254 COST ACCOUNTING AND ESTIMATING. 



In addition to the value derived for the estimator from this analysis there is another fea- 

 ture which is not touched upon by Mr. Schulze but which the writer has foimd to be extremely 

 valuable; regardless of the difference in the design, by comparing the unit hour or dollar cost 

 of various ships we were enabled to judge the efficiency of the various trades on the various 

 contracts. One point which I have mentioned is extremely important in any analysis, and 

 that is to determine first that the base figure, such as the amount of material which is charged 

 to a contract, is correct; otherwise the unit is of no value whatever. This, we decided, re^ 

 quired the service of an experienced designer who could take the return weights and check 

 the same by the original design and the orders before using it as a base. 



For the factors used in determining the coefficient to be used in working out the hull 

 steel weights we had our line man, who worked on the marble slabs, determine this as part 

 of the job of laying down and fairing the lines so that our data were always up to date. 



From the prices which are quoted by some shipbuilding companies at various times, 

 it would appear that some of our shipbuilders are still using the antiquated 3B method. 



Too often the attitude of the accounting division is that the accounts should be kept 

 in such shape as will satisfy their own requirements only. This is a very serious mistake. 

 To secure full advantage oi the money spent in keeping costs they should be so kept that 

 the management can always analyze them and determine the efficiency of the various de- 

 partments, also the various designs. This can easily be arranged without going into too 

 many small detail divisions. 



In regard to comparing costs and data from different yards, there is no standard sub- 

 division of costs in use. For instance, some yards keep the steel hull complete, including 

 cargo ports, hatches, doors, etc., in one division, while others keep only the main struc- 

 ture in one item and lump the doors, hatches, etc., in with other miscellaneous fittings. 



The President: — Is there any further discussion? If not, we will ask Mr. Schulze to 

 make his rejoinder, covering the remarks which have been made in the discussion. 



Mr. Schulze : — In regard to Professor Sadler's remarks, one object of the paper was 

 to place before the various shipyards, particularly the later ones, the methods which have 

 been adopted by the larger yards, in order that they may profit thereby. It is one of our 

 objects to have the bids as nearly uniform as possible, based upon the actual conditions which 

 exist at that yard. Too many bids have been put in upon the erroneous assumption that 

 they might be able to do something better than they could, and probably forgetting an item, 

 and one of the objects of this paper has been to let the other yards know the system we 

 have adopted. 



The actual coefificients themselves would hardly apply to other yards, particularly those 

 relating to costs. The weights themselves are a design factor, which would be very valu- 

 able, but I would hardly feel at liberty to place the actual figures officially before the Soci- 

 ety. If, however, any member desires to see the details of the methods which are pursued, 

 I would be glad to show them to him. The coefficiencies of weight depend on the particular 

 boat. 



I might inject here that, in some of the previous papers presented, it has been remarked 

 that the architect puts in these fancy items. I think almost everybody who figures on a boat 

 desires to figure it as cheaply as it can be done, and these requirements are generally the 

 owner's requirements and not the architect's. We try to figure the boats as economically as 



