JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  May 2007

PHD-DESIGN May 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Casting, cutting, and milling -- in the industrial context

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 13 May 2007 08:04:47 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Dear Klaus,

Thanks for these helpful thoughts. As I see it, interchangeable 
working parts and mass production defined the industrial era. Earlier 
eras had the mass manufacture of identical objects. Stones and bricks 
as two examples. Bricks predate the pyramids, and we find examples of 
identical, mass-produced bricks -- some with trademarks! -- in most 
of the ancient civilizations. In the same way that standards led to 
related development in systems such as parking spaces, early standard 
production also led to large, interconnected systems in which 
products and systems, activities and behavior all worked together.

The craft of war with the carefully planned motion of soldiers using 
common weapons and a common fighting style on a shield line is an 
example of products and systems, activities and behavior working 
together. Disciplined military units that fought systematically 
generally won against equally brave or equally well supplied units 
that lacked a common organizational system and fighting process. In 
some cases, systemic warfare and careful strategy -- with that 
helpful condition of luck -- enabled small units to defeat much 
larger forces. We read about these kinds of systems in Sun Tzu, 
Xenophon, and Thucydides. History records several memorable battles 
in which technology, strategy, and delivery systems (including 
organized, effective fighters) made a huge difference despite unequal 
size of the opposing armies. Marathon, Thermoplyae, Granicus, and 
Agincourt are all examples of this.

The industrial era arrives with the American System of Manufacturing 
with a technology that produces interchangeable parts for things that 
will work together. This began in the early 19th century, expanding 
in scale and scope as it slowly became possible to manufacture 
machines that manufactured other machines. Altogether, products and 
systems, activities and behavior make the difference.

The point I've been making is that there is a long, slow progression 
in industrial development going back to the earliest days of human 
creation. We can describe this as a kind of punctuated equilibrium 
with great advances in intense spurts. The industrial advances of the 
past century have been tightly spaced, intense, and continuous, but 
this (and the earlier industrial revolutions) are infrequent on the 
2,500,000 year time scale dating from the first manufactured tool.

The parallel development in societies, cultures, and the environment 
are visible in the growth of world population from fewer than a 
billion people in 1800 to six and a half billion people today. This 
is also visible in the extinction of species that compete with human 
beings for environmental niches and resources. We don't always 
realize when we -- or our systems -- are competing with other species 
in evolutionary terms, and this is a real problem for the world and 
for us.

Your post captures the logic that made much of our industrial success 
possible: interchangeable parts in objects, in machinery, and in 
manufacturing systems; modularity, including assembly and 
sub-assembly systems; and standards.

This, together with lean production methods, better organizational 
structures, and organizational learning make the difference between 
industrial production in the Ford era and industrial production in 
the Toyota era.

Yours,

Ken


Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

>i am suggesting that the interchangeability of parts is an epiphenomenon of
>mass production.  mass production of identical products by repetitive
>machine operation was the driving force of the industrial era.
>
>example 1:  if you have a huge number of identical products in use, if
>different parts of that product can break, any one of them making it
>inoperable, there is a good chance that one can salvage the defective part
>from another identical product that failed for a different reason.
>
>example 2:  mass production was greatly enhanced by modularization in the
>sense that a product was conceptually divided into subassemblies,
>subsubassemblies, etc, which could be combined variously and outsourced to
>different manufacturers, specializing in these subassemblies, for example
>screw manufacturers, carburetor manufacturers, engine plants.  today, car
>manufacturers are mere assembly operations.  since industry was driven to
>increase their markets, specialized manufacturers had an interest in selling
>their products to a variety of manufacturers.  consequently, standards
>developed that greatly increased the efficiency if mass production.
>
>example 3:  carrying the emergence of standards further, while many mass
>products end up in relatively unique situations (person X driving a mass
>produced car), where mass products occur together, (combinatorially or
>sequentially) they encourage standards as well. e.g., the standard spaces
>for cars in parking garages.  the oldest combinatorial standard that i can
>think of was for building material, which could be combined in numerous
>ways.  the egyptians used stone blocks of identical sizes to build pyramids.
>the romans had standard size bricks. 
>
>the mayans, by contrast, made each stone to fit uniquely its neighbors.
>just as the tailors, locksmiths, and carpenters of preindustral eras who
>fitted each part to work with the other parts.  in the absence of mass
>production, interchangeability was meaningless.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager