• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

NON-TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY IN ROAD TRANSPORT

THE requirements of efficiency depend on the "nature of the animal ". What sort of an animal, then, is transport? It is rather special, being essentially a service, provided by people mainly with people for people. Transport is not sealed off in a plant of its own, working to its own production formulae. Each particular service must be continuously adjusting its operations to the idiosyncrasies and subtleties and vagaries of the human societies it serves. .

It transport has ever dictated to them, it can dictate no longer. In present circumstances, and with certain notable exceptions, the public-utility aspect of transport (as distinct from roads) has much diminished.

There is much in a transport business that lies in the realm of the imprecise and the intangible, and its workings cannot be settled by scientific statistics and the slide-rule. Even that basic unit of "output ", the ton or ton-mile carried, or passenger or passenger-mile carried, does not exist in actuality and is a highly variable standard. Service cannot be measured reliably, but where transport does not serve, it is finished.

Planning for the future is a question of policy and flexible readiness rather than of blue-print and predetermination, for transport is governed by factors that are largely external to itself and not exactly predictable.

It follows that the role to be played by technology and the technocrat is rather less commanding in transport than in the great industrial complexes.

All this puts a high premium on the personal aspects of transport efficiency. The vital fact is that in most transport services the personal equation outweighs the advantages of scale and elaboration.

But is " personal" the same as " non-technical '"? Not really, but there is a strong link between the implications of the two words. I use the word " non-technical" because in these days there is an unhealthy trend towards preoccupation with the " purely technical elements of transport efficiency.

Not that science and the scientific approach are to be ignored. Quite the reverse. Nothing is more significant than to know and measure instead of guessing. No man in his senses would overlook technology. My point is that it should not be allowed to take our minds off the nontechnical elements of our efficiency, which in the end are fundamental. There is no more effective way of damaging our efficiency, instead of helping it, than to start with a diagnosis that is out of balance in the first place.

Transport undertakings are living organisms and must be understood and treated as such. The things that lead to health and well-being (or the reverse) in a living organism are very like those that bring about non-technical efficiency (or inefficiency) in a body economic.

In each case there is the prime need for a sound constitution and structure, a balanced urge and disposition, and real character. The skeleton must be hard, but articulated; the tissues must be soft, but strong; the organs must have their distinct if co-ordinated functions.

The weakening and other consequences of too-rapid growth are the same in each case. Over-great size (when integrated and monolithic) leads to the same troubles, and ultimately to extinction. Lack of competition and of a need to fight for survival will undermine stamina and determination, and initiative also. The environment and the feeding are decisive, and adaptability to environment must be preserved. Affluence and fatness both lead to sloth.

A good network of sensory and nervous communication is indicated. Lack of reasonable discipline, individual and group-wise, pays penalties misbehaviour in general brings retribution. Undue use of drugs, like subsidies, undermines the capacity of the body or organization to resist, and dulls its efficiency.

These are some of the rules for living; but the rules for dying are equally important. After a certain age hardening of the arteries and softening of the grey matter arc inevitable; the only cure is re-birth and a fresh start altogether. Are there enough bankruptcies? Should not elderly organizations be completely wound up and dispersed, with new ones founded elsewhere to take their place, instead of being merely " re-organized —2 Efficiency of the Individual At the physical level we can usually define and measure human efficiency fairly closely. Output can be counted and related either to input or to some absolute standard. But when we go higher up, if you will accept the phrase, and as the "output" becomes increasingly mental or moral most of us begin to shy at using the word " efficiency " at all.

We would rather say of a leader, for example, that he is good, or effective. Yet the efficiency of the organization leads will depend largely upon this goodness or effectiveness, and when we "measure" the organization for efficiency we are also measuring him, directly or indirectly.

The higher up an individual goes, the more his efficiency is a matter of personal attributes. Choice, and indeed compromise between many factors, is the root of the matter. Thus the " state " of even one man is the result of a subtle mixture or conflict of attributes, qualities and circumstances of every kind, some of them measurable but many not. And let us never forget that where a man's personal efficiency is in a satisfactory state, whether by good fortune and/or good judgment, it can be undermined lost, like morale, almost without warning.

