Dear Terry,
While I appreciate your comments, you missed the point of my post. Standards and different forms of standardization have existed throughout human history. It was first what is called “the American system of manufacturing” that manufacturers achieved comprehensive interchangeable, interoperable manufactured parts. This required a level of precision far greater than the standards used in ancient Egyptian stonework, medieval tiles, or craft guild benchmarks.
Prior to the success of the American system, others tried — but failed — to achieve this level of standardized precision. In 1765, the French general Jean-Baptiste de Gribeauval described the advantages of comprehensive interchangeability and interoperability. This set a goal that engineers adopted around the world, but no one achieved that goal. In 1807, Marc Isambard Brunel achieved a high level of standardization in manufacturing wooden blocks for rope for the British navy at the Portsmouth yards. This was a massive achievement, and it reduced manufacturing time with a capacity of 130,000 blocks per year. This remained the crown jewel of British manufacturing technology for years to come.
The American system of manufacturing emerged from what might be called the armory system. It began at the armories in Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and Springfield, Massachusetts. Two different and important trends came together for the first time. One was standardization for ease of manufacturing by machines that could reliably repeat the functions that would otherwise require human hands. These machines made those specific things more rapidly and efficiently than a human worker could do, and often did so at a higher level of precision and quality. The other was precision standardization in manufactured parts so that the resulting products were interchangeable and interoperable. This required machine tools far more precise than human beings had ever used before — gauges, mills, dies, and more.
The precision required for the parts of a rifle or handgun to be interchangeable and interoperable is significantly greater than the precision required for a screw or a cobblestone. Ramsden’s screw cutting lathe was a genuine advance in manufacturing, but the screws were stable parts that held things immobile. I live in the old town section of a medieval city. The street in front of my house is paved with natural, round cobble stones pounded into the earth. These are hand fitted, one by one, into spaces created around each stone. The modern cobblestones used to pave the newer parts of town are relatively uniform cubes. Masons still fit them one by one, but the job is easier. The precision required for every part of a machine with moving parts to function with every other part is significantly greater.
It was first in the 1820s that John Hall manufactured a rifle with interchangeable, interoperable parts. It was possible to take any number of these rifles, disassemble them, scatter and mix the parts, then reassemble the same number of rifles from parts that originally came from other rifles.
George Friedman (no relation) is talking about something entirely different. I have been discussing “the American system of manufacturing,” not the American political system or the development of the American economic system. To save repeating a long phrase, economists, historians, and engineers sometimes refer to “the American system of manufacturing” by using the shorter phrase “the American system.” Historians account for the development of the American political system in their discussions of the Federalist era or the Civil War era. (See, for example, Gordon S. Wood’s books, Radicalism of the American Revolution, or The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States.) Political factors influenced the growth and economic success of the United States. Economists discuss the reasons for that growth and success. (See for example, Alfred Chandler’s The Visible Hand: Managerial Revolution in American Business, or Scale and Scope: Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism.) George Friedman places these issues in the strategic geopolitical framework of macro history. The role of river transport, canals, and inland waterways made a massive difference to the growth of the young United States, as did railroads in the 19th century and the Interstate Highway System in the 20th century. Presidents from Washington (canals) and Lincoln (railroads) on to Eisenhower (highways) recognized the vital importance of transport infrastructure to internal markets.
While I agree with Friedman on the importance of these geopolitical issues, he is not talking about the American system of manufacturing. He is discussing the role of geopolitical factors to the growth and success of America as a nation. That is clear in the title of his article, “The Geopolitics of the United States.” David Hounshell is an historian whose work focuses on the technological and organizational dimensions of innovation. He addresses these issues in From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
—
Terry Love wrote:
—snip—
There are many examples of standardisation elsewhere that occurred before the US instance. In engineering standardisation, another common reference is the earlier standardisation in machine tools. The classic UK example is screw standardisation (1770 Ramsden). There are many other much earlier examples, especially in the built environment (think standards for dimensions of slates, bricks and cut stones). Somewhere I remember seeing medieval standards for dimensions for the stonework of ornate rose windows. Going back to ancient Egypt there were standards already established for sizes and time and for standard sizes of products.
On a slightly different tack, your namesake George Friedman (in, if I remember right, the 2009 book 'The Next 100 years' and also *) has argued the decisive economic advantage of the American system comes from its availability of river transport and large home market rather than manufacturing ability.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
