48 STEEL SHIP CONSTRUCTION 



established yards, where the percentage of new men was comparatively low — the 

 records of performance were little short of wonderful. In a very large majority 

 of cases, however, both the men and the management were decidedly lacking in skill 

 and experience, which is easily accounted for if one stops to consider that in a re- 

 markably short space of time shipyard labor increased from 50,000 to over 300,000 

 men. To supply competent and skilled supervision for such an increase was next to 

 impossible, yet, in a way, it was done and ships were launched and sailed the seas 

 to the everlasting credit of the country. "Ships and more ships" was the slogan 

 then, and the ships came. "Low costs and a living wage" might well be the slogan 

 of the future, for it can very easily be demonstrated that with a reasonable rate of 

 production on the part of labor there is no valid reason why this country should not 

 maintain its high standard of living, which means high wages, yet secure all the 

 business necessary to keep the industry in a healthy and flourishing condition. 



A cursory analysis of the situation indicates that the factors under direct con- 

 trol of the shipbuilders are organization, management, methods, and, to a greater 

 or less extent, men. The prevailing market controls both material and wages, the 

 latter through labor being considered a commodity. The spirit of the times would 

 indicate that labor as a commodity is not in accord with the future relations be- 

 tween capital and labor, and it is, therefore, extremely doubtful if the market will 

 exercise its former control on wages. For the purposes of this paper this has an 

 important bearing in that the element of wages will be treated as one of the factors 

 not under control by the shipbuilder. The direct effect of such treatment will be 

 to concentrate attention on factors that, beyond any question, are under control. 



It is a foregone conclusion, other things being equal, that the success of an 

 industry is very largely a matter of organization and management. In modern 

 thought the former is considered a science and the latter an art. Science above all 

 things demands exactness, and the reasoning back of referring to organization as a 

 science is that it is, or should be, based on certain facts determined entirely by the 

 nature of an industry and the various operating functions by which it is controlled. 

 That management may justly be termed an art must be admitted when one con- 

 siders the varying degrees of success attained by different men in the same position 

 and the same tools (the organization) with which to work. Methods are simply a 

 means by which the artist (the management) manipulates the tools (the organi- 

 zation) at his disposal. In many cases, perhaps a majority, methods are more or 

 less a growth fostered by the necessity of the moment, a sort of patch work with 

 additions here and there to fill in a vacancy. For example, it may happen that a 

 method of storekeeping is installed that in itself is perfectly satisfactory as far as 

 stores are concerned, but involves other departments to their detriment. Methods 

 should be considered from the point of view of the organization as a whole. If 

 looked upon as the means of coordinating the activities of the various units of the 

 organization, the problem will be much simplified. As a general rule, methods 

 should be the result of a careful analysis, otherwise a useless amount of paper work 

 may creep in. They are only useful in so far as they accomplish a well-defined 



