Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259

www.elsevier.com/locate/jom

Charles Babbage: Reclaiming an operations

management pioneer
Michael A. Lewis *
Operations and Supply Group, University of Bath School of Management, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom

Available online 10 October 2006

Abstract
Charles Babbage (1791–1871) was the embodiment of a polymath: elected a Royal Society fellow, holder of the Lucasian Chair
of mathematics at Cambridge, founder of the London Statistical Society, author of many papers and full-length monographs and,
most famously from a 21st century perspective, the architect of modern computing with his difference engines and designs for the
analytical engine. The scale and complexity of these machines meant their realisation was dependent upon the latest industrial
advances like parts standardization and machine tool technology. As a result Babbage committed large amounts of his time and
money to the theoretical and empirical study of advanced production and engineering practice.
This paper argues that Charles Babbage deserves to be recognised as a pioneer in the field of operations management. His path-
breaking contributions were born of a singular intellect and degree of creativity combined with a commitment to empiricist
scientific method and statistical measurement. Moreover, he was working as Britain transformed itself into the most highly
industrialized country the world had ever seen. The paper draws in particular upon the various editions of his best-selling book, ‘On
the Economy of Machines and Manufactures’, first published in 1832. It reviews the many core operations principles evident in
Babbage’s analyses and highlights insights that remain relevant to today’s theoretical and practical concerns. The paper concludes
with a discussion of how a combination of contextual and biographical factors left Charles Babbage a largely unsung pioneer in the
field of operations management.
# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Charles Babbage; Operations management; Technology; Historical analysis; Production planning; Productivity; Interdisciplinary;
Repetitive manufacturing; Empirical research methods; Work measurement

1. Introduction when they come from history (Wilson, 1995; Jeremy,

Operations management (OM) is primarily con-
cerned with, and indeed regularly rededicates itself to,
the immediate needs of industrial practice (e.g. Hayes,
2000). While this focus on current relevance is laudable,
the transitory and dynamic nature of ‘‘fashion’’ in
management thought (Abrahamson, 1996) can hinder
the appreciation of fundamental lessons—especially
* Tel.: +44 1225 386536; fax: +44 1225 383223.
E-mail address: m.a.lewis@bath.ac.uk.
2002). For example the Venice Arsenal – first built in
1104 but reaching its ‘‘heyday in the 15th and 16th
centuries when it was famed for the speed at which a
ship could be outfitted’’ (Schmenner, 2001a,b) –
provides a classic illustration of the benefits of a
focused facility (i.e., it only really built one kind of
ship). It was a vertically integrated operation with hulls
and other standard parts batch manufactured and stored
as inventory. These parts could then be assembled into a
finished product in a matter of hours, as and when
required. A key benefit of this system was that it allowed
the Venetian state to hold some of its fleet as land-based

0272-6963/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.001
 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
work-in-process rather than as expensive, maintenance-
consuming ships at sea (Lane 1934 and 1973, cited in
Schmenner, 2001a,b).
There has been historical OM of course: authors have
focused upon, for example, relearning the lessons of the
American System of Manufacture (e.g. Abernathy and
Corcoran, 1983; Wilson, 1996) and deployed historical
anecdote while proposing universal OM theories
(Schmenner and Swink, 1998; Schmenner, 2001a,b;
Singhal, 2001). But there has been almost no extended
reflection upon those individuals in history who helped
to decipher, document and disseminate the emerging
operations paradigm. As an illustration although
Frederick Winslow Taylor and his Scientific Manage-
ment principles are now recognised as cornerstones of
management theory and practice (Locke, 1982;
Kanigel, 1997) – Peter Drucker counts Taylor (with
Darwin and Freud) as ‘‘the trinity often cited as the
‘makers of the modern world’ (Drucker, 1993, p. 31) –
Taylor and his work have been subject to only limited
OM interest (e.g. Robinson and Robinson, 1994; Voss,
1995).
Likewise, although Charles Babbage is sometimes
mentioned (Buffa, 1982; Voss, 1995; Hopp and Spear-
man, 1995; Landes, 1999) as an early advocate of
‘‘rational . . . industrial management’’ (Hobsbawm with
Wrigley 1999, p. 101) there has been almost no detailed
reflection within OM upon the content and context of
his work, nor of the methods he adopted in his scientific
investigation of manufactures. It is these gaps that this
work seeks to address. Combining a summary of his life
and times with a detailed review of his best-selling
work, On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures
(1832), this paper sets his content findings in a
framework that articulates the enduring relevance of
his conclusions to today’s OM audience.1 Specifically, a
review of the content of Babbage’s principles ‘‘which
pervade a very large portion of all manufactures’’ is
conducted for evidence of core OM principles. From
this, the work moves on to highlight those insights
which provide a relevant legacy for today’s theoretical
and practical concerns. The paper concludes by
addressing the specific question of why such a pioneer
needs rediscovering. In exploring his lack of enduring
practical impact, contextual and biographical themes
are discussed: first, Babbage’s efforts are set against the
relative decline, compared with the United States, of the
1
The majority of the textual analysis in this paper is based upon the
1963 reprint of the fourth edition of On the Economy of Machinery
and Manufactures, first published in 1835.
249
British industrial model and, second, the very polymath
brilliance that generated so many insights meant that he
normally worked alone on projects and failed to build
the ‘‘active following’’ that is crucial when disseminat-
ing systemic innovations.
2. The life and times of Charles Babbage
Born in Walworth, Surrey, on 26 December 1791,
Charles was the eldest son of Elizabeth Plumleigh
Teape and Benjamin Babbage, a London merchant and
banker. After a varied school career at Exeter, Enfield,
Cambridge, Totnes and Oxford, he entered Trinity
College, Cambridge, in April 1810 to read mathematics,
eventually graduating from Peterhouse in 1814. Elected
to a fellowship of the Royal Society in 1816, he was the
Lucasian Chair of mathematics at Cambridge from
1828 until 1839 (a post previously held by Isaac
Newton). During his life Babbage contributed to a great
many different fields, publishing 6 full-length mono-
graphs and at least 86 papers (Campbell-Kelly, 1989). It
has been suggested (Swade, 2000, pp. 70–71) that
Charles Dickens may have created a fictional version of
Babbage in his Little Dorrit character, Daniel Doyce.
‘‘[Doyce] . . . though a plain man, had been too much
accustomed to combine what was original and daring
in conception with what was patient and minute
execution, to be by any means an ordinary man’’
(Dickens, 1857).
