fredirick taylor

þÿ Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856 March 21, 1915) was an American mechanical engineer. He was
widely known for his methods to improve industrial efficiency.[1] He was one of the first management
consultants.[2] In 1909, Taylor summed up his efficiency techniques in his book The Principles of Scientific
Management which, in 2001, Fellows of the Academy of Management voted the most influential management
book of the twentieth century.[3] His pioneering work in applying engineering principles to the work done on
the factory floor was instrumental in the creation and development of the branch of engineering that is now
known as industrial engineering. Taylor made his name, and was most proud of his work, in scientific
management; however, he made his fortune patenting steel-process improvements. As a result, scientific
management is sometimes referred to as Taylorism.[4]

Biography
Taylor was born in 1856 to a Quaker family in Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Taylor's father,
Franklin Taylor, a Princeton-educated lawyer, built his wealth on mortgages.[5] Taylor's mother, Emily Annette
Taylor (née Winslow), was an ardent abolitionist and a coworker with Lucretia Mott. His father's ancestor,
Samuel Taylor, settled in Burlington, New Jersey, in 1677. His mother's ancestor, Edward Winslow, was one of
the fifteen original Mayflower Pilgrims who brought servants or children, and one of eight who had the
honorable distinction of Mister. Winslow served for many years as the Governor of the Plymouth colony.

Educated early by his mother, Taylor studied for two years in France and Germany and traveled Europe for 18
months.[6] In 1872, he entered Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire, with the plan of eventually
going to Harvard and becoming a lawyer like his father. In 1874, Taylor passed the Harvard entrance
examinations with honors. However, due allegedly to rapidly deteriorating eyesight, Taylor chose quite a
different path.

Instead of attending Harvard University, Taylor became an apprentice patternmaker and machinist, gaining
shop-floor experience at Enterprise Hydraulic Works in Philadelphia (a pump-manufacturing company whose
proprietors were friends of the Taylor family). He left his apprenticeship for six months and represented a group
of New England machine-tool manufacturers at Philadelphia's centennial exposition. Taylor finished his
four-year apprenticeship and in 1878 became a machine-shop laborer at Midvale Steel Works. At Midvale, he
was quickly promoted to time clerk, journeyman machinist, machine shop foreman, research director, and
finally chief engineer of the works (while maintaining his position as machine shop foreman). Taylor's fast
promotions reflected both his talent and his family's relationship with Edward Clark, part owner of Midvale
Steel. (Edward Clark's son Clarence Clark, who was also a manager at Midvale Steel, married Taylor's sister.)

Midvale Steel Works Aerial View, 1879.

Early on at Midvale, working as a laborer and machinist, Taylor recognized that workmen were working their
machines, or themselves, not nearly as hard as they could (a practice that at the time was called "soldiering")
and that this resulted in high labor costs for the company. When he became a foreman he expected more output
from the workmen. In order to determine how much work should properly be expected, he began to study and
analyze the productivity of both the men and the machines (although the word "productivity" was not used at
the time, and the applied science of productivity had not yet been developed). His focus on the human
component of production Taylor labeled scientific management.[7]

While Taylor worked at Midvale, he and Clarence Clark won the first tennis doubles tournament in the 1881 US
National Championships, the precursor of the US Open.[1] Taylor became a student of Stevens Institute of
Technology, studying via correspondence[8] and obtaining a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in
1883.[9] On May 3, 1884, he married Louise M. Spooner of Philadelphia.

The Bethlehem Steel plant, 1896.

From 1890 until 1893 Taylor worked as a general manager and a consulting engineer to management for the
Manufacturing Investment Company of Philadelphia, a company that operated large paper mills in Maine and
Wisconsin. He was a plant manager in Maine. In 1893, Taylor opened an independent consulting practice in
Philadelphia. His business card read "Consulting Engineer - Systematizing Shop Management and
Manufacturing Costs a Specialty". Through these consulting experiences, Taylor perfected his management
system. His first paper, A Piece Rate System, was presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) in June 1895.[10]

