AUTOMATION

A new word in our vocabularies and a new force in our industrial life

Grandmaster of the Knights Hospitallers: "Oh, if you knew what our astrologers say of the coming age, and of our age, that it has more history within a hundred years than all the world had in four thousand years before! Of the wonderful invention of printing and guns, and of the use of the magnet, and how it all comes of Mercury, Mars, the Moon, and the Scorpion!" - TOMMASO CAMPANELLA (1568-1639), TheCity of the Sun.

SOME years ago Thorstein Veblen declared that "Invention is the mother of necessity." This statement is unquestionably true, and in more ways than one. For example, recent technological inventions have made it absolutely neces- sary for us to add the word "automation" to our vocabularies. The reason is simple. During the last two or three years this term has attained such a degree of popularity that the ability to use it intelligently - and with some degree of frequency has become one of the marks of enlightened citizenship.

The term "automation" is relatively new. For a long time we have had numerous words with the "auto" prefix, but not until the latter part of the 1940's did we come into possession of "automation." At that time Mr. D. S. Harder, a vice president of the Ford Motor Company, coined the term. To some extent the credit for thus enriching, or at least enlarging, the English language should be shared with Mr. John Diebold, a young engineer and management consultant, author of a popularly written pioneer work called Automation, and at present editor of AutomaticControl. Mr. Diebold thought of the word too, but apparently after Mr. Harder.

As a verbal innovation automation did not make much headway among the populace at large during the first few years of its existence. But in 1953 and 1954 the word burst forth in a great wave of publicity and since then it has become firmly established in the public consciousness, and to some extent in the public conscience as well. In its wake automation has brought other words and expressions into wider use. Among these are feed-back, closed-loop control, servo-mechanisms, instrumentation, control engineering, pushbutton factories, and giant brains. To this list one should add such terms as Univac (universal automatic computer), Eniac,Bizmac, and Maniac; also Fosdic (film optical sensing device for input to computers), Krma, Geda, and L'il Audrey.

Nothing like the present wave of interest in technological change has been experienced in this country since the early 1930's. At that time it was Technocracy that caught the public fancy, though not to the same degree as automation. The two phenomena have very little in common, however. For a writer to say that automation is "merely a new word for Technocracy" is a gross distortion of the truth. The revolutionary changes in technology that go by the name automation are infinitely more significant than the peculiar economic ideas that constituted, to a substantial degree, the movement known as Technocracy.

PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS

BUT what does automation mean? The term has been defined in various ways. There has been some tendency to have the word cover all technological changes, but this use is clearly undesirable. Automation relates only to part, though it is a highly important part, of the broad stream of technological progress. Basically, automation has to do with the application of the principle of automatic control to industrial and commercial processes. The following definition, which was issued at the time of the First International Automation Exposition in New York, in November

1954. is a very suggestive one: automation is "the substitution of mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical, and electronic devices for human organs of observation, decision, and effort, so as to increase productivity, control quality, and reduce costs." Another definition, and it is one similar to many others, is the following one from The CIO News: automation is "the use of automatic machines automatically controlled."

A final definition, or at least statement, is that automation is "the push-button civilization that Theseus represents." It should be emphasized that in the present connection Theseus is not the ancient Greek hero but a mechanical mouse that came out of the Bell Telephone laboratories in 1952. Theseus has an electrical brain and is able to locate hidden pieces of cheese - "electrical cheese." For a mouse of any kind this is certainly the supreme achievement. The significance of Theseus has been well stated by John Lear, in a special issue of The Saturday Review devoted to "Atoms and Automation." Said Mr. Lear: "The wire of his whiskers, the electrical switches in his brain, the bar magnet that serves as his backbone, and the wheels on which he travels have become a collective symbol of the machine's ability to duplicate reiterative processes man has employed for generations." It should be added that automation makes possible the performance of tasks that man has never carried out. For instance, some of the operations in industry today are conducted under such extremely high temperatures that the controls must be of a non-human type.