Whether or not Dickens produced an accurate
representation, this extract gives some indication of a
man of multiple talents: ‘‘a natural philosopher and
mechanical engineer, his knowledge of factory and
workshop practice was encyclopaedic; he was well-
versed in relevant business practice; and he was without
rival as a mathematician among contemporary British
political economists. He was also a master of
conceptualization and wrote clearly’’ (Hyman, 1982,
p. 104). Despite these polymath contributions to various
fields, Babbage today is best known for his machines
designed to calculate mathematical tables. In 1824, he
received the first gold medal awarded by the
Astronomical Society for his work on these difference
engines. In 1834 he began work on an ultimately
fruitless attempt to construct an automatic general-
purpose analytical engine, retrospectively claimed as
the forerunner of the modern digital computer.
In attempting to produce these complex machines,
Babbage was required to understand, employ and
occasionally advance the state-of-the-art of many
production technologies (Barton, 1971). The fact that
250 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
he was able to undertake such studies does not simply
demonstrate his agency but also reflects the extra-
ordinary historical context of England as it entered its
‘industrial revolution’.
2.1. Babbage in context
When Charles Babbage was born, in the late 18th
century, England was still an almost entirely rural
country. By the time of his death eighty years later, it
had become the ‘‘most highly industrialized country
that had ever been seen’’ (Hyman, 1982, p. 1). To
illustrate consider the dramatic changes that took place
in the British textile industry beginning in the 18th
century (see Berg, 1994; Landes, 1999): in 1781, Britain
consumed 5 million pounds of raw cotton; by 1818, 164
million; by 1850, 588 million.
The narrative of the industrial revolution is often
presented as a series of technological innovations—in
particular Watt’s separate condenser steam engine and
Hargreaves’ ‘spinning jenny’ solution of the efficiency
imbalance between spinning and weaving. By 1800,
Watt and his business partner Boulton had made 496
engines: 164 for pumping mines, 24 for blast furnaces
and cupolas and 308 for driving factory machinery.
Equally, by 1850 almost 6000 miles of railway had been
laid and William Huskisson, President of the Board of
Trade, expressed the thoughts of many when he argued
in 1824 that ‘‘if the steam engine be the most powerful
instrument in the hands of man to alter the face of the
physical world, it operates at the same time as a
powerful moral lever in forwarding the great cause of
civilisation’’. Huskisson was killed on 15 September
1830 as Stephenson’s Rocket displayed its pace on the
Liverpool to Manchester railway. Max Weber’s (2002)
protestant ethic apart, it is crucial to note that these
changes were also stimulated by coincidental cultural
phenomena and geo-political events—in particular the
rapidly growing British empire, enforced by naval
power and military occupation, centred around India.
Babbage’s life spanned this revolutionary period.
Given the sheer breadth of industrialization activity
during the late 18th – and especially early 19th –
century, it is perhaps unsurprising that the factory
became a popular and legitimate subject of study.
Ashworth (1996, p. 631) goes as far as to suggest that
‘‘books describing visits to and layouts of factories were
as popular as earlier works on voyages to distant lands’’
(see for example: Ure, 1835; Dodd, 1843). As Babbage
himself argued:
‘‘Those who enjoy leisure can scarcely find a more
interesting and instructive pursuit than the examina-
tion of the workshops of their own country, which
contain within them a rich mine of knowledge, too
generally neglected by the wealthier classes’’ (pre-
face to first edition of On the Economy of Machinery
and Manufactures, January 1832).
What marks Babbage’s work as distinctive was his
commitment to analysis and conceptualisation. He was
someone who ‘‘wanted to illuminate his subject by
rendering it subject to quantification and calculation’’
(Rosenberg, 1994). Joseph Schumpeter, in his History
of Economic Analysis, summarised Babbage’s skills
thus: ‘‘. . . he combined a command of simple but sound
economic theory with a thorough first-hand knowledge
of industrial technology and of the business procedure
relevant thereto’’ (Schumpeter, 1955, p. 541).
3. On the economy of machinery and
manufactures
Babbage’s attempt to build his calculating machines
brought him into contact with ‘‘a considerable number
of workshops and factories, both in England and on the
continent’’ (Babbage, 1832, p. iii). Typically, he felt
compelled to publish his reflections on this process:
initially distilling his observations into a single chapter
– albeit one that was regularly revised – of the
Encyclopaedia Metropolitana (Babbage, 1829–1840),
he subsequently published, On the Economy of
Machinery and Manufactures (OEMM) in 1832.
Babbage reflected in the preface to the first edition:
‘‘The present volume may be considered as one of the
consequences that have resulted from the Calculating-
Engine, the construction of which I have been so long
superintending. Having been induced, during the last
ten years, to visit a considerable number of workshops
and factories, both in England and on the continent, for
the purpose of endeavouring to make myself acqu-
ainted with the various resources of mechanical art, I
was insensibly led to apply to them those principles of
generalization to which my other pursuits had
naturally given rise. The increased number of curious
processes and interesting facts which thus came under
my attention, as well as of the reflections which they
suggested, induced me to believe that the publication
of some of them might be of use to persons who
propose to bestow their attention on those inquiries
which I have only incidentally considered (p. iii).
This polemical book has been described as ‘‘at once
a hymn to the machine, an analysis of the development
of machine-based production, and a discussion of social
 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259 251

relations in industry’’ (Hyman, 1982, p. 103). Perhaps
the closest contemporary equivalent is the International
Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) report into the
performance of the global motor industry: The Machine
That Changed the World (Womack et al., 1990).
Babbage’s book was an immediate success, selling out
its first edition (so rapidly that Babbage never owned a
copy) and was quickly revised and reprinted. Of the
original 3000 copies, many have been lost or
destroyed—in part through the curious 19th century
habit of saving the title page of a book and discarding
the text. Subsequent editions included additional
chapters: On money as a medium of exchange; On a
new system of manufacturing; On the effect of
machinery in reducing the demand for labour. Many
London booksellers initially boycotted the work
because it included an analysis of the expenses in book
publishing and distribution (an improper combination
of masters against the public). It is possible to detect a
certain pride in the fact that this competitive success
was achieved on the intrinsic value of the product,
requiring no marketing intervention and almost in spite
of the sales function. This might be considered
analogous to notions of strategic operations proceeding
‘‘forward in reverse’’ (Hayes, 1985) or, in other words,
starting with product/operational capability and then
looking for a market.
‘‘In two months from the publication of the first
edition of this volume, three thousand copies were in
the hands of the public. Very little was spent in
advertisements; the book-sellers, instead of aiding,
impeded its sale; it formed no part of any popular
series, - and yet the public, in a few weeks, purchased
the whole edition. Some small part of this success,
perhaps, was due to the . . . endeavour to take a short
view of the general principles which direct the
manufactories of the country. But the chief reason
was the commanding attraction of the subject’’
(Babbage, preface to OEMM second edition,
November 1832).
