THE

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

REVOLUTION

by SAMUEL EILON, Ph.D., M.I.Prod.E.

Associate Professor in Industrial Engineering,

Israel Institute of Technology.

Summary

Classical industrial engineering was based on five

main foundations: the rule of intuition, the

philosophy of the one best way, the deterministic

system, the principle of simplification and the classical

methods of experimentation. Intuition rarely yields

satisfactory results in complicated systems and is

giving way to operational research techniques. The

philosophy of the one best way has been replaced

by the philosophy of the better way, and the deter-

ministic methods by statistical analysis.

We are increasingly aware of the inadequacy ofthe principle of simplification and believe thatindustrial operations are inherently complex andrequire a new approach to their study. TheHawthorne experiments demonstrated the effect ofobservation on the observed system and also empha-sised the necessity of devising new methods forindustrial engineering research and study ofadministrative behaviour.

INDUSTRIAL engineering is a comparatively youngsubject, which grew with the rapid industrial

development of Western Europe and America, untilin recent years it began to occupy an honourableposition in institutions of higher learning. Thepioneers in this field endeavoured, at the beginningof the century, to establish it on scientific foundations,to formulate " laws" which would describe andexplain phenomena and relations between cause andeffect, and to outline principles for procedureand organisation in order to achieve a desirablelevel of performance. But, with all its " scientific "principles, industrial engineering remained morean art than a science. The success of expertsin the field can perhaps be attributed moreto a sixth sense based on accumulated experiencethan to the application of set laws and principles,which are supposed to lead the engineer stepby step to the desirable solution.

Like many other subjects, industrial engineeringhas experienced in the past two decades a rapiddevelopment, which led to a drastic change in viewsand outlook. The classical industrial engineering canbe said to have been established on the followingfive foundations :

the rule of intuition;the philosophy of the one best way;

. the deterministic system;the principle of simplification; andthe classic methods of experimentation in physics.

I shall try to review in this Paper the changes inour understanding of these basic concepts and theway they affect our whole approach to and evaluationof industrial engineering problems. We are now

423

experiencing literally a revolution in this field ofengineering, a revolution that will transform it into acompletely new engineering science.

the rule of intuition

When an industrial engineer or a manager issupplied with specific data, on the basis of which hehas to take a decision or to outline an engineeringplan, what is the conventional method that guideshim in his quest for a solution ? He tries to digest thefacts in his mind, he outlines several logicalalternatives for a solution and proceeds to comparethem in order to select the best. In this process ofcomparison, he tries to visualise the possible resultsthat can be expected of each alternative and in thishe is guided by his past experience, or by the experi-ence of others, and he mainly uses his sense ofintuition to assess these results qualitatively orquantitatively and to relate results of one methodor system to those of another.

What is intuition ? Intuition is a process ofthinking, which is difficult to dissect into individualfactors or sequences. It is quite often based on theprinciple of identification of given data of a specificproblem with previous experience, and is normallyassociated with rapid transfer from one sequence toanother. This process, however, may be too closelyattached to identification with past associations, ratherthan with the problem at hand. Thus, not all therelevant factors may play a relevant role in theprocedure of arriving at a solution, and whileintuition sometimes leads to the right answer for thewrong reasons, it should be remembered that anintuitive approach quite often results in a wrongsolution, or in a solution which is not the best one.Those instances where the intuitive approach yieldswrong answers are usually revealed when undesirableresults are obtained. But in most cases, when thesuggested solution is neither catastrophic nor the bestone, we tend to regard the intuitive solution as asuccessful one, and if somebody suggests a better solu-tion we usually say that "it is very easy to be clever inretrospect" or that " the conditions have changedin the meantime and we now have information whichwe did not have before ". It is true that sometimeschanges in the nature of the problem do occur, butthe significance of these changes, both qualitativelyand quantitatively, is important in the evaluation ofthe solution. In many cases we can formulate inadvance the nature of the changes that may arise,some of them even quantitatively, but the percentageof the cases in which the intuitive method providesa solution that takes such details into account, isalmost negligible.