In general, however, automation does not represent any clear-cut break in the process of technological change. This process is continuous, and to some extent cumulative in character. But there are times when the general pace of the change is especially rapid, or when particularly important single inventions are made or single principles applied. In this connection one can mention the invention of the steam engine and of a number of supremely significant machines in the textile industry in Great Britain during the latter part of the 18th century. One can point to the cotton gin of Eli Whitney, and also to Whitney's use of the principle of interchangeable parts. Then, too, there comes to one's mind the development of the principle of scientific management, associated with the names of such persons as Frederick W. Taylor and the Gilbreths (of Cheaper by the Dozen fame). The systematic attempt to remove all the unnecessary "therbligs" from industrial and commercial and household operations has an importance that is difficult to exaggerate.

point to be stressed is that automation is not only part of this development but is itself one of the landmarks. And the potential effects of automation are likely to be as great, in fact greater than those that have followed from any of the earlier products of man's inventive genius.

But there is no need to mention any more of the great landmarks in the development of machines and methods. The It should also be emphasized that automation has roots that go back many years. The governor that James Watt invented for his steam engine is an excellent early example of the key automation principle of feed-back, or closed-loop control. The flour mill of that remarkable American inventor, Oliver Evans, is a splendid illustration of the use of automaticity in industry. The looms of Jacques Jacquard, involving the application of the punchedcard technique, also illustrate the employment of an important automation device. And the "Calculating Engine" of Charles Babbage was an early attempt at constructing a giant brain. It might be pointed out, parenthetically, that the Russians, with their keen interest in origins (and with their self-appropriated privilege of claiming priority in almost everything), claim that they were using automation methods many years ago. The ancient Greeks are even referred to in the discussion of automation, though to date archeological excavations have yielded no traces of early Univacs, servo-mechanisms, or push-button factories.

But one's obeisance to Clio should not be pushed to extremes. Automation as an outstanding industrial and commercial influence is largely a product of the last two decades. During this period interest in the question of "control," in its various applications, has been at a high level; and the most outstanding result of this interest has been the development of automation techniques.

Today these techniques are being applied to a wide variety of industrial and commercial operations. They are being used in continuous-flow industries, such as oil refining; in the making of parts of products, such as engine blocks for automobiles; in railroad yards, in connection with the distribution and assembly of freight cars; at the entrance to toll roads (an appreciative "thank you" is uttered by some of the newer machines). Automation methods are also being applied increasingly in offices, where they greatly speed up the performance of such functions as the figuring out of payrolls and inventories; they are being used in the automatic turning-on and turning-off of street lights; they are being employed to an ever-increasing extent in the automatic opening of doors (today, as Jack Ryan well points out in The New York Times, it is not even necessary to utter Ali Baba's magical words). Automation techniques are being used by engineers and scientists to make calculations of incredible complexity in incredibly short spaces of time.

THE impact of automation on our economy and on our society in general is going to be great. To a very considerable extent this impact will involve a continuation of the specific effects that technological progress has long exerted. There will be no abrupt change from the past, but rather a continuation of the past. Since, however, the rate of technological change is likely to be of unusual rapidity, the effects of the change will be especially farreaching.

As in former years, the "fruits" of the coming gains in technology will be consumed in a number of forms. First there will be a raising of the material living standards of the American people, and of peoples wherever automation is introduced. Over the past half century the annual rate of increase in the total man-hour output of the nation has been approximately 2 per cent. In the last few years the rate of growth has been more rapid than 2 per cent and will continue to be above that level. Thus the real goods that make up our material living standards will be produced in larger and larger volume. To some extent there will be qualitative improvements in the goods. Moreover, there may be some minor changes in their styles or characteristics, necessitated by the use of automation methods.