The work was widely translated: although with the
academic zeal of a seeker after truth, the preface to his
fourth edition (January 1835) saw Babbage expressing
his disappointment that ‘‘so few of [the translations]
have contained notes, criticisms, or additions to the
work itself’’.
Throughout this work, extracts from OEMM are
used to illustrate specific points and support broader
themes. Such a method inevitably introduces specific
limitations: in particular condensing a book into a series
of quotes means that the researchers’ interpretation is a
significant reality filter (Gummesson, 1992). Therefore,
in order to provide a more objective indication of the
scope of the work, the content chapters (30 out of 35,
drawn from the 1835, fourth edition) are categorised
(see Table 1) against four typical OM ‘content’
categories (e.g. Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984; Pre-
ntice, 1987): policy/strategy, process technology,
process and job design; planning and control.
Such simple categorisation overlooks the detail
contained in each chapter where different specific
themes inevitably overlap, but it does offer some insight
into the overall priorities of the work. The first part of
the book is concerned with classifying production

Table 1
Indicative categorisation of 30 Babbage chapters by content
OM content
Policy/strategy 14 chapters
Process technology 8 chapters
Process and job design 5 chapters
Planning and control 3 chapters
Related chapter in OEMM
I (Sources of the advantages arising from machinery and manufactures); XIII (On the difference
between making and manufacturing); XIV (Of money as a medium of exchange); XV (On the
influence of verification of price); XVI (On the influence of durability on price);
XVII (On price, as measured by money); XXII (On the causes and consequences
of large factories); XXIII (On the position of large factories); XXV (Inquiries previous to
commencing any manufactory); XXVI (On a new system of manufacturing); XXXI (On
combinations of masters against the public); XXXIII (On the effect of taxes and of legal
restrictions upon manufactures); XXXIV (On the exportation of machinery);
XXXV (On the future prospects of manufactures as connected with science)
II (Accumulating power); III (Regulating power); IV (Increase and diminution of velocity);
V (Extending the time of action of forces); VI (Saving time in natural operations); VII (Exerting
forces too great for human power and executing operations too delicate for human touch);
VIII (Registering operations); XXXII (On the effect of machinery in reducing demand for labour)
XIX (On the division of labour); XXI (On the cost of each separate process in a manufacture);
XXVII (On contriving machinery); XXVIII (Proper circumstances for the application of machinery);
XXX (On combinations amongst masters or workmen against each other)
XVIII (Of raw materials); XXIV (On over-manufacturing); XXIX (On the duration of machinery)
252 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
processes according to the physical nature of the
technology and the advantages they deliver to the firm.
Giving due regard to his broad, non-specialist reader-
ship, Babbage also makes effective use of a range of rich
anecdotal examples, even where they represent a slight
deviation from his core thesis. For instance, he describes
the positive ‘‘effects of grease in diminishing friction’’
as experienced by the ‘‘drivers of sledges in Amster-
dam, on which heavy goods are transported’’. They all
carry ‘‘a rope soaked in tallow, which they throw down
from time to time before the sledge, in order that, by
passing over the rope, it may become greased’’
(OEMM, p. 8).
4. Babbage and operations management
Reading OEMM more than 170 years after it was
first published, it can seem extraordinary that so many
of Babbage’s arguments appear to predict today’s most
important practical and academic OM challenges. For
instance, Babbage was very concerned about the need to
address environmental impact (cf. Angell and Klassen,
1999).
‘‘. . . the coal-mines of the world may ultimately be
exhausted . . . we may remark that the sea itself offers
a perennial source of power hitherto almost
unapplied. The tides, twice in each day, raise a vast
mass of water, which might be made available for
driving machinery’’ (OEMM, XXXV, p. 388).
At the same time, Babbage was most definitely not
imbued with any kind of mystical power; rather he
applied an impressive intellect, in a rigorous manner, to
the emerging production problem. Indeed for all its
comprehensiveness, his analysis was bound in the
technological paradigms of the day that led him to
explore some curiously antiquated applications – such as
the ‘speaking tube’ – albeit still in a ‘scientific’ manner.
‘‘The distance to which such a mode of commu-
nication can be extended, does not appear to have
been ascertained, and would be an interesting subject
for inquiry. Admitting it to be possible between
London and Liverpool, about seventeen minutes
would elapse before the words spoken at one end
would reach the other extremity of the pipe’’
(OEMM, I, p. 10).
4.1. The evolution of core principles
Babbage’s analytically and conceptually rigorous
book highlights how many core concepts can trace their
lineage back to the earliest development of mass
production. For instance, in the first chapter of Enquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
(1776, p. 7) Adam Smith articulated three specific
advantages that accrue to the firm from the division of
labour: increased ‘‘dexterity in every particular work-
man’’, saving time lost in ‘‘passing from one species of
work to another’’, and the application of labour-saving
technologies that enable ‘‘one man to do the work of
many’’. Babbage in turn ‘‘provided a considerable
improvement upon . . . Smith’s treatment . . . and . . .
offered the first systematic analysis of the economies
associated with increasing returns to scale’’ (Rosenberg,
1994). Of course Babbage was writing at a time when the
division of labour was much more widespread than it had
been when Smith was writing—indeed there is some
dispute as to whether Smith ever actually visited a pin-
making factory or simply took his process descriptions
from Diderot’s then recently published encyclopaedia.
Babbage’s specific contributions included analysis of the
beneficial possibilities of unbundling the underutilised
skill sets inherent in a limited division of labour context
(e.g. a job shop) and highlighted the link between
volume, variety and process design (Abernathy and
Utterback, 1975; Hayes and Wheelwright, 1979).
‘‘[T]he master manufacturer by dividing the work to
be executed into different processes, each requiring
different degrees of skill or of force can purchase
exactly that precise quantity of both which is
necessary for each process; whereas, if the whole
work were to be executed by one workman, that
person must possess sufficient skill to perform the
most difficult, and sufficient strength to execute the
most laborious, of the operations into which the art is
divided’’ (OEMM, pp.175–6).
‘‘But if a manufacturer insist on employing one man
to make the whole needle, he must pay at the rate of
five pounds a week for every portion of the labour
bestowed upon it’’ (Babbage, 1864, p. 328).
‘‘If only a few pairs of cotton stockings should be
required, it would be an absurd waste of time, and of
capital, to construct a stocking-frame to weave them,
when, for a few pence, four steel wires can be
procured by which they may be knit. If, on the other
hand, many thousand pairs were wanted, the time
employed, and the expense incurred in constructing a
stocking frame, would be more than repaid by the
saving of time in making that large number of
stockings’’ (OEMM, XXVIII, p. 268).