How does intuition work and what is the relationbetween intuition and previous experience ? To whatextent are intuitive processes in the mind related topast associations and to what extent are they indepen-dent of the external world, forming so to speak anisolated system in which the computation yieldsabsolute values ? These are complicated problemswhich provide rich material for research on thestructure and performance of the mind and it is not

intended to enlarge on them here. But for the purposeof our discussion it is possible to say that everythinking process consists of several elements or steps,each one leading forward in the quest of a solution.

The word " forward " is important here, since ifthe steps do not take us nearer to the target, it isnecessary to have more steps from the starting pointto get there, and the number of steps is significantin the actual attainment of the goal. Each elementis fed with data from the previous element, then anoperation based on the data takes place and theoutput is fed into the next element. Even if weassume that the computational operation itself ateach element is free of errors, it is still doubtfulwhether the input to each element is always identicalwith the output of the previous one, because eachinput is accompanied by a suitable re-arrangementof the material and perhaps formulation of the factsin a form easily digestible by the computationaloperation. Putting the data in a new light orexpressing it in different terms may lead to non-identification of input with preceding output. This isa second source of possible errors in the intuitiveprocess, and the accumulated error increases withthe number of elements. This is somewhat similarto several toy bricks put on top of each other. Ifthe bricks are accurately located, the structure willbe absolutely vertical. A small displacement of onebrick in the structure causes a displacement of the topbrick, while several displacements of several bricksmay lead to an increased displacement of the topfrom its desirable location.

the short cut

Another aspect of the intuitive thought is theshort cut, i.e., the elimination or combination ofseveral elementary steps in the thinking process,based on an analogy of these elements with otherknown elements from past experience. This aspect isone of the amazing phenomena associated with theperformance of the mind, but from the point ofview of error making it has the same pitfalls ofunidentical situations and distorted data.

The process of analytical thinking is not alwaysas simple as described above. Usually the process isdivided into several sub-processes, which have to becarried out simultaneously, which are interconnectedand which influence each other. The input to acertain element may not be uni-directional; that is,it may not be obtained from one previous elementbut from several elements belonging to different pro-cesses, and similarly the output may be multi-directional to several elements. Here we have twoimportant aspects: first, the capacity of the mind tocarry out assimilation of several inputs to one elementwithout distorting their accuracy and contents; and,secondly, the amount of complexity of simultaneousprocesses and multi-directional inputs and outputsthat the intuitive mind can carry out, without un-warrantably eliminating complete processes in orderto achieve simplicity. Both aspects can become sourcesof appreciable errors.

424

The intuitive processes have been mentioned atsome length in order to point out the reasons foreither their missing the target altogether, or forincurring accumulated errors of such a magnitude asto render the proposed solution unsatisfactory. Thevery fact that different intuitive minds give differentsolutions to the same problem, and that the solutionsare usually not equivalent (i.e., it is possible to saythat one solution should be preferred to another)would indicate the necessity of analysing methodsthat would yield a solution independent of intuitivefaculties, and would therefore be free from themistakes which might be attributed to them.

New methods in analysis of situations and systemsare provided by operational research techniques,which facilitate the study of intricate and complexsystems when any intuitive attempt to a solution isdoomed to failure for two reasons: first, many systemsof this kind have specific characteristics and it isdifficult or impossible to draw conclusions about theirnature from previous experience of other systems;secondly, the complexity of the systems and the largenumber of variables on which they depend, make itimpossible for the human mind to achieve an effectiveabsorbtion of all the facts and the intricate relation-ship between them. The tools of operational researchcan be used for a systematic analysis and quantitativeevaluation of the characteristics of the system, andthough intuition can always be of some help, just asit is helpful in the solution of mathematical problems,the autocratic rule of intuition in the solution ofclassical industrial engineering problems is comingto an end.