In 1898 he joined Bethlehem Steel to solve an expensive machine-shop capacity problem. While at Bethlehem,
he discovered the best known and most profitable of his many patents: between 1898 and 1900 Taylor and
þÿMaunsel White (né Maunsel White III; 1856 1912; grandson of Maunsel White; 1783 1863) conducted
comprehensive empirical tests, and concluded that tungsten alloyed steel doubled or quadrupled cutting speeds.
The inventors received US$100,000 (equivalent to about $3,500,000 in 2022) for the English patents
alone,[11][12] although the U.S. patent was eventually nullified.[13]

Taylor was forced to leave Bethlehem Steel in 1901 after discord with other managers. Now a wealthy man,
Taylor focused the remainder of his career promoting his management and machining methods through
lecturing, writing, and consulting. In 1910, owing to the Eastern Rate Case, Frederick Winslow Taylor and his
Scientific Management methodologies became famous worldwide. In 1911, Taylor introduced his The
Principles of Scientific Management paper to the ASME, eight years after his Shop Management paper.

On October 19, 1906, Taylor was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Science by the University of
Pennsylvania.[14] Taylor eventually became a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth
College.[15] In early spring of 1915 Taylor caught pneumonia and died,[16] one day after his fifty-ninth
birthday, on March 21, 1915. He was buried in West Laurel Hill Cemetery, in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

Work

This section contains too many or overly lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. Please help improve the
article by presenting facts as a neutrally worded summary with appropriate citations. Consider transferring
direct quotations to Wikiquote or, for entire works, to Wikisource. (December 2019)
Darwin, Marx, and Freud make up the trinity often cited as the "makers of the modern world." Marx would be
taken out and replaced by Taylor if there were any justice... For hundreds of years there had been no increase in
the ability of workers to turn out goods or to move goods... When Taylor started propounding his principles,
nine out of every 10 working people did manual work, making or moving things, whether in manufacturing,
farming, mining, or transportation... By 2010 it will constitute no more than one-tenth... The Productivity
Revolution has become a victim of its own success. From now on what matters is the productivity of
nonmanual workers. [bolding added] -- Peter Drucker, The Rise of the Knowledge Society Wilson Quarterly
(Spring 1993) p.63-65[17]

Taylor's crime, in the eyes of the unions, was his assertion that there is no "skilled work." In manual operations
there is only "work." All work can be analyzed the same way... The unions... were craft monopolies, and
membership in them was largely restricted to sons or relatives of members. They required an apprenticeship of
five to seven years but had no systematic training or work study. The unions allowed nothing to be written
down. There were not even blueprints or any other drawings of the work to be done. Union members were
sworn to secrecy and forbidden to discuss their work with nonmembers. [bolding added] -- Peter Drucker, The
Rise of the Knowledge Society Wilson Quarterly (Spring 1993) p.61-62[18]

Taylor was a mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency. He is regarded as the father of
scientific management, and was one of the first management consultants and director of a famous firm. In Peter
Drucker's description,
Frederick W. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic
observation and study. On Taylor's 'scientific management' rests, above all, the tremendous surge of affluence in
the last seventy-five years which has lifted the working masses in the developed countries well above any level
recorded before, even for the well-to-do. Taylor, though the Isaac Newton (or perhaps the Archimedes) of the
þÿscience of work, laid only first foundations, however. Not much has been added to them since even though he
has been dead all of sixty years.[19]

Taylor's scientific management consisted of four principles:

Replace rule-of-thumb work methods with methods based on a scientific study of the tasks.
Scientifically select, train, and develop each employee rather than passively leaving them to train themselves.
Provide "Detailed instruction and supervision of each worker in the performance of that worker's discrete
task"[20]
Divide work nearly equally between managers and workers, so that the managers apply scientific management
principles to planning the work and the workers actually perform the tasks.
Future US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis coined the term scientific management in the course of his
argument for the Eastern Rate Case before the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1910. Brandeis argued that
railroads, when governed according to Taylor's principles, did not need to raise rates to increase wages. Taylor
used Brandeis's term in the title of his monograph The Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911.
The Eastern Rate Case propelled Taylor's ideas to the forefront of the management agenda. Taylor wrote to
Brandeis, "I have rarely seen a new movement started with such great momentum as you have given this one."
Taylor's approach is also often referred to as Taylor's Principles, or, frequently disparagingly, as Taylorism.