One cannot be certain of the rate at which living standards will rise. This matter is linked up to some extent with the amount of time and energy and productive equipment we devote to the making of defense goods and with the number of persons we have in the armed services. In addition, the rate of increase in the nation's population is a factor. During the next decade or so the work force of the country will not grow as rapidly as the total population. This will keep the increase. in living standards lower than the increase in man-hour output. In other words, while the total output of the nation will greatly expand there will be a much larger number of people, including many young. persons, who will have to share in the enlarged output. But average living standards will go up nevertheless. To an increasing extent we will move into what Professor Simon N. Patten called a "pleasure economy" and away from what he described as a "pain economy." Whether or not the better standards of living will result in a better type of American civilization is a controversial issue, and one that we cannot pause to discuss. It is the issue that Thoreau posed a century ago when he boldly asserted that our inventions are but "improved means to an unimproved end."

The fruits of automation will be consumed, in the second place, in the form of more leisure. During the past century the length of the work-week in this country has been reduced by upwards of 50 per cent. This reduction has been the result of numerous factors, but among them the mechanization of industry has been of paramount influence. In the years ahead it will continue to be of immense influence.

How rapidly the work-week will be reduced is a matter on which opinions differ. The actual reduction will depend not only on the rate of increase in the output of industry, but on the relative importance we shall place on higher living standards. The exact balance that we shall strike between butter - and guns, too and leisure cannot be clearly foreseen. But there are good reasons for believing that during the next decade the length of „ the work-week will decline to 35 hours. One of the most powerful of these reasons is the pressure that organized labor will exert for shorter hours.

In some cases the shorter hours will probably be pressed into four days a week, thus providing a three-day weekend. This type of arrangement cannot be dismissed as a reckless bit of imagination. From the standpoint of the workers there is a definite advantage in having leisure in larger segments, particularly in the case of those workers who have automobiles - which means most workers. There is also an advantage to those workers who spend an hour or two each day going to and from jobs in having their work concentrated into fewer days. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, some shift towards a three-day weekend. But this shift will not be rapid. It might be said incidentally that there is little likelihood that the three-day weekend will be established in our institutions of higher learning, despite the support that it would receive from the students, not to mention the faculty members!

The achievement of shorter hours will have economic and social results of great consequence. The pattern of production will change in response to the continuing growth of leisure. The recreational industries, including those in New Hampshire and Vermont, will continue to expand. So too will the hobby industries and those connected with the do-it-yourself movement. Since the increased leisure will be extended to most persons in the work force on a more or less uniform basis (not in proportion to their money incomes), a further step will be taken in the direction of social equalitarianism. The attainment of shorter hours will also stimulate the discussion of the proper utilization of leisure time, a question that received considerable attention a quarter of a century ago.

Back in the 1920's the president of Colgate University wrote a book entitled TheThreat of Leisure. Was leisure a threat then? Is it a threat now? Certainly there are those who would answer this query affirmatively. In the early 1930's Principal L. P. Jacks declared, "Today, as I see it, our civilization has to choose between two things: going to pieces altogether, or finding some higher use for leisure than the pursuit of external excitements and ready-made pleasures." This statement is obviously extreme; but few persons would deny the need of our seeking higher uses for our leisure, especially at a time when the volume of leisure is increasing. Apropos of this point one might ask whether our educational institutions are doing enough to aid our younger people, and older ones too, in the wise use of leisure time. Are they contributing as much as they should to the difficult but very important task of avocational training and guidance?

A FURTHER effect of automation relates to labor displacement and unemployment. A writer in The CIO News has declared that "loss of jobs on a tremendous scale tops the list of problems presented by the spread of automation." Another writer, in The Socialist Call, has stated that according to the opinion of experts when automation "really gets under way labor displacement will proceed at a geometrical ratio instead of an arithmetical ratio as in the past." These particular views are rather somber; they have a Malthusian pessimism about them. They are representative of an opinion, however, that appears to be held by numerous persons, though not by writers in our business journals.

There can be no doubt that automation will cause a great deal of labor displacement. But this does not mean that it will result in an equal amount of unemployment. While displacement and unemployment may go hand in hand, the former can easily occur without the latter. Thus a worker displaced from his old job by a given machine may be placed in immediate employment in another part of the same plant, or may obtain a job at once with another company. But a worker may be both displaced from his old employment and rendered jobless at the same time.