The first critical steps in the evaluation of industrialoperations are the definition of the problem, thedefinition of the objective and the definition ofcriteria for measurement. It is often said that thedefinition of the problem is half-way to its solution,and this is probably quite true, as the definition ofthe problem inevitably entails gathering of adequateand relevant information and precise understandingof the characteristics of the factors involved. Thedefinitions of the objective and the criteria for

measurement have undoubtedly been one of themajor stumbling blocks of critical operational analysisin the past. Not only has there been a lack of agree-ment as to what objective is desirable; manymanagements have been trying to achieve severalobjectives at the same time, and quite often theseobjectives are not compatible with each other. It hasoften been asserted that the definition of objectiveis a matter for higher management and the task ofthe industrial engineer begins after that. In viewof the confusion on this score in the past, and thedifferent and sometimes conflicting criteria whichhave been applied in the study of operations, it wouldseem that a meticulous study of industrial objectivesand criteria is warranted, if operational researchmethods are to be fully exploited.

the philosophy of the one best wayAt the beginning of the century the pioneers in

industrial engineering had already recognised thefact that there are large variations between differentworkers, between their methods of work and betweentheir outputs. Frederick Taylor came to the conclusionthat it is necessary to outline scientific methods inorder to enable objective measurements with the aidof a clearly defined criterion. He asserted that thedesirable maximum efficiency would be achieved iftasks in industry were undertaken by people trainedfor them. He wanted to solve the problem of existingvariations by carefully selecting personnel, suitablein skill and aptitude for each particular job, and hecalled these people " first class men ", a definitionthat aroused severe criticism at the time. FrankGilbreth put the emphasis on the work method. Hesaid that for the attainment of maximum efficiencythere exists one method for the execution of each jobwhich is " the best way ", the acquisition of whichshould be the objective of operators' training.Gilbreth was prepared to admit that the existingvariations between operators may cause deviationsfrom the best method, even after the operators havebeen trained to use it, and he was prepared to allow

Dr. Eilon is a graduate of the Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, where he wasawarded the degrees of B.Sc.(Eng.) and Dipl.Ing.

He served his apprenticeship with the Palestine Electric Co. Ltd., and on theoutbreak of hostilities in Israel in 1948, he was commissioned to the Israeli Defence Forces,where he acted in various capacities for two years, then served for three years with therank of Major as Commanding Officer of the Israeli equivalent of a R.E.M.E. basedepot.

In 1952, Dr. Eilon came to Imperial College for post-graduate studies, was appointeda Research Engineer at the College, and was awarded the D.I.C., and later the Ph.D. ofthe University of London. In 1955, he became a lecturer at Imperial College in charge ofthe Post-Graduate Course in Production Engineering. For the past two years he has beenan Associate Professor in Industrial Engineering, in charge of the Post-Graduate Coursein Industrial and Management Engineering, at the Israel Institute of Technology; hasbeen Joint Chairman of the Centre for Advanced Management (forerunner of the IsraelManagement Association); a member of the Board of Directors of the Israel Institute ofProductivity; and a member of the Council for Engineering and Architecture.

425

such deviations, provided the output attained by thebest method was not affected. This philosophy ofGilbreth was enlarged upon by Alford, who said thatthis view was identical with the philosophy of theengineering standard. The one best way should beregarded as a relative engineering concept, whichdescribes the best method that can be found under thegiven circumstances. " It is not an ultimate best waybut is in the line of progress, and may be changedor modified as soon as a better way is discovered.The new way then becomes the best way until it issuperseded by something better. To the one whoaccepts and applies this philosophy comes the graceand rhythm and perfection of motion of him whoknows, and knows that he knows, and does what heknows, no matter what his work may be." 1

