In setting out to compare national methods of manufacture and sale of the products of the motor industry, one must necessarily generalise. What we shall describe as the American method is not that of every American manufacturer, and what we shall describe as the European method is subject to many variations, and is by no means unchangeable. Despite exceptions that may be fairly numerous, and variations that could only be separately discussed at great length, we shall take it that what is commonly understood to be the American method aims primarily at production in very large quantities, with a view to manufacture at the lowest possible price consistent with the design and quality determined upon. The European method, on the other hand, does not make minimum price its first and main object. It aims principally at production in comparatively small quantities of products note worthy for their individuality and for their distinctive merits.
At the bottom of this broad difference of method is the underlying fact that the American home market is enormous in extent as compared with the home markets of European countries. The extent of the American market is undoubtedly due in some measure to the very low price of some American cars, but is due in a still larger measure to national conditions which cannot be moulded by any motor industry however enterprising. It does not in the least follow that what was the right policy for the American is also the right policy for the European manufacturer.
British And American Light Vehicles
A Standard Two-seated Light Car
As an outstanding example of American methods, let us consider briefly the practice of the firm which produces far more cars in the course of a year than does any other manufacturer. This concern has a huge main factory in the United States, and from time to time establishes elsewhere large factories which are in the main assembly shops. The first principle is to determine upon and adhere to one standard design of chassis, which makes possible a big outlay on specialised tool equipment, Changes of design may necessitate sweeping changes in this tool equipment, and to this extent quantity production may impede progress in design. The second principle is, by comprehensive and effective sales organisation, to maintain production constantly at its maximum figure and never to carry any considerable stock of cars, but rather to deliver the factory’s output day by day as it is produced. Thirdly, we have another fairly obvious principle; namely, to make the lay-out and arrangement of the factory such that the work passes steadily round without haying to be transported over comparatively long distances between one operation and the next. Fourthly, production in huge quantities renders possible purchase of raw materials on a very big scale, and consequently in the cheapest possible market. It is also claimed for the methods of this factory that any substantial improvement is adopted as soon as it has proved its merits, whatever may be the expense involved. Despite this claim, there still remains the strong probability that a real but slight improvement will not be so readily adopted in a factory of this size and class as it would be by a smaller concern aiming at individuality and constant refinement and progress rather than at high standardisation of method and product.
A Ford Four-seater
In this and other American factories, a car that is being assembled moves steadily from point to point, each man doing his own particular job upon it as it passes him. In the European method, the man goes to the car and not the car to the man. It will be seen that in the American method, no workman need be what we should call a skilled car assembler. He has his own particular piece of work and does nothing else. He is, in fact, almost, a part of the machinery of the factory. Like a machine, he is engaged on repetition work, and he is employed to do those jobs that cannot conveniently or more economically be done by the machine itself. The tendency must in a sense be to crush individuality and resourcefulness, and to lead to a somewhat narrow outlook. Under this method, a man does not have to regard a car as such, but merely to regard a partially assembled chassis as a thing on to which he is to attach a certain fitting or component in a certain way at a certain point. One would imagine that men so trained would, just at first at any rate, be entirely at sea if their jobs were shuffled. In the ordinary way, no such shuffling is necessary, but we are trying to regard a national motor industry as a national asset. From this point of view, one of its duties may be to transfer its energies promptly from the manufacture of motor cars to the manufacture of some other war material. The American quantity method from this point of view would not be good as regards the machines used or as regards the personnel. It tends too much to produce automatons and too little to produce thinking men. On the other hand, it pays its men well and leaves them to do their thinking outside their working hours. There are those who believe that the method, being soulless, though very perfect in its own way, will sooner or later fail as a result of a lack of individuality and animation. One does not see why this should occur as long as things are normal, though one can easily realise the weakness of the position if abnormal circumstances had to be faced. The argument is to some extent akin to that which has often been applied to the German war machine, which, so long as it can work according to plan, is extraordinarily efficient, but which, when deranged by some external cause, feels the shock more severely than would an organisation, looser, and in some respects less perfect, but possessing more inherent vitality and personality.
The time has gone by when we could advocate hand labour as against the use of machines, but nevertheless we still cling and perhaps rightly so to the idea that in certain ways the products of a skilled man’s hands can never be quite equalled by the products of automatic machinery. A comparison between hand labour and machine work cannot be fairly used as a comparison between European and American motor building methods, but the fact remains that the former is far more dependent than the latter upon the skilled man, and that in some subtle way the product bears witness of this fact. Any machine must in essence be inanimate, but men grow fondest of machines which seem to have some character and life of their own. The driver of a railway locomotive, like the master of a ship, does not describe his charge as ” it ” but as ” she,” indicating that to him the vessel or the machine possesses a personality and makes an appeal to his affections. There are many motorists who will sympathise with what is meant when it is suggested that the quantity car is ” it ” and the quality car is ” she,” and that the second pronoun can never be applied to a product of the methods that make quantity and minimum cost their great and almost their sole aim.