Managers and workers

The idea, then, of.. training [a workman] under a competent teacher into new working habits until he
continually and habitually works in accordance with scientific laws, which have been developed by some one
else, is directly antagonistic to the old idea that each workman can best regulate his own way of doing the
work... the philosophy of the old management puts the entire responsibility upon the workmen, while the
philosophy of the new places a great part of it upon the management. [bolding added] -- FW Taylor, The
Principles of Scientific Management (1911) p.63[21]

Taylor had very precise ideas about how to introduce his system:

It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working
conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the
adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with the management alone.[22]

Workers were to be selected appropriately for each task.

One of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall
be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type.
The man who is mentally alert and intelligent is for this very reason entirely unsuited to what would, for him,
be the grinding monotony of work of this character. [23]

Taylor believed in transferring control from workers to management. He set out to increase the distinction
between mental (planning work) and manual labor (executing work). Detailed plans, specifying the job and how
it was to be done, were to be formulated by management and communicated to the workers.[24]

The introduction of his system was often resented by workers and provoked numerous strikes. The strike at
Watertown Arsenal led to the congressional investigation in 1912. Taylor believed the laborer was worthy of his
hire, and pay was linked to productivity. His workers were able to earn substantially more than those under
conventional management,[25] and this earned him enemies among the owners of factories where scientific
management was not in use.

Rhetorical techniques
Taylor promised to reconcile labor and capital.
With the triumph of scientific management, unions would have nothing left to do, and they would have been
cleansed of their most evil feature: the restriction of output. To underscore this idea, Taylor fashioned the myth
that 'there has never been a strike of men working under scientific management', trying to give it credibility by
constant repetition. In similar fashion he incessantly linked his proposals to shorter hours of work, without
bothering to produce evidence of "Taylorized" firms that reduced working hours, and he revised his famous tale
of Schmidt carrying pig iron at Bethlehem Steel at least three times, obscuring some aspects of his study and
stressing others, so that each successive version made Schmidt's exertions more impressive, more voluntary and
more rewarding to him than the last. Unlike [Harrington] Emerson, Taylor was not a charlatan, but his
ideological message required the suppression of all evidence of worker's dissent, of coercion, or of any human
motives or aspirations other than those his vision of progress could encompass.[26] For the stories about
Schmidt Montgomery refers to Charles D. Wrege and Amadeo G. Perroni, "Taylor's Pig Tale: A Historical
Analysis of Frederick W. Taylor's Pig-Iron experiments" in: Academy of Management Journal, 17 (March
1974), 6-27</ref>

Scholarly debate about increased efficiency moving pig iron at Bethlehem's Iron and Steel
Debate about Taylor's Bethlehem study of workers, particularly the stereotypical laborer "Schmidt", continues
to this day. One 2009 study supports assertions Taylor made about the quite substantial increase in productivity,
for even the most basic task of picking up, carrying and dropping pigs of iron.[27][28]

Management theory
Taylor thought that by analysing work, the "one best way" to do it would be found. He is most remembered for
developing the stopwatch time study, which, combined with Frank Gilbreth's motion study methods, later
became the field of time and motion study. He broke a job into its component parts and measured each to the
hundredth of a minute. One of his most famous studies involved shovels. He noticed that workers used the same
shovel for all materials. He determined that the most effective load was 21½ pounds, and found or designed
shovels that for each material would scoop up that amount. He was generally unsuccessful in getting his
concepts applied, and was dismissed from Bethlehem Iron Company/Bethlehem Steel Company. Nevertheless,
Taylor was able to convince workers who used shovels and whose compensation was tied to how much they
produced to adopt his advice about the optimum way to shovel by breaking the movements down into their
component elements and recommending better ways to perform these movements. It was largely through his
disciples' efforts (most notably Henry Gantt's) that industry came to implement his ideas. Moreover, the book
he wrote after parting company with the Bethlehem company, Shop Management, sold well.

Relations with ASME

Taylor's written works were designed for presentation to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME). These include Notes on Belting (1894), A Piece-Rate System (1895), Shop Management (1903), Art
of Cutting Metals (1906), and The Principles of Scientific Management (1911).

