Innovations in manufacturing.
Innovations in manufacturing.
复制标题
制造创新。
DOI：
10.1126/science.220.4599.817
复制
发表时间：
1983
期刊：
影响因子：
56.9
通讯作者：
T. Weiss
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Weiss
“美国制造体系”是英国观察家在19世纪50年代创造的一个短语，用来描述他们所看到的一种与当时盛行于英国的制造方法截然不同的制造过程。正如这本关于其原因和后果的文集所表明的那样，该体系的确切性质是有争议的。最广泛持有的观点是，部件的互换性是重要的区别特征，但机械化和大规模生产的概念似乎也值得注意。相关的问题是，在英国人来访时，这种制造系统在美国盛行的程度，以及1850年以后发展的时机和后果。如果要认为这是美国独有的，而不是一种世界范围的现象，或者是一种更具限制性的地区或工业方法，那么关注这一制度的确切性质，特别是其显著特征，是很重要的。这本书的标题可以被理解为暗示这种独特的方法仅限于新英格兰。David Hounshell认为，历史学家把太多的注意力集中在该系统的一个子集上，他称之为新英格兰军械库制造实践。他主张一种更全面的观点，幸运的是，大多数文章都采取了更广泛的视角，只有梅里特·史密斯（Merritt Smith）的一篇非常有趣的论文局限于武器制造业。根据AE Musson的说法，如果美国和英国的制造实践要独树一帜，就必须仔细区分。他认为，在1850年以前，英国率先发展了一些通用机床、可互换零件、专业化和劳动分工。美国的创新发生在1850年之后，以专用机床的形式出现，并且主要局限于木工和轻工制造业。几位作者指出，如果该体系仅限于武器制造业，那么它的起源是法国。Paul Uselding认为，需要改进测量设备来确保精度和互换性，这些都是国际起源（如jo块的情况）。显然，美国制造业是否在一种独特的生产体系下进行是模棱两可的。幸运的是，从更广泛的角度来看，独特性和独特的特征并不重要。无论改进的测量设备或可互换部件的概念起源于何处，也无论该系统在19世纪50年代的使用范围有多有限，美国制造业在此后的几年里成为了生产的庞然大物，通过大规模、资本密集型的方法生产出大量标准化的商品，并影响了世界各地的生活方式和生活水平。在尤金·弗格森看来，对美国的征服是“永远改变了人类生活条件的伟大历史运动”之一。大多数文章关注的是这些更广泛的含义，而不是美国制度定义的狭隘主题。几位作者暗示了对这种系统开发的解释，但只有Nathan Rosenberg对这个过程提供了一个连贯的观点。他认为，它的发展受到需求压力的影响，比如人口增长和品味标准化，以及资源丰富的供应条件。这些因素推动了创新
" The American System of Manufac-tures" is a phrase coined by British observers in the 1850's to characterize what they saw as a manufacturing pro-cess readily distinguishable from the methods prevailing in England at the time. As this collection of essays on its causes and consequences makes clear, the precise nature of that system is de-batable. The most widely held view is that interchangeability of parts was the important distinguishing feature, but the notions of mechanization and mass pro-duction seem noteworthy as well. Relat-ed matters are the extent to which this manufacturing system prevailed in the United States at the time of the British visits and the timing and consequences of developments after 1850. Concern for the exact nature of the system, particularly its distinguishing feature, is important if there is to be any validity to the claim that it is uniquely American, as opposed to a worldwide phenomenon or a more restrictive re-gional or industrial method. The book's title can be taken to imply that the dis-tinctive methods were confined to New England. And David Hounshell thinks historians have focused too much of their attention on a subset of the system, which he calls the New England armory practice of manufacturing. He argues for a more encompassing view, and fortunately most of the essays take a broader perspective, with only a very interesting paper by Merritt Smith being confined to arms manufacturing. According to AE Musson, the dis-tinctions between American and British manufacturing practices must be carefully drawn if uniqueness is to be claimed for the former. He argues that in the years before 1850 England pioneered the development of some general-purpose machine tools, interchangeable parts, specialization, and the division of labor. The American innovations occurred after 1850, showed up in the form of spe-cialized machine tools, and were confined largely to wood-working and light manufacturing industries. Several authors note that if the system was con-fined to arms manufacturing then its ori-gins were French. Paul Uselding argues that improved measuring devices were required to assure accuracy and inter-changeability, and these were international in origin (as in the case of Jo-blocks). Clearly, whether American manufacturing was carried on under a unique system of production is ambigu-ous.Fortunately, from a broader perspec-tive, uniqueness and the exact distinctive features are not crucial. Regardless of where improved measuring devices or the notion of interchangeable parts originated, or how limited the scope of the system's use in the 1850's, American manufacturing became a behemoth of production in the years thereafter, turn-ing out volumes of standardized mer-chandise via large-scale, capital-inten-sive methods and influencing life styles and living standards around the world. In Eugene Ferguson's view this American conquest is one of the" great historical movements that have changed forever the conditions under which human be-ings live." Most of the essays are concerned with these broader implications rather than with the narrow topic of the definition of the American System. Several authors hint at an explanation for the development of such a system, but only Nathan Rosenberg provides a coherent view of the process. He argues that its development was shaped by demand pressures, such as population growth anda standardization of tastes, and a supply condition of resource abun-dance. These factors pushed inventive