In the French and German works there was found to be in each case one
non-producer to between six and seven producers, and in the American
works one non-producer to about seven producers. The writer found that
in the case of another works, doing the same kind of business and whose
management was notoriously bad, the proportion of non-producers to
producers was one non-producer to about eleven producers. These
companies all had large forges, foundries, rolling mills and machine
shops turning out a miscellaneous product, much of which was machined.
They turned out a highly wrought, elaborate and exact finished product,
and did an extensive engineering and miscellaneous machine construction
business.

In the case of a company doing a manufacturing business with a uniform
and simple product for the maximum economy, the number of producers to
each non-producer would of course be larger. No manager need feel
alarmed then when he sees the number of non-producers increasing in
proportion to producers, providing the non-producers are busy all of
their time, and providing, of course, that in each case they are doing
efficient work.

It would seem almost unnecessary to dwell upon the desirability of
standardizing, not only all of the tools, appliances and implements
throughout the works and office, but also the methods to be used in the
multitude of small operations which are repeated day after day. There
are many good managers of the old school, however, who feel that this
standardization is not only unnecessary but that it is undesirable,
their principal reason being that it is better to allow each workman to
develop his individuality by choosing the particular implements and
methods which suit him best. And there is considerable weight in this