one another; and from these studied elements, when timed,
build methods of least waste... the unit of measurement must be one that of itself will reduce cost,
and should be as small as the time and money that can be devoted to the investigation warrants.
The smaller the unit, the more intensive the study required. The methods and devices to be used
are also determined largely by the question of cost (Mogensen, 1932, 12).
(13) Mogensen distinguishes the "flow chart", the "man and machine chart", the "operator chart" and the
"cost process chart".
(14) To the original sixteen therbligs of "Motion Study for the Handicapped", the Gilbreths had already
added the therblig "plan" in "Classifying the elements of work", Management and Administration
vol. 8, no. 2, August, 1924.
(15) Some of these formulas are:
allowed time per work cycle element operator's efficiency = 100 x in % time taken per work cycle
element; number of pieces produced production efficiency = 100 x in % number of pieces required
(Holmes, 1938, 193).
(16) A start can be normal, to overcome friction, visual, fragile, impulsive or mechanical, depending on
the conditions. The conditions that determine the time to stop are normal, to overcome momentum,
visual, fragile, reaction, obstruction, mechanical or at the cycle end. Depending on the conditions,
mind decision or nerve reaction time should be added to the therblig time (Holmes, 1938, 220/222).
(17) The repetitiveness of a job is high when no less than 2000 pieces are produced in no less than 1000
hours, or: N x TA - > 1 where TA is time allowed 1000; the repetitiveness of a job is medium
when at least 500 pieces are produced in a period of one to six months, or: N x TA where 167 is
the minimal number of hours worked 167; repetitiveness is low when N is larger than 50 and the
period is longer than two weeks and shorter than one month, or: N x T A where 80 is the minimal
number of hours worked (Maynard and Stege merten, 1939,66/68).
(18) See Clarke's contribution in this volume.
(19) Taylor to Copley, August 19th, 1912, Taylor collection.
(20) Quoted in Daniel Nelson, "Managers and Workers", Madison Wisconsin, 1975,58.
References
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions, 1912.
Barnes, Ralph M. (1937), Motion and Time Study, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1st ed. 1937,2nd.
ed. 1940, 3rd. ed. 1949.
Bulletin of the Taylor Society (B.T.S.), June 1921.
Bulletin of the Taylor Society, June, 1928.
Bulletin of the Taylor Society, October, 1930.
Calvert, Monte A. (1967), The mechanical engineer in America, 1830 - 1910, Baltimore.
Holmes, Walter G. (1938), Applied Time and Motion Study, Ronald Press Company, New York.
Lowry, S. M., H. B. Maynard, and G. J. Stegemerten (1927), Time and Motion Study and formulas for
wage incentives, McGraw-Hill, first edition New York, 1927, second edition, 1932.
Maynard, H. B. and G. J. Stegemerten (1939), Operation Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Maynard, H. B., G. J. Stegemerten, and J. L. Schwab (1948), Methods-Time Measurement, McGraw-

Hill, New York.
Merrick, Dwight V. (1920), Time Studies as a Basis for Rate Setting, Engineering Magazine Company,
New York.
Mogensen, Allan H. (1932), Common Sense Applied to Motion and Time Study, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Mundel, Marvin E. (1947), Systematic Motion and Time Study, Prentice-Hall, New York.
Nadworny, Milton J. "Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth, competition in Scientific Management", in
Business History Review 31,1957.
Nelson, Daniel (1980), Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management, University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison Wisconsin.
Presgrave, Ralph (1944), The Dynamics of Time Study, 1st ed. University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
1944, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1945.
Price, Brian (1992), "Frank and Lillian Gilbreth and the Motion Study Controversy", in Daniel Nelson
(Ed): A Mental Revolution, Scientific Management since Taylor, Ohio State University Press,
Columbus Ohio.
Spender & Kijne 92
Spriegel, William R. and Clark E. Myers (1953, eds.), The Writings of the Gilbreths, Irwin, Homewood
Illinois.
Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1895), "A piece rate system", paper presented to the Detroit meeting of the
ASME, Taylor collection, folder, 19A.
Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1947), Scientific Management, contains "Shop Management", "The
Principles of Scientific Management" and "The Testimony before the Special House Committee",
Harper & Brothers, New York and London.
Video: James S. Perkins and Ralph Mosser Barnes, The Quest for the One Best Way, 1983.

Kijne 1996

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kijne 1996

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 3

TIME AND MOTION STUDY: BEYOND THE TAYLOR - GILBRETH

Hugo J Kijne, Rutgers University.

Taylor's time study

J.-C. Spender et al. (eds.), Scientific Management

Time to lift piece from floor to planer table minutes

Time to level and set work true on table minutes

Time to put on stops and bolts minutes

Time to remove stops and bolts minutes

Time to remove piece to floor minutes

Time to clean machine minutes

h) Add together into various groups such combinations of elementary movements as

Gilbreth's motion study

making a division between variables of the worker, variables of the surroundings,

person in charge. When confronted with Herrmann's complaint, it takes Gilbreth a

An indictment of stopwatch time study

On April II th 1921, at a meeting of the Philadelphia section of the Taylor Society,

Merrick is uncharacteristically accurate when it comes to determining the standard

According to Merrick, experience shows that the selected minimum times as

Time and motion study

Motion and time study

unnecessary" (Mogensen, 1932, 39). Mogensen appreciates the work done by

Apparently Mogensen's reader has convinced Lowry, Maynard and Stegemerten of

Barnes, Holmes, Maynard & Stegemerten

Presgrave, Mundel and methods-time measurement

Ralph Presgrave's "The Dynamics of Time Study" can be seen as a reaction to

Methods-Time Measurement (M.T.M.) is the answer to these problems: "M.T.M. is a

From Taylorism to Fordism

In the previous paragraphs, a selected number of decisive steps towards the

Taylor found himself, first as an apprentice in a small machine shop in Philadelphia,

This interpretation of Taylor's scientific management enables us to understand the

subdivisions of movements Gilbreth's methods would lead to were not to be

(1) Transactions of the ASME, 1912, 1198.

(5) Taylor to Gilbreth, 8-24-1912.

(6) Gilbreth to Taylor 4-3-1913.

(7) Taylor to Gilbreth 4-8-1913.

(15) Some of these formulas are:

(18) See Clarke's contribution in this volume.

(19) Taylor to Copley, August 19th, 1912, Taylor collection.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions, 1912.

Bulletin of the Taylor Society (B.T.S.), June 1921.

Bulletin of the Taylor Society, June, 1928.

Bulletin of the Taylor Society, October, 1930.

Maynard, H. B. and G. J. Stegemerten (1939), Operation Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Maynard, H. B., G. J. Stegemerten, and J. L. Schwab (1948), Methods-Time Measurement, McGraw-

You might also like