This is quite a liberal interpretation of the philo-sophy of the one best way, but at the beginning of thecentury this philosophy was rigid, deterministic andstatic. Rigid, in that it implied that there exists onlyone method which is the best. Deterministic, in thatit said that the method can be defined after suitablestudy and research. Static, in that it made the worksystem dependent on fixed parameters. But we arenow beginning to understand that the three assump-tions of this philosophy are unfounded. First, weare no longer confident that to every problem thereis only one best solution, even when we overcomethe obstacle of defining the criterion by means ofwhich the solution should be evaluated. Manyproblems have several equivalent solutions and in thedesign of machinery and equipment, for instance, thisphenomenon is well known. Secondly, we are nowconvinced that the deterministic outlook has nofoundation either in theory or in practice.Theoretically, as we shall see later, we cannot be surethat the proposed method will really prove to be upto the mark, as hoped in advance, since the feedingof the method into the system may lead to someunexpected results. From the practical point of view,the classical assertion is that it is possible to find themethod " after suitable study and research ", i.e., thesearch is a function of time and money, and these arenot always available in abundance. And, lastly, nowork system is static. It cannot be defined in staticterms but by statistical parameters. It changes withtime and with the many variables on which itdepends. Its characteristics change fundamentallywith changes of methods, with changes of processes oreven with changes of views.

Perhaps it is permissible to say that for the philo-sophy of the one best way has now been substitutedthe philosophy of the better way. The philosophy ofthe best way recognises one absolute idealistic method,a super target to be aimed at by every worker orengineer seeking perfection. The philosophy of thebetter way is the philosophy of reality. It asserts thatevery process of development is unlimited. In thisprocess we are moving along an indefinite spiralwhich continuously transfers us into a new space andwith each step the system is faced with new problemsdemanding their solution. In the search for a bettermethod with limited facilities, it is of course possibleto find several solutions, some of which will be better

than others, and this is where the real test of theengineer lies. The average engineer, withoutimagination and initiative, will be satisfied with anybetter solution, with the pretext that there is no needto make any special effort because we are not after afinal and absolute method. A good engineer will tryto achieve the maximum with the facilities at hisdisposal, will not be deterred by the infinite process ofdevelopment and will not be drawn into apathy, butwill regard it as a constant challenge, a source ofinterest, vitality and action. And is this phenomenonnot typical of what happens in other fields of humanendeavour ?

determinism and probabilityThe first steps of industrial engineering were

naturally based on the deterministic outlook and thisview, to a certain extent, formed the background tothe philosophy of the one best way. The deterministicapproach was coupled with the belief that if a setof defined operations is followed, a certain result isobtained, and this same result can be expected torecur again and again from the same set. This view isreminiscent of a set of experiments in classical physicsshown by a teacher to his students. He takes, forinstance, a metal sphere, slightly smaller in diameterthan the internal diameter of a ring at room tempera-ture. He warms the sphere over a Bunsen burner andtries to push the hot sphere through the ring,exhibiting in this way the phenomenon of metalexpansion with temperature. Each time it issufficiently warmed, the teacher expects the spherenot to pass through the ring and he would beextremely surprised, and perhaps worried, if afterproceeding with identical sets of operations the spherewould sometimes pass through the ring and sometimesnot, and he would undoubtedly express the view thatsomething had gone wrong in the structure or natureof the experimental apparatus.

In fabrication processes it has been well knownfor some time that the result is not deterministic inthis sense, i.e., that after a recurring set of operations,a large variation in results is obtained. This is thebasis for specifications of tolerances in the design ofmachinery parts. But although this phenomenon ofvariation has been known for some time, the studyand method of specifying tolerances has been asubject for intuitive decision for many years, untilnew methods based on statistical analysis wereestablished. It is surprising that the process ofrecognising the fact that most industrial engineeringoperations, and not only manufacturing operations,are not deterministic, took such a long time, sincemany industrial operations are associated with verywide variations, because of their being dependent on orrelated to human factors, and in biology and medi-cine it is well known that many characteristics andphenomena are subject to wide variations. The resultsof fabrication processes are usually related to com-paratively small statistical variations, and perhapstheir qualitative and quantitative analysis, beforeother statistical phenomena in industrial engineering,can be attributed to the fact that they were easierto understand and to attack.