Are many workers likely to be forced into that position? Are we going to have mass technological unemployment, a growing "industrial reserve army" as Marx put it? The outlook on this point appears to be bright. Assuredly, automation is not going to lead to an over-all scarcity of jobs, a fear that has quite often been expressed in connection with the mechanization of industry. ("Our machines and our science of management have made us so efficient that there is no longer enough work to go around," said a writer in a prominent American monthly some years ago.) Automation will undoubtedly lead to serious local unemployment situations, however. In towns and cities where automation is introduced on a large scale some of the workers may find themselves not only out of work but stranded. There may not be enough jobs in the community for them. Jobs may indeed be growing in other places, but it is not always easy for workers to move to new employment opportunities; for despite all the progress that has been made in transportation services it is still true, as it was in the days of Adam Smith (whom we must refer to, at least once), that "man is of all sorts of luggage the most difficult to be transported." This is true even of Americans, whose propensity to move has been above the average. If the economy can be kept dynamic and operating at a high level, the total seriousness of these pockets of technological unemployment will not be great. But positive action by employers, by unions, and in some circumstances by the government is needed to hasten the reabsorption of the workers who have been forced out of employment by the new devices. The brightness of the general situation should not prevent us from seeing the dark spots nor make us oblivious to the plight of those who, in John Stuart Mill's apt language, "have been sacrificed to the good of their fellow citizens and posterity."

Apart from the local unemployment it may cause, automation will affect workers in another way. It will necessitate a definite upgrading of the labor force of the nation. There will be a very considerable replacement of workers "performing judgments of a low level," to use Professor Norbert Wiener's terminology, at the same time that there will be a great demand for workers whose technical qualifications must be of a high order. That is to say, many unskilled and semi-skilled workers will be replaced, while many of the new jobs will call for skilled workers. "The hand trucker of today replaced by a conveyor belt," it has been said, "might become tomorrow's electronic engineer." This is true enough, but before such a transition can take place for many of the "hand truckers" it will be necessary for us to establish more retraining programs in American industry and also expand our training programs for new workers.

At the same time that automation leads to a certain amount of job insecurity, it promotes security of another sort, namely security against industrial accidents. With "machines" making more of the decisions and performing more of the tasks in industry both the frequency rate and the severity rate of accidents should decline. It is much safer watching a machine than operating it.

THE effects of automation on the structure and policies of American industry are likely to be diverse and numerous, though here again what the future has in store cannot be clearly foreseen. It is possible that big business will become still bigger, though some of the new automation devices are flexible enough in operation to be used in enterprises with relatively small outputs. Automation will probably have some effect on the geographical location of industry, further encouraging the shift to suburban and rural areas. It will not be so important now for industrial plants to be in populous labor markets. A new pattern of industry is being developed under the influence of automation. The production of instruments - electronic, mechanical, and other types - is growing at a phenomenal speed, with annual sales now running into the billions. This particular industry will continue to expand, and with it many other industries will further develop as a result of the attainment of higher incomes and more leisure.

Since it involves heavy investments in fixed equipment, some of which may be rendered obsolete in a short space of time due to the rapid strides being made in the process of invention, automation may promote the more extensive use of the shift system in industry. Such a development would have a variety of economic and social effects. It would also have an influence on labor-management relations since such matters as shift differentials in pay and choice of shifts would have to be settled. Already, as a matter of fact, automation is having some effect on the relations between labor and management. For example, the United Automobile Workers have been pressing for seniority arrangements of wider scope. "Our agreements with multi-plant corporations," the UAW has declared, "must assure displaced workers the right to interplant transfers based on seniority." The same union, it should be pointed out too, has based its case for the guaranteed annual wage partly on the effects anticipated from automation.