 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
In documenting the early stages of industrial
development, Babbage arguably failed to recognise
the ‘dis-benefits’ of over-specialisation (e.g. the
flexibility/cost trade-off) that whereby structural
strengths can easily become rigidities or ‘competence
traps’ (March and Sproull, 1990; Starbuck, 1992). Yet,
despite such ex-post criticism, Babbage clearly articu-
lates many of the fundamental features of product/
process design that continue to play a central role in OM
theory. He highlighted, for instance, the importance of
flow between work-stations and the positive impact of
achieving a balanced workload.
‘‘The material out of which the manufactured article
is produced, must, in the several stages of its
progress, be conveyed from one operator to the next
in succession: this can be done at least expense when
they are all working in the same establishment’’
(OEMM, XXII, p. 213).
‘‘In [the factory] of Mr. Mordan, the patentee of the
ever-pointed pencils, one room is devoted to some of
the processes by which steel pens are manufactured.
Six fly-presses are here constantly at work; - in the
first a sheet of thin steel is brought by the workman
under the die which at each blow cuts out a flat piece
of the metal, having the form intended for the pen.
Two other workmen are employed in placing these
flat pieces under two other presses, in which a steel
chisel cuts the slit. Three other workmen occupy
other presses, in which the pieces so prepared receive
their semi-cylindrical form. The longer time required
for adjusting the small pieces in the two latter
operations renders them less rapid in execution than
the first; so that two workmen are fully occupied in
slitting, and three in bending the flat pieces, which
one man can punch out of the sheet of steel. If,
therefore, it were necessary to enlarge this factory, it
is clear that twelve or eighteen presses would be
worked with more economy than any number not a
multiple of six’’ (OEMM, XXII, pp. 211–2).
As a scientist and engineer, Babbage immediately
recognised that ‘‘the division of labour suggests the
contrivance of tools and machinery to execute its
processes’’ (OEMM, p. 173), but his interest in the link
between process technology and new forms of industrial
organisation was not limited to the most fashionable,
complex and sophisticated technology. Indeed Hyman
(1982, p. 105) notes how Babbage’s study ‘‘started in a
manner so extraordinary that it has passed almost
without comment, as if no one could believe what he
253
was really doing: he settled down to study all the
manufacturing techniques and processes’’ [italics in
original].
‘‘To arrange twenty thousand needles thrown
promiscuously into a box, mixed and entangled in
every possible direction, in such a form that they
should be all parallel to each other, would, at first
sight, appear a most tedious occupation; in fact, if
each needle were to be separated individually, many
hours must be consumed in the process. Yet this is an
operation which must be performed many times in
the manufacture of needles; and it is accomplished in
a few minutes by a very simple tool; nothing more
being requisite than a small flat tray of sheet iron,
slightly concave at the bottom. In this the needles are
placed, and shaken in a peculiar manner, by throwing
them up a very little, and giving at the same time a
slight longitudinal motion to the tray. The shape of
the needles assists their arrangement; for it two
needles cross each other . . . they will, when they fall
on the bottom of the tray, tend to place themselves
side by side, and the hollow form of the tray assists
this disposition. As they have no projection in any
part to impede this tendency, or to entangle each
other, they are, by continually shaking, arranged
lengthwise, in three or four minutes. The direction of
the shake is now changed, the needles are but little
thrown up, but the tray is shaken endways; the result
of which is, that in a minute or two the needles which
were previously arranged endways become heaped
up in a wall, with their ends against the extremity of
the tray. They are then removed, by hundreds at a
time, with a broad iron spatula, on which they are
retained by the fore-finger of the left hand. As this
parallel arrangement of the needles must be repeated
many times, if a cheap and expeditious method had
not been devised, the expense of the manufacture
would have been considerably enhanced’’ (OEMM,
I, pp. 12–13).
This fascination with even the simplest forms of
technology – that could be considered analogous to the
principles of error-proofing (poka yoke) – is one of the
hallmarks of Babbage’s work and provides anecdotal
richness to his book that adds considerably to its
readability.
4.2. The prediction of current concerns
Discussions of division of labour typically evoke
pejorative images of managerial exploitation and de-
skilled workers, but Babbage always saw co-operation
254 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
and good relations with workers (albeit skewed by the
class distinctions of the time and his own somewhat
patrician attitudes) as a central tenet of effective
manufacturing. He was writing at a time of intense class
struggle in England with militant groups like the
Luddites (who smashed Lace Frames in Nottingham-
shire factories) dominating political debate. For many
factory owners, the solution was one of greater
enforcement but Babbage had encountered systems of
payment by results in Cornish tin mines and profit
sharing on whaling ships that led him to propose ‘A New
System of Manufacturing’.
‘‘It would be of great importance, if, in every large
establishment the mode of payment could be so
arranged, that every person employed should derive
advantage from the success of the whole; and that the
profits of each individual should advance, as the
factory itself produced profit, without the necessity
of making any changes in wages’’ (OEMM, XXVI,
p. 251).
‘‘. . . every person connected with it should derive
more advantage from applying any improvement he
might discover, to the factory in which he is
employed, than he could by any other course’’
(OEMM, p. 254).
‘‘Now, if a workman should find a mode of
shortening any of the processes, he would confer a
benefit on the whole . . .. For the promotion of such
discoveries, it would be desirable that those who
make them should . . . receive some reward’’
(OEMM, p. 256).
Schemes for allocating profit-related payments and
encouraging kaizen might seem to be very recent OM
pre-occupations, yet Babbage always stressed the
criticality of aligning workforce and managerial
motivation. He argued that simply installing the most
advanced technology or designing an appropriate
organisational structure or implementing a sophisti-
cated cost-accounting system will not deliver ‘satisfac-
tory functioning’ if ‘‘the interests [of workers] and that
of their employers are at variance’’ (OEMM, p. 250).
Similarly, although Skinner’s (1969) ‘call to arms’ is
widely acknowledged (e.g. Andrew and Johnson, 1982;
Skinner, 1996) as having established OM’s interest in
the strategic alignment of operations and markets, the
identical complex parts required for his calculating
machines had given Babbage an early insight into the
nature of qualifiers and order-winners (Hill, 1984).
Moreover, his subsequent research into the broader
economic principles of manufacturing can be effectively
summarised (see Table 2) using a framework employing
generic operations strategy performance objectives.