If this is true of a single individual, how much greater must be the complications involved in large aggregations of individuals collected together in undertakings, industries and societies, particularly where these aggregations—as in road transport, with its single vehicles operating at will over the open public roads, unlike rail transport—are also unregimented, non-hierarchical, democratic and free?

Each man's personal efficiency within the organization may still be important in itself, but its relation to the efficiencies of others becomes even more important, and full of complications and difficulty.

How do we discount in figures for the drag—or the impetus—of varying political and economic climates, or the sheer accidents (if they are accidents) of timing, or for differing opportunities. And if we cannot be sure of the discounts required, how can we be sure of the relative efficiency of one undertaking compared with another, or of one form of transport with another, unless indeed the answer is pretty obvious anyway?

And what about the time-scale? A policy that does not produce attractive results in the short run may be absolutely right and " efficient " for the long term. Or a policy may be highly efficient in the short term, like dictatorship, but hold in itself the seeds of its own decay and of ultimate disaster.

But above all there is the question of purpose. Efficient for what? Is the Mini more efficient than the Scammell? Is a poor service with wide and general cover more efficient than a series of good services, but each with its narrow and special cover? How much extra efficiency (immediate or ultimate) can come from an " integration " of transport services, as compared with its price, immediate or ultimate? Until we have settled, in the light of our basic beliefs, the basic purposes of a given state of affairs or organization or policy, I do not see how we can presume to assess its efficiency.

Measuring Non-technical Efficiencies

Even given the test of comparative and competitive cost in relation to value produced, to assess the total efficiency of a service or a group of services we might still do better to employ an experienced " feel " combined with a real understanding of the " animal " concerned, and a close examination of its current condition. If the clinical survey does not agree with the figures, so much the worse for the figures.

It is true that assessments on this basis may not always eliminate the effects of prior prejudice. It is also possible that sometimes a desire to show "good hunting" or to climb on a band-wagon may come into it. But if the lack of scientific yardsticks, or of comforting certainties, is upsetting to some people—especially those who want to dictate operations from a backroom, or make a living as critics of the management—I do not think that we ourselves need be too muddled or disturbed by the complications I have mentioned. They are typical of life as a whole.

We ought to concentrate less on the inefficiencies or shortcomings of an organization and lay more stress on what it achieves. This is where so much of the present-day urge towards public inquiries into public efficiency is itself "inefficient ", since it strikes at the very nature and mainsprings of the ultimate or non-technical efficiency.

This can be defined only in the broadest terms: but for the purposes of this paper I would offer the following definition of non-technical efficiency:—

(a) degree of fitness for the ends in mind:

(b) extent to which that fitness-for-purpose is mobilized in action, allowing for difficulties to be overcome: remembering always that to conceive and elucidate the right end-purposes in the first place (i.e.. to settle our 1)12

governing philosophies and formulate sound policies related thereto) is often the most important thing of all. And speaking for myself, I don't want the formulation of these policies to be too much influenced by the purveyors of dogmas, fashionable systems, or expertise generally— or, for that matter, by our suppliers either.

If efficiency fails badly at the levels of policy and of command, all else is likely to fail as well, or be wasted. We must get our priorities right.

Structure and Size Road transport itself is not a homogeneous or single industry. In detail its problems vary quite a bit from sector to sector. Indeed, this is perhaps the true basic difference, and it stems, of course, from the consequences of the differing economic regulation that is required.

However, there is still a fundamental unity of outlook throughout road transport and a common identity. for we are all joined up together by the fact that we all operate carrying units that are small, free and flexible—and ubiquitous where necessary—on tracks that are open to allcomers.

Since road transport is a free society and also, as someone has said, literally all over the place, there is a limit to the size of the unit that can be managed effectively. The only really large units in existence are those created by statute, such as London Transport and British Road Services. Both were intended for monopoly conditions, however, and British Road Services is now being decentralized into the smaller units of management that the differences of service and competition make advisable.