Taylor was president of the ASME from 1906 to 1907. While president, he tried to implement his system into
the management of the ASME but met with much resistance. He was able to reorganize only the publications
department and that only partially. He also forced out the ASME's longtime secretary, Morris Llewellyn Cooke,
and replaced him with Calvin W. Rice. His tenure as president was trouble-ridden and marked the beginning of
a period of internal dissension within the ASME during the Progressive Age.[29]

In 1911, Taylor collected a number of his articles into a book-length manuscript, which he submitted to the
ASME for publication. The ASME formed an ad hoc committee to review the text. The committee included
Taylor allies such as James Mapes Dodge and Henry R. Towne. The committee delegated the report to the
editor of the American Machinist, Leon P. Alford. Alford was a critic of the Taylor system and his report was
negative. The committee modified the report slightly, but accepted Alford's recommendation not to publish
Taylor's book. Taylor angrily withdrew the book and published Principles without ASME approval.[30][31]
Taylor published the trade book himself in 1912.

Taylor's influence
United States

One of Carl G. Barth's speed-and-feed slide rules.

A Gantt chart.
Carl G. Barth helped Taylor to develop speed-and-feed-calculating slide rules to a previously unknown level of
usefulness. Similar aids are still used in machine shops today. Barth became an early consultant on scientific
management and later taught at Harvard.
H. L. Gantt developed the Gantt chart, a visual aid for scheduling tasks and displaying the flow of work.
Harrington Emerson introduced scientific management to the railroad industry, and proposed the dichotomy of
staff versus line employees, with the former advising the latter.
Morris Cooke adapted scientific management to educational and municipal organizations.
Hugo Münsterberg created industrial psychology.
Lillian Gilbreth introduced psychology to management studies.
Frank Gilbreth (husband of Lillian) discovered scientific management while working in the construction
industry, eventually developing motion studies independently of Taylor. These logically complemented Taylor's
time studies, as time and motion are two sides of the efficiency improvement coin. The two fields eventually
became time and motion study.
Harvard University, one of the first American universities to offer a graduate degree in business management in
1908, based its first-year curriculum on Taylor's scientific management.[32]
Harlow S. Person, as dean of Dartmouth's Amos Tuck School of Administration and Finance, promoted the
teaching of scientific management.
James O. McKinsey, professor of accounting at the University of Chicago and founder of the consulting firm
bearing his name, advocated budgets as a means of assuring accountability and of measuring performance.
France
In France, Le Chatelier translated Taylor's work and introduced scientific management throughout government
owned plants during World War I. This influenced the French theorist Henri Fayol, whose 1916 Administration
Industrielle et Générale emphasized organizational structure in management. In the classic General and
Industrial Management, Fayol wrote that "Taylor's approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he
þÿexamines the firm from the 'bottom up.' He starts with the most elemental units of activity the workers'
þÿactions then studies the effects of their actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more
efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy ... "[33] He suggests that Taylor has staff
analysts and advisors working with individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to
improve efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a "negation of the principle of unity of
command."[34] Fayol criticized Taylor's functional management in this way: In Shop Management, Taylor
said[35] « ... the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies in the fact that each
workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the management at one point only, ... receives his daily
orders and help from eight different bosses... these eight were (1) route clerks, (2) instruction card men, (3) cost
and time clerks, (4) gang bosses, (5) speed bosses, (6) inspectors, (7) repair bosses, and the (8) shop
disciplinarian. »[36] Fayol said that this was an unworkable situation and that Taylor must have reconciled the
differences in some way not described in Taylor's works.

Around 1922 the journalist Paulette Bernège became interested in Taylor's theories, which were popular in
France in the post-war period.[37] Bernège became the faithful disciple of the Domestic Sciences Movement
that Christine Frederick had launched earlier in the United States, which Bernège adapted to French homes.
Frederick had transferred the concepts of Taylorism from the factory to domestic work. These included suitable
tools, rational study of movements and timing of tasks. Scientific standards for housework were derived from
scientific standards for workshops, intended to streamline the work of a housewife.[38] The Comité national de
l'organisation française (CNOF) was founded in 1925 by a group of journalists and consulting engineers who
saw Taylorism as a way to expand their client base. Founders included prominent engineers such as Henry
Louis Le Châtelier and Léon Guillet. Bernège's Institute of Housekeeping Organization participated in various
congresses on the scientific organization of work that led up to the founding of the CNOF, and in 1929 led to a
section in CNOF on domestic economy.[39]