426

the principle of simplification

Another phenomenon connected with industrialoperations is the large number of factors and variablesaffecting them. In many fields of physics we cancarry out experiments by isolating the system. Wedisconnect the system from other phenomena andproceed with the experiment in a closed system un-affected by the outside, and usually the factors whichwe cut off have such a small influence, that we maydraw conclusions from the experiment about thebehaviour of the system when it is not disconnected.This is the principle of simplification : the adequatedescription of the phenomenon by a minimumnumber of major components and disregard of allsecondary components. Attempts to utilise theprinciple of simplification in industrial engineeringhave not been very successful and in recent years wehave come to believe that the principle of simplifica-tion is not suitable for the study of industrialengineering operations. The large number of variables,the difficulty in differentiating between major andminor variables, the objection to isolating the systemand the inter-influence of systems, situations andgroups of variables, all lead to the view that thephenomena are inherently complex and not simple,and that the principle of simplification is not likely tohelp us very much.

This conclusion has far-reaching consequenceswhen we want to analyse industrial problems with theaid of models. The purpose of the model is to repre-sent in its characteristics the system which we wantto analyse, and to enable us to study thesecharacteristics by setting conditions and feeding data,which would be impossible to do in practice. If weperform the many experiments on a plant in practice,we might experience bankruptcy long before we havea chance to understand the nature of the problemunder consideration. But the use of models in classicalphysics, for instance, is based on the simplicity ofthe model, whereas in industrial engineering, as wehave just seen, it is necessary to build complicatedmodels, and these can become a serious source oferrors, since in order to construct a good model wehave to copy reality, and in order to copy reality wehave to understand it, and in order to understand itwe are trying to build a model. It is, therefore, evidentthat the whole approach and understanding of com-plex systems, which are inherently complex,' shouldbe entirely different from the classical approach basedon the principle of simplification, and this is one ofthe major problems facing the industrial engineeringscience.

the Hawthorne experiments

In the mid-twenties a number of experiments werecarried out at the Hawthorne works of the WesternElectric Company in Chicago, with the aim of findingthe effect of lighting conditions on the output ofworkers. Two groups of operators were put intodifferent rooms, in one of which the illuminationintensity remained constant, whereas in the otherit was a variable factor. The two groups were engaged

on the same task and the purpose of the experimentwas to compare their outputs as the illuminationintensity was changed, and perhaps to conclude aboutthe optimal lighting conditions.

Two very interesting results emerged: first, theoutput of the group with the constant illumination washigher than the average output in the plant, althoughthe illumination and the other working conditionswere apparently the same. Secondly, the output ofthe group with the variable illumination increasedwhen compared to the other group, both when thelighting was intensified or diminished. In other words,no direct relationship was found between the out-come and the variable factor; in this case, theillumination intensity.

The people conducting the research came to theconclusion that carrying out experiments on the basisof changing only one parameter, was not practical.Since variations in one parameter cause variationsto others, they decided it was necessary to widen thescope of the experiments in order to compare theeffects of various systems of working conditions. Thesecond series of the Hawthorne experiments startedin 1927 and went on for five years, when the outputof five experienced operators, engaged in the assemblyof telephone relays, was measured. The group workedin a special test room and the change of workingconditions included changes. in working hours, theintroduction of a five-day week, changes in thenumber and length of rest pauses, supply of lightmeals to the operators in the rest pauses at theexpense of the company, changes in wage systems, etc.It was found that the output constantly increasedthroughout the period of the experiments, so that atdifferent periods, even when the working conditionswere the same, the outputs were different. The outputcontinued to increase, even when in period No. 12the rest pauses and the free meals were abolished andthe working hours were identical with those of periodNo. 3, but while the weekly output in period No. 3was about 2,500 relays, the output in period No. 12was more than 2,900. The second series of experi-ments led to the conclusion that it was impossible torelate clearly the output to the parameters in thetest room.

Many explanations of these findings have beenoffered, and one conclusion, that can be found inliterature, is that it has indeed been proved thatphysical conditions have a direct influence on outputand efficiency, in spite of the fact that definiteoptimal conditions could not be found. It is clearthat the relation between physical conditions andoutput is not a simple mechanistic one, since thephysical conditions affect the mental conditions of theoperators, and thereby the whole mechanismby means of which physical conditions are translatedinto output. This is how Alford and Beatty summedup the results of these experiments :

" It was learned that an individual's productiveeffectiveness increases with an increase in thepersonal satisfaction derived from the work andwork environment".