It is particularly significant that even the regular passenger services, though protected up to a point by local regulation and though much bigger than the average haulage unit, are organized in companies that have remained fairly small. One can only look with considerable apprehension, therefore, at the growing assumption that the way to solve the passenger transport problems of conurbations is to have bigger and better Road Passenger Boards.

To have large and monolithic organizations of this kind is to break all the known rules and experience about how road transport is best organized. I am not saying that no arrangements are possible, or needed, to co-ordinate working and finance. On the contrary. But these arrangements should exist "behind the scenes " and should not entail the launching of great new structures of ownership and accountability, which in any case would not deal with one of the major difficulties, namely, the need to co-ordinate with the railways and the air.

In road haulage the structure varies further, according to the type of business. Where big capital investment -is needed, as in parcels network, the larger unit has tended to develop. In general haulage some of the units are also getting a little larger though in view of the many thousands of operators with only two or three vehicles, it is possible to argue that the industry would be more stable if something could be done to encourage the emergence of a process of consolidation and professionalism while still maintaining full competition and, most important, a proper ease of entry into the profession by new men.

But the necessity for relatively small units and individual accountability brings a corresponding necessity, and advantage, in association with co-ordination among the units. It is not for nothing that holding concerns like British Electric Traction or Tillings or Transport Development Group have emerged.

The existence of free associations is a kind of private regulation. There is also public regulation. The need for close regulation of the services and fares of the stage and express carriage services for passengers is generally admitted, except by the lunatic fringe. On the other hand, the need for public regulation of the economics of haulage business is not so admitted.

The general attitude of the road haulier is competitive. sometimes, to the point of being uncivilized. But thereby the vitality and flexibility of his business are maintained, and presumably one would not wish these to be lost.

What one worries about, however, is the possibility of ill-considered, if short-term, throat-cutting by way of rates or operating conditions. (A throat-cut " short-term " is effectively cut for good.)

After all, the amount of capital required to start up is virtually nil and no professional qualifications or other conditions are at present required; supply would therefore be likely to outrun demand if there were no licensing. In any case, the customers are bigger and more powerful. The smaller road haulier might thus be in no better position than the casual worker before the advent of the trade unions.

There is no doubt that road transport owes a great deal to the efficient and lively supply industries behind it.

Self-supply can become dangerous. But we must likewise see to it that our outside suppliers do not achieve a monopoly position, or subconsciously subordinate our own requhernents and our progress to their particular problems of manufacturing and supply. We must beware of excessive standardization, notwithstanding the technical economies offered.

Staff Development

In road transport the training of a man to be a good driver or mechanic is not a very complicated affair and we shall be wasting a lot of time and money, and cause much personal unhappiness, if we train everybody up for management on the grounds that every soldier must have a marshal's baton in his knapsack. It is the truth in our particular world, unfortunately, that one can train people beyond the job they are doing, or are ever likely to do. I think we must be quite clear-headed about this, though I am not decrying proper training in its proper place, or the proper use of work study and other such aids.

Education is a different matter altogether. People must believe in being productive as a moral issue or habit, and not merely as a means of earning more money. In these circumstances it is more than ever necessary for managements, I suggest, to keep the closest possible contact with their men, preferably in small groups, and to educate them by a steady exchange of views and by providing facilities for a widening of outlook and, above all, by providing the right example.

It is also neceSsary, however, to have a kind of cadet system. Cadets are men selected while they are still young enough to be trained in a much wider sense, and likely to benefit from a proper education in life. It may be unfair, but it is not normally possible to fit a man for top responsibilities unless he has been made ready for them while still fairly young.

This brings us to the special question of labour as a separate aspect of staff policy. This is where road transport, and especially road haulage, is fortunate. Except in the biggest of integrated bus operations over urban routes, the driving of a motor vehicle still brings a feeling of independence and freedom. One keeps one's individuality. Moreover, one directs the machine, and not the reverse.

Another point is that the men are usually happier, in smaller units, located in smaller or country areas.

Is it right, then, to have national negotiations and arrangements? Surely it is still possible to obtain that local flexibility which is of such great value in terms of both economics and psychology.

