Editorial

Citation

Heap, J. (2000), "Editorial", Work Study, Vol. 49 No. 7. https://doi.org/10.1108/ws.2000.07949gaa.001

Editorial

I was having a discussion the other day on two issues that are perhaps related.

The first was on the validity of "old-fashioned" approaches to work study – and the (perhaps) old-fashioned techniques those approaches used. The discussion was about the relevance to today's world and even as to their contribution in the past. One side of the argument (I won't tell you whose side) suggested that the productivity gains made over the last 20 years by British Industry (and these have been significant) have all been the result of macro-economic and regulatory changes (increased competitiveness) and have almost nothing to do with "productivity techniques". The other side contended that the evolutionary changes produced by the systematic analysis inherent in work study create a culture and climate of improvement in which the larger gains become more likely. Further this argument went on to claim that this systematic approach means that any gains (however created) can be consolidated and maintained.

Without telling you whether there was agreement (but admitting that the discussion was both interesting and hugely enjoyable), I'll move on to the second issue.

This was about the ethical practice of productivity improvement – used not in pursuit of "downsizing" and cost reduction but as a means of achieving higher goals such as better working conditions, improved job satisfaction, helping small firms cope with the minimum wage legislation, etc.

The point of mentioning this discussion and the issues raised – suggesting a possible link – is that they both could hark back to some mythical golden age when tall, handsome (for they were almost exclusively male) work study engineers strode across the industrial landscape creating "a better world".

I am not a believer in "golden ages" – they are usually myths of imperfect, rosy-spectacled memory, based on the principle that "my world was the best world". However, this does not mean that we should not look back on the past and identify the good practice. The history of mankind seems to be a spectacular example of an inability to learn from past history – good and bad.

So we should from time to time dust off our old metaphorical photo albums of past tools and techniques and measure their relevance to modern times. If nothing else, it helps us to measure today's tools and techniques against some form of standard (even if subjective). We must do this with an open mind, learning from the past for the future recognising that the world in which we have to operate is different – not necessarily better, not necessarily worse (though I could ride one of my hobby horses about inappropriate use of mobile phones if this page were longer!) – just different.

So – any of you out there who are still using random activity sampling, the principles of motion economy, therbligs, or any other of the tools and techniques I grew up with (and I am sure there are many of you out there), it is time to come out of the closet and claim your place centre stage. A brief piece for Work Study on why and how you use the particular technique is all I ask – and the world (well, Work Study readers anyway) can form their own view as to the usefulness and relevance of your chosen offering.

I might then be able to settle the argument that started all this.

John Heap