Necessary Cement
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
pRODUCTIVITY has never seemed an entirely appropriate term to apply to transport, although the British Productivity Council include transport among the sections of industry in which they hope steps will be taken to raise efficiency and lower costs during the forthcoming National Productivity Year. In the sense that it is generally understood, productivity in an industry or a business is measured by the amount produced per man, and bears no relation to anything else, such as, for example, the volume of goods sold.
If anything at all is produced in transport, it must be the volume of space available for traffic. There would obviously be no point in measuring this, or in attempting to draw conclusions from it. What matters is the amount of traffic carried. The most convenient standard for comparison, even if it is not exact, is the ton-mile. On this basis, productivity in transport would be assessed in accordance with the number of ton-miles covered per man. Because the word would be misleading in this sense, I have always preferred to speak of transportivity as a closer approximation to the facts.
The B.P.C. seem to have little difficulty in arriving at a percentage increase of national product per man-year throughout industry. During the period from 1950 to 1959, they reckon, the increase was a little under two per cent. They compare this unfavourably with the figures for such countries as Japan (over six per cent.), Italy and Western Germany (over four per cent.), and France, Holland and Norway (over three per cent.).
With much less confidence would one attempt to produce such details for the transport industry alone. Even for the railways, the best-documented of all the services, the task might be difficult. In the decade ended 1960, railway staff fell from 600,000 to 515,000, or by about 15 per cent., while the fall in ton-miles was about 18 ner cent., from 22,902m. to 18.650m. In conjunction with other evidence, this appears to show a decline in transportivity. The calculations have to be accepted with sortie reserve, if only because the figures given for staff include people concerned specifically or partly with passenger traffic.
THE main source of evidence for road transport must continue to be the two surveys made by the Ministry of Transport, one in 1952 and the other in 1958. Neither document attempts to estimate the number of staff employed and, although there are other sources of information, it would be difficult to arrive at reliable figures. In default of these, the number of vehicles operated might be accepted as a substitute. Between the two surveys, the total goods vehicle strength of the country went up from 996,770 to 1,271,340, or by decidedly more than a quarter. Although the number of ton-miles also rose, from 18,800m. to 23,100m., the proportionate increase was not so great—approximately 23 per cent.
A proper evaluation of these somewhat disappointing and surprising figures would require considerably more research. One would need to examine separately the transportivity trends for hauliers, for British Road Services and for operators with C licences. There might also have to be separate analyses for certain types of vehicle. The fact remains that, on the basis of such statistics as are available, transport has not even shared in the comparatively modest rise in productivity over industry as a whole.
04 Are operators to blame? It seems hardly likely in view of the fact that the great majority of the vehicles are under the control of the traders and manufacturers whose activities have in other respects shown at least some progress, measured in terms of output per man. To some extent the statistical results are blurred by the fact that denationalization took place between the two surveys. All the same, the picture that is left can by no means be described as satisfactory.
The blame is, perhaps, to be found in the Irowing number of complaints of delays in turnround. The picturesque comparison made by some operators is with the old days of the horse and cart, when, or so they aver, they could make more deliveries in a day than they are now able to make with all the resources of modern engineering at their command. Mr. P. S. Henman put the point more soberly when he estimated that the time spent by vehicles at docks, warehouses, shops or factories had at least doubled as compared with the times that were recorded in pre-war years.
MR. HENMAN also drew attention to a point that is worth careful consideration by the sponsors of the National Productivity Year. "Organization and methods teams attached to factories," he complained, "and industrial consultants who investigate the operation of businesses always seem to fasten on reductions in the costs of handling goods, and frequently the economy is made at the expense of the carrier." Mechanization often added to the costs of a haulier, he continued. There could be more lengthy delays in mechanized works than at premises where manual labour was still employed.
Industrialists wishing to heed the call for greater productivity ought to bear these things in mind. The B.P.C. envisage two main aspects of the task. The industry-by-industry aspect may have the more immediate appeal to the ordinary businessman. Co-operation among the trade associations, trade unions and other bodies concerned with his own industry ought to mean a general improvement in standards, a chance of increased prosperity and keener competition with the same industry in other countries.
The other aspect, which is concerned with co-ordination and collaboration among all the industries, may at first sight seem less rewarding. It is this aspect that the transport operator should use every possible means of emphasizing. His is not an industry in the generally accepted sense. It may rather be said to provide the necessary cement that links one industry with another. This does not make its role any the less important, but there is always the danger that, as an industry, it will be overlooked.
His aim should be to make sure that the more general approach to the problem of productivity is given its proper share of attention. He should at least make sure of representation on every one of the local committees that it is proposed to set up. In the period before the year officially begins next November, he should do what he can to make his particular problem known. If an increase in transportivity is being blocked by delays in turnround, some attempt should be made to estimate the extent of the loss. ' The task might well be tackled by the Road Research Board.