Great Britain
Older historical accounts used to suggest that British industry had less interest in Taylor's teachings than in
similarly sized countries.[40] More recent research has revealed that British engineers and managers were as
interested as in other countries.[41] This disparity was largely due to what historians have been analysing:
recent research has revealed that Taylor's practices diffused to Britain more through consultancies, in particular
the Bedaux consultancy, than through institutions, as in Germany and to a lesser extent France, where a mixture
was most effective.[42][43]

Particularly enthusiastic were the Cadbury family, Seebohm Rowntree, Oliver Sheldon and Lyndall Urwick. In
addition to establishing a consultancy to implement Taylor's system, Urwick, Orr & Partners, Urwick was also a
key historian of F.W. Taylor and scientific management, publishing The Making of Scientific Management
trilogy in the 1940s and The Golden Book of Management in 1956.

Switzerland
In Switzerland, the American Edward Albert Filene established the International Management Institute to
spread information about management techniques. Lyndall Urwick was its director until the IMI closed in
1933.[44]Charles D. Wrege, Ronald G. Greenwood, and Sakae Hata, 'The International Management Institute
and Political Opposition to its Efforts in Europe, 1925-1934' Business and Economic History (1987)PDF
link</ref>

USSR
In the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin was very impressed by Taylorism, which he and other Bolshevik leaders
tried to incorporate into Soviet manufacturing. When Joseph Stalin took power in the 1920s, he championed the
theory of "Socialism in one country" which denied that the Soviet economy needed foreign help to develop, and
open advocates of Western management techniques fell into disfavor. No longer celebrated by Soviet
leadership, Taylorism and the mass production methods of Henry Ford remained silent influences during the
industrialization of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, "[...] Frederick Taylor's methods have never really taken
root in the Soviet Union."[45] The voluntaristic approach of Stalin's Stakhanovite movement in the 1930s,
fixated on setting individual records, was intrinsically opposed to Taylor's systematic approach and proved to be
þÿcounter-productive.[46] The stop-and-go of the production process workers having nothing to do at the
þÿbeginning of a month and 'storming' during illegal extra shifts at the end of the month which prevailed even in
the 1980s had nothing to do with the successfully taylorized plants e.g., of Toyota which are characterized by
continuous production processes (heijunka) which are continuously improved (kaizen).[47]

"The easy availability of replacement labor, which allowed Taylor to choose only 'first-class men,' was an
important condition for his system's success."[48] The situation in the Soviet Union was very different.
"Because work is so unrhythmic, the rational manager will hire more workers than he would need if supplies
were even in order to have enough for storming. Because of the continuing labor shortage, managers are happy
to pay needed workers more than the norm, either by issuing false job orders, assigning them to higher skill
grades than they deserve on merit criteria, giving them 'loose' piece rates, or making what is supposed to be
'incentive' pay, premia for good work, effectively part of the normal wage. As Mary McAuley has suggested
under these circumstances piece rates are not an incentive wage, but a way of justifying giving workers
whatever they 'should' be getting, no matter what their pay is supposed to be according to the official
norms."[49]

Taylor and his theories are also referenced (and put to practice) in the 1921 dystopian novel We by Yevgeny
Zamyatin.

Canada
In the early 1920s, the Canadian textile industry was re-organized according to scientific management
principles. In 1928, workers at Canada Cotton Ltd. in Hamilton, Ontario went on strike against newly
introduced Taylorist work methods. Also, Henry Gantt, who was a close associate of Taylor, re-organized the
Canadian Pacific Railway.[50]

With the prevalence of US branch plants in Canada and close economic and cultural ties between the two
countries, the sharing of business practices, including Taylorism, has been common.

The Taylor Society and its legacy

The Taylor Society was founded in 1912 by Taylor's allies to promote his values and influence.[51] A decade
after Taylor's death in 1915 the Taylor Society had 800 members, including many leading U.S. industrialists and
managers.[52] In 1936 the Society merged with the Society of Industrial Engineers, forming the Society for
Advancement of Management, which still exists today.[53]

Criticism of Taylor
Many of the critiques of Taylor come from Marxists. The earliest was by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian
Communist, in his Prison Notebooks (1937). Gramsci argued that Taylorism subordinates the workers to
management. He also argued that the repetitive work produced by Taylorism might actually give rise to
revolutionary thoughts in workers' minds.[54][55]

Harry Braverman's work Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century,
published in 1974, was critical of scientific management and of Taylor in particular. This work pioneered the
field of Labor Process Theory as well as contributing to the historiography of the workplace.