Automation will lead to numerous other union demands. There will be steady pressure for increased wages. This pressure will be so great that in many cases the monetary gains resulting from automation will express themselves not in lower prices but in higher labor incomes. This, in turn, will have an effect on the distribution of income in society, on the pattern of production, and on the volume of labor displacement. (The same general results follow when the gains are siphoned off by monopolistic business units.) The unions, as we noted earlier in our discussion, will strive for shorter and shorter hours. An officer of the Aluminum Workers' Union has said that in order to cope with the unemployment caused by automation it is necessary that the 35-hour work-week be established within the next two years. This will not happen, of course. But demands for the 35-hour week, based on the unemployment and other arguments, will continue to be made, probably with increasing force. Still other demands will be advanced by the unions as automation progresses. There is less reason now than there ever was for believing, or hoping, that labor-management relations will stay "put."

Automation will have other effects on industry in general and on individual businesses, but these effects we shall not take up. It should be added, however, that while automation will afford new opportunities for business growth and economic gain, it will also bring with it a host of problems for the business man to solve. This, of course, is always the situation in a free enterprise economy during periods of rapid economic change.

Though the full effects of automation on industry, on labor, and on society at large cannot be accurately forecast at the present time, there are ample grounds for believing that these effects will be both very numerous and very profound. The astrologers of today can safely say that momentous things are coming tomorrow. And they can predict that even more momentous things will come the day after tomorrow, when atomic energy is applied to industry. Writing some months ago in Fortune magazine, David Sarnoff declared that "electronics" and "atomics" will dwarf the industrial revolutions caused by steam and electricity. This is a sweeping statement. It may also be an exaggerated statement. But it would be rash to question the immense significance of the industrial changes we are now witnessing and will continue to witness during the years that lie immediately ahead.

THE PHOTO ABOVE shows "Autofab," the automatic electronic assembly machine developed by General Mills, Inc., and sold to IBM to speed production of huge air defense computers. It inserts electronic components into printed circuit boards and has a normal speed of twenty assemblies a minute, as compared with twenty or thirty a day by hand methods. (Courtesy of IBM.)

This transfer machine in the Dearborn engine plant of Ford Motor Co. performs the exacting job of semi-finishing and finishing all valve guide holes, valve seats, valve throats and valve seat faces for the Ford V-8 head. It has 104 tools in action. (Courtesy Ford Motor Co.)

An example of the "electronic brains" so widely discussed since the advent of automation is this IBM 705 Electronic Data Processing Machine which handles computations and vast amounts of paperwork in phenomenally short time. A similar machine, 704, for scientific and engineering purposes, will be used in a data processing center at M.I.T., with Dartmouth participating among several New England colleges. (Courtesy of IBM.)

"Good God, I forgot to turn the factory off over the weekend!"

This unique two-directional automation device turns Ford six-cylinder engine blocks end for end and revolves them upside down for easier motor assembly operations at Ford's Cleveland engine plant. Blocks are shown in foreground as they approach the mechanism and at the left as they emerge on the assembly conveyor. (Courtesy Ford Motor Co.)

THE AUTHOR: Clyde E. Dankert, Professor of Economics, has concentrated much of his study in recent years on the subject of automation. This is a continuation of a special interest, going back some years, that he has had in technological developments and their impact on the national economy. Professor Dankert teaches courses on Labor Economics and the History of Economic Thought, and also serves as an honors tutor in his department. He has frequently spoken outside of Hanover, has taken part in Hanover Holiday programs, and in the 1940's was a public representative on Fair Labor Standards Act committees for the furniture, woolen textile, and lumber and timber industries. He is the author of Contemporary Unionism in the United States (Prentice-Hall, 1948) and has written many articles on industry problems, unemployment, and technology. Last year, in Tuck School's Sloan Foundation series on business and economic issues, he wrote Technological Change: Who Gets the Benefits? A native of Ontario, Professor Dankert was graduated from McMaster University in 1926. He did graduate work at the University of Chicago, receiving his Master's degree in 1937 and his Ph.D. in 1930. He joined the Dartmouth faculty in 1930 as Instructor in Economics and became a full professor in 1940, receiving Dartmouth's faculty honorary M.A. degree at that time.