216 STANDARDIZATION AS AFFECTING THE 
bought at lower cost than we could have made them. This concern spent much money on 
the preparation of jigs and fixtures. The standards had not been in existence long before 
they were changed, and when they were changed the jigs and fixtures were no longer of 
any value; they had to be discarded. There had not been sufficient quantity production in 
the case of the various standards adopted to absorb the jig and fixture charge, and the result 
was they either had to go out of business or they had to make a new set of jigs and fixtures, 
and with not enough orders in sight to absorb the cost of the work, they were compelled to 
do the former. 
So far as speed of production is concerned, standardization of fittings is of great 
importance. So far as cost is concerned, an important thing we should adhere to in 
standardization is that, having once had a standard, and it is doing good work, the stan- 
dard should be adhered to until the cost of preparation of plans and machinery necessary 
to build the standard has been absorbed in the quantity produced. In this way the cost 
of preparation—that is, plans, jigs and fixtures—will bear but a small proportion to the cost 
of the manufactured article, and it is here that standardization becomes of real value be- 
cause, through such quantity production and with the cost of preparation absorbed, the cost 
of the manufactured article becomes relatively small. This is the condition in the manufac- 
ture of automobiles. They standardize and stick to the standards for a year or more. To 
be sure, they may change the next year, but the preparation cost of plans, patterns, jigs, fix- 
tures, etc., has been but a small part of the total cost of production of the many duplicate 
units and is not seriously reflected in the cost of the finished article. Under such condi- 
tions and after such costs have been absorbed, it is quite proper to modify the standard if 
there is enough quantity production in sight to permit of absorption of preparation cost in 
the new article. I would not say we should never change a standard, but standards, once 
adopted, should be changed only when there is some real advantage to be gained that is not 
found in the standard as used. 
I hope that others will keep this subject before the Society, because it is one, in the 
present day of economy, and the necessity of economy, which, if judiciously handled, will 
result eventually in cheaper costs. 
REAR ADMIRAL ALBERT P. Nisiack, U.S. Navy, Vice-President:—I think this is a 
most valuable paper. I want to say just a few words about the theoretical side of this ques- 
tion. In my earlier days I took this question up as being a very important one, but it has its 
dangers, and I am moved, therefore, to make a few comments. The author states in this 
paper that the absence of the United States representatives on the committee is to be noted 
with regret. 
The Government, of course, has had its experiences, somewhat different from the aver- 
age shipbuilding company, because on a larger scale and with military reasons. In the ship- 
building industry you have to consider various elements, as the previous speaker has most ably 
contended (and I have listened to what he said with the greatest interest). The point of 
view from which he considers the problem is naturally the commercial one, which should be 
that of shipbuilders and naval architects. ‘ 
As a side remark, not particularly pertinent to the question, I have often been struck, 
in my forty-six years of service in the Navy, by finding ship fittings and other standard arti- 
cles abroad which I assumed were of foreign manufacture but which I found were made in 
America, as we are more given to standardization than we really think. Once in Buenos 