Management theorist Henry Mintzberg is highly critical of Taylor's methods. Mintzberg states that an obsession
with efficiency allows measurable benefits to overshadow less quantifiable social benefits completely, and
social values get left behind.[56]

Taylor's methods have also been challenged by socialists. Their arguments relate to progressive defanging of
workers in the workplace and the subsequent degradation of work as management, powered by capital, uses
Taylor's methods to render work repeatable and precise yet monotonous and skill-reducing.[57] James W.
Rinehart argued that Taylor's methods of transferring control over production from workers to management, and
the division of labor into simple tasks, intensified the alienation of workers that had begun with the factory
system of production around the period 1870 to 1890.[58]

þÿCriticism of Taylor and the Japanese model, according to KMnosuke Matsushita:

"We are going to win and the industrial west is going to lose out; ... the reasons for failure are within
yourselves. Your firms are built on the Taylor model. Even worse, so are your heads. With your bosses doing
the thinking while workers wield the screwdrivers, you're convinced deep down that it is the right way to run a
business. For the essence of management is getting ideas out of the heads of the bosses and into the heads of
labour. We are beyond your mindset. Business, we know, is now so complex and difficult, the survival of firms
so hazardous in an environment increasingly unpredictable, competitive and fraught with danger, that their
continued existence depends on the day-to-day mobilisation of every ounce of intelligence."[59]

Tennis and golf accomplishments

Taylor was an accomplished tennis and golf player. He and Clarence Clark won the inaugural United States
National tennis doubles championship at Newport Casino in 1881, defeating Alexander Van Rensselaer and
þÿArthur Newbold (né Arthur Emlen Newbold; 1859 1920) in straight sets.[1] In the 1900 Summer Olympics,
Taylor finished fourth in golf.

Result Year Championship Surface Partner Opponents Score

Win 1881 U.S. Doubles Championships Grass
United States Frederick W. Taylor
United States Clarence Clark United States Alexander Van Rensselaer
þÿUnited States Arthur Newbold 6 5, 6 4, 6 5
Publications
Books

1903, 1911. Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1911). Shop Management (With an introduction by Henry R. Towne).
New York, London: Harper & Brothers.[60]
þÿ1911. Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1919) [1911]. The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper & Brothers
via Internet Archive (Prelinger Library) icon of an open green padlock. LCCN 11-10339; OCLC 233134 (all
editions).
þÿThe Principles of Scientific Management via Project Gutenberg icon of an open green padlock.
þÿ1911. Taylor, Frederick Winslow; Thompson, Sanford Eleazer (1867 1949) (1907). A Treatise on Concrete,
Plain and Reinforced: Materials, Construction, and Design of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete (1st ed.). New
þÿYork: John Wiley & Sons via Internet Archive (University of Toronto) icon of an open green padlock. OCLC
1722781 (all editions).
þÿ1912. Taylor, Frederick Winslow; Thompson, Sanford Eleazer (1867 1949) (1912). Concrete Costs (1st ed.; 1st
þÿissue). John Wiley & Sons via Internet Archive (University of Wisconsin Madison) icon of an open green
padlock. LCCN 12-10295; OCLC 2272138 (all editions).
Selected articles

þÿ1894. "Notes on Belting". Transactions. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 15: 204 259. 1880 via
Internet Archive (University of Toronto) icon of an open green padlock. OCLC 1052127574 (all editions).
þÿ1896. "A Piece-Rate System". Economic Studies. American Economic Association. 1 (2): 89 129. June 1896
via Internet Archive (University of Michigan) icon of an open green padlock. OCLC 1076000 (all editions).
1903. "Shop Management". Transactions (No. 1003). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 24:
þÿ1337 1480. 1880 via Internet Archive (University of Toronto) icon of an open green padlock. OCLC 6077365
(all editions).
1906. "On the Art of Cutting Metals". Transactions (No. 1119). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 28:
þÿ31 350. 1880 via Internet Archive (University of Toronto) icon of an open green padlock. OCLC 9057615
(all editions).