As to the influence of quantity production on cost, there can be no question. It is said with good reason that when once production has reached and exceeded a certain considerable figure, the works cost of each product cannot be further reduced by further increasing production. Works cost, however, is not the only item. We have to take into account the business organisation that sells the car, and the service organisation which looks after the car and its owner when the first transaction is complete. Economy in the cost of selling is dependent on the quantity to be sold. Here, there is no limit to the possibilities of improving economy by increasing output. The same applies to any organisation that may be designed to give service in respect of the vehicles already upon the road. A manufacturer who produces in small quantities cannot afford to support a complete and perfect selling organisation in all parts of the world, and through it to keep in close touch with his agents and their customers. If we estimate that a complete selling organisation involves a certain number of individuals located in a certain number of districts, then when we come to divide up the cost of the organisation and to charge a proper proportion of it against each car, that car will come off lightest that is sold in the biggest quantities. Thus, the first and greatest advantage of quantity production is its effectiveness as a means of lowering cost.
A secondary advantage of quantity production intelligently directed is that the necessity for finding wide markets for large numbers of vehicles makes it also necessary to specialise on a product . which does not appeal only to one or two countries, but is in a fair degree at least suitable for use in all parts of the world. Admittedly, any such attempt may lead to a compromise which will affect the perfection of the product as employed in any one specified area. On the other hand, it overcomes a tendency which is noticeable among many manufacturers working on a smaller scale. This is to design and construct with an eye to one particular market, and to that one alone, but to sell when opportunity arises on other markets where conditions are distinctly different, and where consequently a vehicle approaching perfection in its own area may well prove a comparative failure.
Now as to the advantages of production on a smaller scale aiming primarily at quality. First of all, we have that subtle difference in the character of the product that we have endeavoured to indicate above, a certain life and individuality which shows the close connection existing between the machine and the human being. Next, we have the fact that each manufacturer, working under this latter system, is subject to keen competition, and must, if he would survive, develop and incorporate in his car features of outstanding merit. This stimulates invention and research, and prevents stagnation in design. The significance of this assertion can best be demonstrated by going to extremes. Imagine the whole car trade of the world to be in the hands of one manufacturer, and there remains very little inducement to that manufacturer to incorporate slight improvements in design, any one of which would involve enormous expenditure on new machines for repetition work. The stimulus of competition would be absent. Even if we do not go quite so far, we must admit that the principle of quantity production, taken to its logical conclusion, very much reduces direct competition among manufacturers producing more or less equivalent products. Low first cost is apt to become a fetish, and to be put forward as the chief, and almost the only, selling point. On no account must the cost be allowed to rise, for, if it be permitted to do so, the edges of the market will be cut away by the next manufacturer up or down the scale of prices. With the question of coach-work, and the difference between a car body made to order and a ready-made body, we shall deal in a subsequent chapter.
Generally speaking, what has been written on the subject of car production may be applied also to the motor cycle industry. In the sphere of the industrial vehicle, however, there are certain distinctive circumstances which ought to be mentioned. Here, less importance attaches to individuality or vitality in the vehicle. What we want is something reliable, durable, and capable of regular work under heavy load. This points to quantity production. On the other hand, we find in practice that there is a wide variety in the requirements of different trades. To some, speed is extremely important; to others, carrying capacity is the principal consideration. Others again require a compromise between the two extremes, but there is variation needed in the compromise itself. So far as body design is concerned the requirements of different trades are even more distinct, but this we shall touch upon later. We must remember, too, that, while the public service vehicle and the goods-carrying vehicle of similar load capacity are closely akin, approximation to the ideal in each case does not necessarily point to the production in quantity of one standard type for the two purposes. Steady acceleration and freedom from jerks and noise are far more important when passengers are being carried, and special modifications and additional expenditure with a view to securing these qualities may perhaps be justifiable in constructing the chassis of a public service vehicle, but not in building a machine for the carriage of goods. Then again, there are certain peculiar requirements connected with military service, as for example, the provision of sprags and radiator guards. Up to the present, quantity production has not gone so far in the sphere of the industrial vehicle as in that of the private motor car. Considerable further development in the direction of quantity may, however, be confidently expected.
Tags: Light Car, United States |