Babbage repeatedly articulated the complementary
benefits of both careful preparation and planning (‘‘to
make the most perfect drawings . . . tends essentially to
both the success of the trial, and to economy in arriving at
the result’’, OEMM, p. 262) and the essential role of
‘‘direct trial’’ (OEMM, p. 261) as a central element in the
development of successful technological innovation.
‘‘[L]ook around the rooms we inhabit, or through
those storehouses of every convenience, of every
luxury that man can desire, which deck the crowded
streets of out larger cities, we shall find in the history
of each article, of every fabric, a series of failures
which have gradually led the way to excellence’’
(OEMM, I, p. 3).
These observations speak directly to current debates
about organisational learning (e.g. Hayes et al., 1988;
Sitkin et al., 1994) and a broader argument that ‘‘history
matters’’ because every operation is ‘‘shaped by the
path it has travelled’’ (Teece et al., 1997, p. 522). In
other words, it is not too much of a leap to argue that
Babbage anticipates theoretical work in the resource-
based/capability paradigm (Foss and Knudsen, 1995)
regularly deployed in discussions of operations-related
strategy (e.g. Hayes and Pisano, 1996; Bartezzaghi,
1999; Gagnon, 1999; Lewis, 2000; Slack and Lewis,
2002). This model argues that the sustainability of any
advantage depends upon barriers to prevent rival firms
imitating and/or removing key resources, processes,
routines, etc. At the same time, nearly all advantages
(and barriers) are prone to decay if nothing is done to
maintain them, a fact that Babbage repeatedly refers to
in his discussions (e.g. OEMM, Chapter 29: On the
duration of machinery) about the rapid technological
obsolescence he observed around him. In other words,
there has to be an explicit time dimension to any
assessment of operational advantage.
‘‘The benefit of the improvements thus engendered
is, for a short time, confined to those from whose
ingenuity they derive their origin; but when a
sufficient experience has proved their value, they
become generally adopted, until in their turn they are
superseded by other more economical methods’’
(OEMM, XIII, p. 122).
‘‘Machinery for producing any commodity in
great demand, seldom actually wears out; new
 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
Table 2
Babbage’s insights into the key operations performance objectives
Illustrative examples from OEMM
Cost If therefore, the maker of an
article wish to become a
manufacturer, in the more
extended sense of the term,
he must attend to other principles
besides those mechanical ones
on which the successful execution of
his work depends; and he must
carefully arrange the whole factory
in such a manner, that the article
he sells to the public may be
produced at as small a cost as
possible (OEMM, XIII, p. 121)
Quality The constant repetition of the same
process necessarily produces in the
workman a degree of excellence and
rapidity in his particular department
. . .. A certain quantity of material
will, in all cases, be consumed
unprofitably, or spoiled by every
person who learns an art; and as he
applies himself to each new process,
he will waste some of the raw
materials, or of the partly
manufactured commodity
(OEMM, XIX, p. 171)
Speed and So extensive and important is
flexibility [the economy of time] . . . that
we might, if we were inclined to
generalize, embrace almost all
the advantages under this single
head (OEMM, I, p. 8). Another
instance of the just application of
machinery, even at an increased
expense, arises where the shortness
of time in which the article is
produced, has an important
influence on its value
(OEMM, XXVIII, p. 269)
improvements, by which the same operations can be
executed either more quickly or better, generally
superseding it long before that period arrives’’
(OEMM, XXIX, p. 285).
At every reduction of price of the
commodity he makes, he will be
driven to seek compensation in a
saving of expense in some of the
processes; and his ingenuity will
be sharpened in this inquiry by the
hope of being able in his turn to
undersell his rivals (OEMM, XIII,
pp. 121–2). The precision with which
all operations by machinery are
executed, and the exact similarity
of the articles thus made, produce
a degree of economy in the
consumption of the raw material
which is . . . of great importance
(OEMM, IX, p. 62)
When each process . . . is the sole
occupation of one individual . . .
improvements in the form of his
tools, or in the mode of using them,
are much more likely to occur to
his mind, than if it were
distracted by a greater variety of
circumstances (OEMM, XIX, pp.
173–4). [T]he good performance
and the duration of machines
depend to a very great extent
upon correcting every shake or
imperfection in their parts as soon
as they appear, the prompt attention
of a workman resident on the spot
will considerably reduce the
expenditure arising from the wear
and tear of the machinery (OEMM,
XXII, pp. 214–215)
[D]ivision of labour . . . enables us
to purchase and apply to each process
precisely that quantity of skill and
knowledge which is required for it:
we avoid employing any part of the
time of a man who can get eight or
ten shillings a day by his skill in
tempering needles, in turning a wheel,
which can be done for sixpence
a day’’ (OEMM, XX, p. 201). Another
advantage is the saving of that portion
of time which is always lost in changing
from one occupation to another
(OEMM, XIX, p. 172)
Just as over time OM has evolved to incorporate
more people-related and strategic concepts (Buffa,
1982; Pannirselvam et al., 1999), today’s disciplinary
focus has also shifted to pay greater attention to the
255
The . . . results of an accurate
experiment upon the effect of
the [automatic printing process]
. . . – Two hundred reams of
paper were printed off, the old
method of inking with balls
employed; two hundred reams
of the same paper, and for the
same book, were then printed
off in the presses which inked
their own type. The consumption
of ink by the machine was to
that by the balls as four to nine,
or rather less than one-half
(OEMM, IX, p. 65)
[T]he cheapness of articles . . .
seems greatly to depend [upon]
COPYING . . . the larger the
number of these copies, the
more care and pains can the
manufacturer afford to lavish
upon the original. It may thus
happen, that the instrument or
tool actually producing the work,
shall cost five or even ten
thousand times the price of each
individual specimen of its power
(OEMM, XI, p. 69). One great
advantage which we may drive
from machinery is from the
check which it affords against
the inattention, the idleness, or
the dishonesty of human agents
(OEMM, VIII, p. 54)
[T]he portion of time occupied
in the acquisition of any art will
depend on the difficulty of
execution; and . . . the greater
the number of distinct processes,
the longer will be the time which
the apprentice must employ in
acquiring it (OEMM, XIX,
p. 170). The . . . contrivance of
tin tubes for speaking through,
communicating between different
apartments, by which the
directions of the superintendent
are instantly conveyed to the
remotest parts of an establishment,
produces a considerable economy
of time (OEMM, I, p. 9)
256 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
management of service operations (Johnston, 1994).
Widely cited early service operations references include
Levitt’s (1972) article exploring McDonald’s successful
application of a ‘‘Production-line approach to service’’
yet because of Babbage’s motivation to develop an
automatic method for calculating various kinds of
mathematical tables he devoted an entire chapter
(OEMM, XX, On the division of mental labour) to the
application of division of labour to service operations.