Figure Controls Even in such a brief catalogue of non-technical issues the matter of figure controls must find a place. Not the measuring of total efficiency, just like that, but the measuring of particular operations and particular people. First let us note, however, that one can have figure controls without computers. One can also, though it is not always realized, have computers without figure control.

In addition to controlling investment projects and revenue budgets, there is current performance to control. But except where we have figures we cannot measure. On the other hand the figures must be meaningful. I need hardly add that the figures are of no use unless we can hang them round someone's neck, like the albatross, as something for which that person can fairly and properly be called to account—which gets us back again, however, to questions of structure.

The question arises whether this advantage in correct use of figures can be spread wider, independently of ownership. A relatively new development in this direction is known as Inter-Firm Comparison. A professional firm is usually employed to check that the figures of the different companies are constructed on comparable bases, and to preserve the professional secrecy that is required before a company will allow its own figures to leave its own offices; but given essential safeguards of this kind it is possible to circulate the figures of various companies for information of each other.

Government and Public Meaningful comparisons are probably more difficult to achieve in the road haulage sectors. But even here there is a great deal that can be done to inform ourselves and our colleagues and competitors in the industry about the comparative levels of cost and efficiency from operation to operation. We can all learn from each other.

To generalize about "Customer policy" is difficult, but at least one can say that the bigger the individual or corporate customers become, and the fewer in number, the less attractive road transport will be from the viewpoint of freedom and, in some ways, of profitability also.

In goods transport it is not surprising that something in the nature of unofficial Conferences is emerging, nationally and locally, in the stabler and more highly organized trades, on the analogy with shipping. For the rest, the fixing of long-term contracts, of public and private charters, and of franchises of various kinds, is one way of adjusting the " servant's " position. The great growth of the Contract A vehicle is a sign of the times.

All up and down the country, moreover, we face the emergence of the idea that passenger transport should be a "social service "—by which people mean, as often as not, that the public purse in some form or other ought to do the paying. The consequences of this to our efficiency I need not enlarge on.

Not that the Government and Public have no role to play. On the contrary. In any circumstances they will always represent a great part of our environment. And whereas we must make every effort to change our environment where it impedes our efficiency, we must never quarrel with its representatives.

Yet road transport is better off than many industries. In particular we have an alert and vigorous and effective. Press of our own which has not yet been standardized by ownership or other means—and I hope that it never will. continued on page 77

Are we right to grouse about heavy taxation, and to campaign about it? Surely—but we should avoid being ridiculous, or too tiresome. Likewise we should try to avoid being subsidized, or having the appearance thereof. There is no future in it so far as transport is concerned except loss of control, poor service, and big deficits.

As to our public image and public relations in general, we should avoid being too split among our different sectors and ownerships.

For example it is the greatest possible mistake, I would think, for professional operators, bus or lorry, to attack the private car or the C licence. One would hope, also, that in the long run the tendency of some motorists to support deliberate propaganda to "get that lorry off the road can be checked.

Personally, I could not approve any suggestion that the real line-up is between public transport (whatever that may be) on the one hand, and private transport on the other.

We in road transport must be careful not to sacrifice the special simplicities and virtues of our form of life and effectiveness and our non-technological advantages, in exchange for some of the complicated messes of pottage, gimmickry and pseudo-science that are now being hawked around. We must combine a great deal of optimism with a certain amount of healthy scepticism. And certainly we must. kill stone-dead the growing idea that efficiency is a new trick for making unnecessary the hard work of individuals.

Discussion

I N opening the discussion on Sir Reginald's paper, W. M. Little (Scottish Omnibuses) reminded delegates of the comment by Emerson that "we all boil at different degrees ". Efficiency was a personal question and he agreed that management was an art, not a science. Mr. Little posed the question as to whether delegates enjoyed management—and if not, why not? Perhaps it was because there was no longer a sufficient concept of freedom—freedom to make decisions and, indeed, to make mistakes. What was being discribed as scientific management in the sense of working accurately to the rule book was, in fact, denying the basic opportunity to manage.

Mr. Little then referred to Sir Reginald's comments on national negotiations and arrangements and questioned whether there was not too much emphasis on national agreements which had the effect of reducing the scope of management at local levels. He gave a note of warning should ultimately everything be put on a national basis in this context, which was quite distinct from political nationalization.