427

Also :

"As a result of the investigations, it was learnedthat the most important factor in obtainingmaximum sustained output was the worker'semotional reactions — his feelings toward hiswork, associates, supervisor, and the enterpriseas a whole " 2.

We can perhaps draw from the Hawthorne experi-ments an even further reaching conclusion relatingto industrial engineering research, especially in thosefields where the human factor plays an importantrole. Since the carrying out of the experiment andthe change of parameters change the mental con-ditions of the operator and his reactions, there arisesthe principal problem of interpretation of experi-mental results or, if we formulate this in slightlydifferent terms, taken from modern physics : the veryfact that an experiment is carried out, the observationand the presence of the observer, or his measuringinstruments, change the conditions of the experiment,and the measured results are no longer related tothat reality which we want to study, but toa different picture, a distorted one, the relation ofwhich to reality is not known and perhaps not con-stant. These experiments which we carry out inindustry under " normal " conditions, or those carriedout in the laboratories under conditions similar tothose prevailing in reality, do not, therefore, describethe original system of conditions that existed beforethe experimental period and these conditions ceaseto be " normal" the minute we start to observethem.

In laboratory tests the problem is far more serious,since not only is the measured system dependent onand affected by the observer and his observations—it isalso transferred from reality in time and place andposes a very serious question : what do these experi-ments tell us ? May we conclude quantitatively onreality from what we found in the laboratories ? Ifsuch conclusions are allowed within certain limits,what confidence can we have in them ? If suchconclusions cannot be allowed, what is the point ofcarrying out experiments ? These are principalquestions which will no doubt greatly influenceindustrial engineering research methods in the future.

It is perhaps worthwhile giving a few examplesin order to show the consequences of the Hawthorneeffect in the field of research and measurement inindustry :-

1. We want to study and modify a method ofoperating a certain machine, which involvesredesign of the workplace layout. As we do notwant to interfere with normal work in the plant,we carry out the experiments and the observa-tions in a work study laboratory, but naturallywe use all the tools of the operator, his machineand even the operator himself. We simplytransfer geographically the operator's systemfrom the shop to the laboratory. After a lengthyanalysis, we define a method which we think isthe best one. What confidence do we have that

this method will indeed be the best one in realworking conditions, when no observation takesplace ?

2. In an industrial process we have quality controlperformed according to a certain method. Wewant to check the efficiency of the inspectionmethod as a function of its characteristics andits dependency on the inspectors. We havecome to conclude that some aspects areirrelevant or insignificant. Do results of thisexperiment describe that reality which is un-affected by it ?

3. We want to find out workers' attitude to aspecific problem, related, for instance, to humanrelations or to industrial organisation. Weusually do this by the method of questionnairesor interviews or both. Even if we assume thatthe operator has no interest or wish to concealhis real feelings and views on the subject underconsideration, can we really be sure that thevery fact that a survey is carried out, that theactual formulation of the questions (not the waythey are formulated), do not result in answerswhich distort that very picture which we aretrying to find ?

4. Work measurement in industry, where the timestudy engineer uses an instrument to measurethe time while watching and studying theoperations of the worker, is in fact an observa-tion, the purpose of which is to photographreality without the influence of the observer onthe nature and the characteristics of this reality.To what extent can we really rely on theobtained " photograph " and assert that no dis-tortion has occurred due to the presence of thetime study engineers, i.e., due to the fact thatan observation has taken place ?

5. The organisation of a plant is being analysedwith the aim of introducing modifications in itsstructure. The analysis reveals certain faults inthe organisation, and it is decided to change it,or to suggest an entirely new structure. And,indeed, the results are desirable and theefficiency is increased. What confidence do wehave that the improvement occurred becausethe new organisational structure is reallysuperior to the old one, and not just because aseries of changes has been introduced ? In otherwords, the evaluation of the results of such achange is analogous to an observation of thetype that was carried out in the Hawthorneexperiments, and we have to pose the question :should the positive results be attributed to thenature of the change and the skill of theorganiser who initiated it, or to the changeitself by merit of its being a change ?