‘‘We have already mentioned what may, perhaps,
appear paradoxical to some of our readers, - that the
division of labour can be applied with equal success to
mental as to mechanical operations, and that it ensures
in both the same economy of time. A short account of
its practical application, in the most extensive series of
calculations ever executed, will offer an interesting
illustration of this fact, whilst at the same time it will
afford an occasion for shewing that the arrangements
which ought to regulate the interior economy of a
manufactory, are founded on principles of deeper root
than may have been supposed, and are capable of
being usefully employed in preparing the road to some
of the sublimest investigations of the human mind’’
(OEMM, XX, p. 191).
‘‘In the midst of the excitement which accompanied
the Revolution of France and the succeeding wars, the
ambition of the nation, unexhausted by its fatal
passion for military renown, was at the same time
directed to some of the nobler and more permanent
triumphs which mark the era of a people’s greatness, -
and which receive the applause of posterity long after
their conquests have been wrested from them, or even
when their existence as a nation may be told only by
the page of history. Amongst their enterprises of
science, the French government was desirous of
producing a series of mathematical tables, to facilitate
the application of the decimal system which they had
so recently adopted. They directed, therefore, their
mathematicians to construct such tables, on the most
extensive scale. Their most distinguished philoso-
phers, responding fully to the call of their country,
invented new methods for this laborious task; and a
work, completely answering the large demands of the
government, was produced in a remarkably short
period of time’’ (OEMM, XX, pp. 191–2).
It took 150 years, and a great deal of re-packaging,
for many large-scale service operations (e.g. banks,
insurance companies, etc.) to rediscover the relevance
of basic process design principles (see Hecht, 2001).
5. Conclusions
Babbage died on 18 October 1871 and was buried at
a sparsely attended funeral in London’s Kensal Green
Cemetery. By the standards of any age, he was an
extraordinary man, who made contributions to many
different disciplines. However the focus of this paper
has been his systematic investigation of the state-of-the-
art in manufacturing, the hugely successful by-product
of his efforts to create an automatic general-purpose
analytical engine. His work has had a major influence
upon the theory of political economy. John Stuart Mill,
for instance, draws heavily upon Babbage’s analysis in
Book 1 of his seminal Principles of Political Economy
(1848). Intriguingly, given Babbage’s enthusiastic
advocacy of capitalism, it was ‘‘those characteristics
of the division of labour that Babbage had identified as
sources of improved efficiency in the factory’’
(Rosenberg, 1994) which formed the basis for Karl
Marx’s very different economic and political conclu-
sions in Capital (Blaug, 1978). Other attempts have
been made to reclaim Babbage as a pioneer economist,
with Rosenberg (1994) in particular arguing that
OEMM ‘‘has much to offer to any reader today who
wishes to understand the difficulties confronting the
innovative impulse in the early days of industrialisa-
tion’’. To conclude this paper, we return to the question
of to what extent Babbage has a reasonable claim to
pioneer status in the operations management field.
The first issue that must be addressed is a version of
the ‘‘if you are so clever, why aren’t you rich!’’ cliché—
if Babbage was an OM pioneer with so many enduringly
relevant insights, why does he need to be rediscovered?
Why was it was not until Frederick Winslow Taylor
(1856–1915) established his models for the scientific
selection, education and development of workers, that
operational management theory had any consistent
impact (Locke, 1982) upon practice?
A partial explanation for Babbage’s lack of enduring
impact can be found by revisiting the detail of his
historical context. England led the process of indus-
trialization centered on textiles, iron and railways that
took hold in Germany, France, Belgium, and the United
States during the period 1820–1840. However, it should
be noted that already – by the beginning of the 19th
century – American labour productivity was higher than
Britain’s, despite its lower capital intensity (Broadberry,
1994). Within forty years, the alternative American
system of manufacturing (Hounshell, 1984) – based in
part on the refinement of interchangeable parts (‘‘the
proportion, and relative position, of several parts . . . are
so exactly alike; and the screws, springs and other limbs
 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
made so similar, that they may be transferred from one . . .
and adjusted to another without any material alteration’’,
Dwight, 1822) – was increasingly perceived to represent
global ‘best practice’ (Wilson, 1995, 1996).
By 1850, some US manufacturers (such as Samuel
Colt) had opened UK production facilities based on these
principles. In part as a response to these transplants, a UK
parliamentary commission investigated the American
system and produced a detailed report recommending the
adoption of many of its key principles (Rosenberg, 1969).
Few of these innovations would have been new to
Babbage. Although he never visited the United States
himself, the lessons of standardization were always
extremely important to his work and he had plenty of
opportunities to learn them. For example, Marc Isambard
Brunel, the French-born father of Isambard Kingdom
Brunel, worked as an architect and engineer in America
for 6 years, eventually becoming a citizen. He came to
England looking to win the contract to design block-
making machinery for the Portsmouth Naval dockyard
(Gilbert, 1965; Cooper, 1981). The set of machines he
eventually designed were the first to use machine tools to
make equipment (rigging blocks) with interchangeable
parts. Completed in 1808, the Block Mill saved the
Admiralty many thousands of pounds, allowing 10
unskilled workers to replace 110 people for the same
volume (Gilbert, 1965, p. 6) and was so successful that
Gilbert found some of the machines still in use in 1965.
Babbage became close to Brunel and his difference
engine was the ‘‘next important piece of equipment with
interchangeable parts to be made by machine tools’’
(Hyman, 1982, p. 145).
Of course, in addition to its technical components, the
American system was unhindered by long-established
forms of organisational focus (embodied in structures
such as craft guilds and unions) and moved more rapidly
towards vertically integrated and larger scale modes of
production—a development trajectory that continued
until Henry Ford (1863–1947) became the first person to
use the system to produce very complex products. State
intervention also played an intriguing role with require-
ments for large quantities of reliable and affordable
military equipment leading directly to the sustained work
on standardization by private contractors like Eli
Whitney and the government armouries at Springfield
and Harper’s Ferry (Sawyer, 1954). Eli Whitney, for
instance, accepted his first musket order in 1798 (when
Babbage was only 7 years old)—although at that time he
lacked a factory, employees, equipment, finance and any
experience of making guns. Unsurprisingly, he com-
pleted his first federal contract 9 years late and it was only
the exigencies of the 1812 war with Britain that led to a
257
further 15,000 muskets being ordered. In sum, despite
Babbage’s experience and analysis, and the popularity of
OEMM, any subsequent interpretation of his work has to
be set against the backdrop of the relative decline of the
British industrial model.