Querying whether too much emphasis was not being placed on scientific training, Mr. Little suggested that here there could be an element of self-creating demand. Ultimately, there could be no replacement for the proper accountability which was the true function of management. Rather might scientific management discourage those who had management potential.

In support of this contention he reminded delegates of Sir Reginald's comment that it was still possible to obtain flexibility at local level, which was of such great value in terms of both economy and psychology.

Lord Chesham. discounting Sir Reginald's self-derogatory introduction to his paper, maintained that it was a paper full of interest which made a real contribution to transport. He referred delegates to Sir Reginald's doubt as to how one discounted in figures the drag—or the impetus—of varying political and economic climates. In this context Lord Muirshiel had earlier referred to the bedevilment of transport by politics, but Lord Chesham doubted whether politics were likely to depart nI4 from the transport scene so long as there remained differing philosophies. But, he added, the alternatives were not always a question of being with or against the current—one could also attempt to divert it: Two ways in which this could affect the situation were in the economic sphere and the physical sense. In the latter respect the country should make the maximum use of currently available physical assets. We were not using all the measures we could apply, Lord Chesham contended, to deal with congestion and accidents.

J. E. Kirby (Federated Road Transport Services) asked Sir Reginald one brief question—did he believe in the public ownership of the road haulage industry; while P. G. Jeffcock (Harrowgate Hill Garage) asked whether the speaker foresaw any danger in the type of organization where the whole job was run by a very senior board at high level and instructions passed on a line which was, in some instances, far removed from the general manager. Surely, Mr. Jeffcock suggested, there was a danger of the important role of non-technical 'efficiency being blanketed by instructions from above.

The question of what provision should be made for the future generation of management was put by Mr. Elsbury when he asked Sir Reginald what his opinion was of the necessity of learning the art of management as distinct from technology, and to what extent did he think this should be undertaken by the existing generations of management

W. I. Skewis (Transport Holding Company) had a question about passenger costing to put—did Sir Reginald feel that enough was being done in this sphere?

Describing the industry as disunited and fragmented, C. H. Williams (Tate and Lyle Transport) suggested it was no wonder that "we• have no status, that we don't know ourselves where we stand ". In view of this, how could they give a lead to others and influence politicians? Surely, he continued, many of Sir Reginald's points would be implemented if there could be but one Training Board for the whole industry with, perhaps, an engineering section for road transport engineers.

Complimenting Sir Reginald on his paper, G. W. Quick Smith (Transport Holding Company) said that the philosophy behind it could be summed up as "men versus machines ". The advantage of the paper was that it tended to restore a certain amount of balance in an age when everyone thought that it was the machine that mattered. Machines helped but it was human beings that mattered in the long run.

In a long and eloquent reply, Sir Reginald Wilson dealt first with integration. He did not believe, he said, that the 1947 Act brought integration. He could not foresee that any Act would do this in the way many people had envisaged. The railways had been a very big industry for a long time, whereas road transport could work efficiently in very small units. To integrate road and rail at a physical level was, perhaps, a very difficult operation which required much greater thought than a lot of people were giving to it. On the other hand he had always been an advocate of integration in the sense that policies could be integrated at the top. The problem was where to make integration grip. One way was to control the provision of the basic fundamental on which all transport must run, namely the track or the road. The Government had such control in their power—they could decide the spending.

On the question of chain of command, Sir Reginald said that the objectives of top management must be twofold. First, to set up a structure which was workable and to avoid undue length in the chain of command. Second, to provide the necessary willpower. This was largely a question of attitude of mind. The machine would not work by itself.

He said that it would be impractical to nationalize the whole industry. His answer to this was a simple "No". II Mr. Kirby's question was really in respect of nationalizing the the Aand B-licensed fleets this was tantamount to asking whether he (Sir Reginald) believed in nationalization by the back door. The answer was " No " again. It was not the policy of the Transport Holding Company so far as he was aware, and nor was it the policy of the Government. "You cannot set up a large haulage undertaking, ask it to behave commercially and not expect it to expand ", he remarked.