I have purposely brought common and familiarexamples from industry, the results of which we tendto accept as a basis for decision making and forplanning. The Hawthorne experiments not only cast

428

grave doubts on the justification of this approach;they emphasise the fundamental problems connectedwith experimentation in fields of industrialengineering.

the meaning of administration

The conventional views on industrial managementhave naturally affected the whole understanding ofthe meaning of administration, and the approach toplanning, evaluating and experimenting with prob-lems in administrative behaviour has been labouringunder the influence of the five basic concepts of theclassical theory, in particular that of intuition.Treatises on administration and the exponents of its" theory" often found refuge in phraseology,generalities and rules of thumb to suit particularsituations. Consider the following cliches :

The main thing is to put the right man in the rightplace (Taylor again ?)

Personality is more important than the position orthe administration (what is personality ?)

The art of management, of leadership, of foreman-ship (of vagueness)

Organisational charts are the key to successfulmanagement (are they ?)

First the system, then the man, or

First the man, then the system (we have nowdrifted into an ideological discussion).

In the light of what has been said above, suchcliches, on which industrial engineering has reliedin the past, are really meaningless in the analysis oforganisational systems. The " right man ", the rightplace, communication circuits, organisation methods

or procedures — all these are not isolated deter-ministic systems, they are parts of complex beingsand have to be studied therefore as parts of thewhole and not in isolation. It would seem that weknow far too little about the behaviour of suchsystems and a great deal of research is still required.This is of particular importance in view of the effectsof technological changes on industrial organisation,such as the effects of new processes, new materials,automation, new methods of production control, etc.When we have to plan new management systems, werely on the present or on our past experience, while inreality " new tools begin to change the task and anew task begins to change both the organisation ofthe task and the qualities required to carry it outsuccessfully " 12. Our study of organisational methodsmust be related to the dynamic pattern of thesystems, to the infinite spiral of progress, and themethods of analysis and application will have to bedesigned accordingly.

conclusionThe collapse of the basic concepts, on which the

classical industrial engineering was built, is causingfundamental changes in the structure of this appliedscience and in the faculties required of practitionersin the field. It is claimed by some, and disclaimed byothers, that we are now in the throes of the secondindustrial revolution. Be that as it may, we arecertainly experiencing an industrial engineeringrevolution in basic theories and concepts, in analyticaltools and approach.

With the emergence of the new industrialengineering, and only with the application of newscientific methods in industrial management, shall webe able better to understand, utilise and controlindustrial operations and systems. All this will affectour lives at least as much as any of the major techno-logical changes that left their mark on the progress ofhuman society.

REFERENCES

1. Alford, L.P. "Principles of Industrial Management."Ronald Press Co., 1940.

2. Alford, L. P., and Beatty, H. R. " Principles ofIndustrial Management." Ronald Press Co., 1951.

3. Bailey, N. T. J. " Science, Statistics and OperationalResearch." Research, June, 1956.

4. Beer, S. " Organisation of Operational Research."Research, May, 1956.

5. Beer, S. " The Scope for Operational Research inIndustry." The Institution of Production EngineersJournal, May, 1957.

6. Goodeve, Sir Charles. " Operational Research as aScience." Research, December, 1953.

7. Halsbury, the Earl of. " The Administration of ModernProduction." The Institution of Production Engineers,Harrogate Conference, July, 1957.

8. Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, W. J. " Managementand the Worker." Harvard University Press, 1939.

9. Simon, H. A. " Industrial Behaviour." Macmillan Co.,1957.

10. Wiener, N. "Cybernetics." John Wiley & Sons Inc.,New York, 1948.

11. Wiener, N. "The Human Use of Human Beings."Double day & Co. Inc., New York, 1956.

12. Woodward, J. "Control and Communication — aManagement Concept of Cybernetics." The Institutionof Production Engineers, Harrogate Conference. July,1957.

429