Contrasting Babbage with Taylor (Kanigel, 1997) also
highlights another potential explanation for Babbage’s
lack of contemporary impact. For instance Hopp and
Spearman (1995, p. 27) argue that, until Taylor, ‘‘no-one
generated the sustained interest, active following and
systematic framework necessary to plausibly proclaim
management as a discipline’’. In other words, although
OEMM generated interest as it coincided with a time of
public curiosity about factory production, this was not
sustained (nb: given the contemporary popularity of the
factory tour, many of the sales may have been to
interested amateurs rather than factory owners or
managers). Conversely, Taylor was working at a time
when, as US organisations grew in scale and scope, there
quickly followed the emergence of an increasingly
professional managerial class dedicated to controlling
ever more complicated production systems. By the
beginning of the 20th century this had created, in North
America, a marketplace for formal management educa-
tion, and operations (scientific) management formed a
key part of many curricula (Gordon and Howell, 1959).
At the same time, engineering education was broadening
to include industrial engineering courses, also strongly
influenced by Scientific Management principles (Emer-
son and Naehring, 1988). Babbage’s tendency to work
alone on projects also prevented him from building the
‘‘active following’’ that was so central in refining and
implementing scientific management. Taylor had a small
army of advocates/consultants (i.e., Carl Barth, Henry
Gantt, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth), with the Gilbreths in
particular playing a key role in the dissemination of the
ideas to Japanese Industry (Robinson and Robinson,
1994).
Where Babbage’s claim is strongest however is in
presenting a ‘‘systematic analysis’’ derived from prag-
matic and industrially relevant but conceptually robust
insights. Babbage and his contemporaries (like John
Herschel, the celebrated Astronomer) were clearly the
intellectual descendents of Francis Bacon, but also
perceived themselves to be the philosophical equivalents
of great industrialists such as James Watt, Matthew
Boulton and Josiah Wedgwood (Ashworth, 1996).
Babbage explicitly argued that ‘‘efforts for the improve-
ment of . . . manufactures . . . with the greatest probability
of success, must arise from the combined exertions of all
those most skilled in the theory, as well as in the practice’’
(OEMM, XXXV, p. 379).
258 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
Methodological issues relating to the observation and
analysis of manufacturing operations were also central
concerns of Babbage’s work, arguing that ‘‘the errors
which arise from the absence of facts are far more
numerous and more durable that those which result from
unsound reasoning respecting true data’’ (p. 156). In
OEMM he even provides readers with a guide for
conducting a meaningful ‘plant tour’. More sophisticated
than many of the practical checklists so beloved of
modern ‘airport’ management books, Babbage’s guide
comprised a set of structured questions and included a
discrete method for checking the internal consistency of
interviewee responses. He also highlighted some of the
specific work measurement challenges that later scien-
tific management experts would encounter (typified by
the studies conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne
Plant in Chicago between 1924–1932) and discussed at
length (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1929; Mayo, 1933).
‘‘In filling up the answers which require numbers,
some care should be taken: for instance, if the
observer stands with his watch in his hand before a
person heading a pin, the workman will almost
certainly increase his speed, and the estimate will be
too large’’ (OEMM, XII, p. 117).
In addition to the descriptions of specific processes
and abstractions of general operating principles, one of
the most striking elements of the OEMM is Babbage’s
enthusiasm for the subject. This shines through, even
given a somewhat arcane prose style, and allows us to
draw comparisons with today’s OM enthusiasts (e.g.
Chase, 1996).
‘‘We shall notice, in the art of making even the most
insignificant of [articles], processes calculated to
excite our admiration by their simplicity, or to rivet
our attention by their unlooked-for results’’ (OEMM,
I, p. 3).
Babbage’s lack of impact on public and firm policy
does not diminish the validity of his work nor his claim
to OM pioneer status. After all, many academic ideas
fail to impact practice and Henry Ford claimed that he
knew nothing of F.W. Taylor or his ideas. However, it
remains fascinating to speculate what impact Babbage
might have had if he had been writing in the US, and had
paid more attention to marketing and dissemination.
References
Abernathy, W.J., Corcoran, J., 1983. Relearning from the old masters:
lessons of the American system of manufacturing. Journal of
Operations Management 3 (4), 155–167.
Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J., 1975. A dynamic model of process and
product innovation. Omega 13 (6), 639–657.
Abrahamson, E., 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 21 (1).
Andrew, C.G., Johnson, G.A., 1982. The critical importance of
production and operations management. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 7, 143–147.
Angell, L.C., Klassen, R.D., 1999. Integrating environmental issues
into the mainstream: an agenda for research in operations manage-
ment. Journal of Operations Management 17 (5), 575–599.
Ashworth, W.J., 1996. Memory, efficiency and symbolic analysis:
Charles Babbage, John Herschel and the industrial mind. Isis 87,
629–653.
Babbage, C., 1829. An introductory view of the principles of man-
ufactures. In: Smedley, E., et al. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia Metro-
politana, vol. VIII. .
Babbage, C., 1832. On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures.
Charles Knight, Pall Mall, London.
Babbage, C., 1835. On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures.
1977 Reprint of 4th ed. M. Kelley, New York.
Babbage, C., 1864. Passages from the life of a Philosopher. 1969
Reprint of 1st ed. M. Kelley, New York.
Bartezzaghi, E., 1999. The evolution of production models: is a new
paradigm emerging? International Journal of Production and
Operations Management 19 (2), 229–250.
Barton, H., 1971. Charles Babbage and the beginning of die casting.
Machinery and Production Engineering 624–631.
Berg, M., 1994. The Age of Manufactures 1700–1820: Industry,
Innovation and Work in Britain, 2nd ed. Routledge, UK.
Blaug, M., 1978. Economic Theory in Retrospect, 3rd ed. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Broadberry, S.N., 1994. Comparative productivity in British and
American manufacturing during the nineteenth century. In:
Explorations in Economic History, vol. 31, no. 3, Academic Press,
pp. 521–548.
Buffa, E.S., 1982. Research in operations management. Journal of
Operations Management 1 (1), 1–7.
Campbell-Kelly, M. (Ed.), 1989. The Works of Charles Babbage, 11
volumes. William Pickering, London.
Chase, R.B., 1996. The mall is my factory: reflections of a service
junkie. Production and Operations Management 5 (4), 298–308.
Cooper, C.C., 1981. The production line at Portsmouth block mill.
Industrial Archaeological Review 6 (1), 28–44.
Dickens, C. 1857. Little Dorritt, Penguin Classics, 1998 edition,
London, U.K.
Dodd, G., 1843. Days at the Factories, or the Manufactory Industry of
Great Britain Described. Charles Knight, London.
Drucker, P.F., 1993. Post-Capitalistic Society. Butterworth-Heine-
mann, Oxford.
Dwight, T. 1822. Travels in New England and New York, vol. 4. New
Haven.
Emerson, H.P., Naehring, D.C.E., 1988. The Origins of Industrial
Engineering. Institute of Industrial Engineers, Norcross, GA.
Foss, N.J., Knudsen, C., 1995. Towards a Competence Theory of the
Firm. Routledge, London.
Gagnon, S., 1999. Resource-based competition and the new opera-
tions strategy. International Journal of Production and Operations
Management 19 (2), 125–138.
Gilbert, K.R., 1965. The Portsmouth Block-Making Machinery.
HMSO, London.
Gordon, R.A., Howell, J.E., 1959. Higher Education for Business.
Columbia University Press, NY.
 M.A. Lewis / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 248–259
Gummesson, E., 1992. Qualitative Methods in Management Research.
Sage.
Hayes, R.H., 1985. Strategic planning—forward in reverse? Harvard
Business Review 56–66.
Hayes, R.H., 2000. Toward a ‘new architecture’ for POM. Production
and Operations Management 9 (2), 105–110.
Hayes, R.H., Pisano, G., 1996. Manufacturing strategy: at the inter-
section of two paradigm shifts. Production and Operations Man-
agement 5 (1), 25–41.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., 1979. Link manufacturing and process
and product life cycles. Harvard Business Review 57, 127–136.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., 1984. Restoring our Competitive
Edge: Competing through Manufacturing. Wiley, New York.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., Clark, K.B., 1988. Dynamic Man-
ufacturing: Creating the Learning Organization. Free Press, New
York.
Hecht, J., 2001. Classical labour-displacing technological change: the
case of the US insurance industry. Cambridge Journal of Econom-
ics 25, 517–537.
Hill, T., 1984. Manufacturing Strategy. Macmillan, London.
Hobsbawm, E., Wrigley, C.J., 1999. Industry and Empire. Penguin
Books, London.
Hopp, W.J., Spearman, M.L., 1995. Factory Physics. McGraw-Hill.
Hounshell, D., 1984. From the American System to Mass Production,
1800–1934. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Hyman, A., 1982. Charles Babbage: Pioneer of the Computer. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Jeremy, D.J., 2002. Business history and strategy. In: Pettigrew, A.,
Thomas, H., Whittington, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and
Management. Sage, (Chapter 19), pp. 436–460.
Johnston, R., 1994. Operations: from factory to service management.
International Journal of Service Industry Management 5 (5), 49–63.
Kanigel, R., 1997. The One Best Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and
the Enigma of Efficiency. Viking Penguin, USA.
Landes, D., 1999. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Abacus Books,
London, UK.
Levitt, T., 1972. A production-line approach to service. Harvard
Business Review 41–52.
Lewis, M.A., 2000. Lean production and sustainable competitive
advantage. International Journal of Production and Operations
Management 20 (8), 959–978.
Locke, E., 1982. The ideas of Frederick Taylor: an evaluation.
Academy of Management Review 7, 14–24.
March, J.G., Sproull, L.S., 1990. Technology, management and
competitive advantage. In: Goodman, P.S., Sproull, L.S. (Eds.),
Technology and Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Mayo, E., 1933. The Human Problems of an Industrial Organization.
Macmillan, New York.
Pannirselvam, G.P., Ferguson, L.A., Ash, R.C., Siferd, S.P., 1999.
Operations management research: an update for the 1990’s.
Journal of Operations Management 18, 95–112.
Prentice, E.L., 1987. Operations management taxonomy. Journal of
Operations Management 7 (1), 63–78.
Robinson, A.G., Robinson, M.M., 1994. On the tabletop improvement
experiments of Japan. Production and Operations Management 3
(3), 201–216.
259
Roethlisberger, F.J., Dickson, W.J., 1929. Management and the
Worker. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rosenberg, N. (Ed.), 1969. The American System of Manufactures.
Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Rosenberg, N., 1994. Babbage: pioneer economist. In: Rosenberg,
N. (Ed.), Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics
and History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
(Chapter 2).
Sawyer, J.E., 1954. The social basis of the American system of
manufacturing. Journal of Economic History 14 (4), 361–379.
Schmenner, R.W., 2001a. Looking ahead by looking back: swift, even
flow in the history of manufacturing. Production and Operations
Management 10 (1), 87–96.
Schmenner, R.W., 2001b. History of technology, manufacturing and
the industrial revolution: a rejoinder. Production and Operations
Management 10 (1), 103–106.
Schmenner, R.L., Swink, M.L., 1998. On theory in operations man-
agement. Journal of Operations Management 17, 97–113.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1955. A History of Economic Analysis. Oxford
University Press.
Singhal, K., 2001. History of technology, manufacturing and the
industrial revolution: an alternate perspective on Schmenner’s
hypotheses. Production and Operations Management 10 (1),
97–102.
Sitkin, S., Sutcliffe, K.M., Schroeder, R.G., 1994. Distinguishing
control from learning in TQM: a contingency perspective. Acad-
emy of Management Review 19 (3), 537–564.
Skinner, W., 1969. Manufacturing: missing link in corporate strategy.
Harvard Business Review 136–145.
Skinner, W., 1996. Manufacturing strategy of the ‘S’ curve. Produc-
tion and Operations Management 5 (1), 3–14.
Slack, N., Lewis, M.A., 2002. Operations Strategy. Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Smith, A., 1776. Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations. Everyman Library.
Starbuck, W.H., 1992. Learning by knowledge intensive firms. Journal
of Management Studies 26 (6), 713–740.
Swade, D., 2000. The Cogwheel Brain: Charles Babbage and the
Quest to Build the First Computer. Little, Brown and Co., London.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7), 509–
533.
Ure, A., 1835. The Philosophy of Manufactures. Charles Knight,
London.
Voss, C., 1995. Operations management – from Taylor to Toyota – and
beyond. British Journal of Management 6, 17–29 (Special Issue).
Weber, M., 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
Translated by S. Kalberg. Blackwell Publishing.
Wilson, J.M., 1995. An historical perspective on operations manage-
ment. Production and Inventory Management Journal 61–66
(Third Quarter).
Wilson, J.M., 1996. A comparison of the ‘American system of
manufactures’ circa 1850 with just in time methods. Journal of
Operations Management 16, 77–90.
Womack, J., Jones, D.T., Roos, D., 1990. The Machine That Changed
the World. Rawson Associates, New York, NY.