The ways in which engineers and engineering contributed to innovation during the major spurts of industrialisation are examined through a taxonomy of functions of the firm. The kinds of engineering required naturally interacted with the predominant fields for technological development, and in manufacturing until recent times this meant above all mechanical engineering. The objective of incremental innovation by mechanical engineers is defined as ‘time saving’. The training for this process oriented concern was chiefly practical, here considered as a ‘knowledge’ route to technological accumulation. All the major industrial revolutions considered relied primarily on this during their industrialisation spurts. The alternative ‘information’ route through formal education developed more belatedly, and not always in the best interests of the economy at large. The main finding is that the economic success (and often social success) of engineers depended on how well they fitted into contemporary advances, not just in technology, but also in corporate organisation. Higher scientific qualifications for engineers were an unsuccessful strategy for Britain, though may prove more beneficial in the future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
This paper owes its origin to a presentation to the British Association, in Newcastle upon Tyne, in September 1995, in a discussion organised jointly by the Economics and History of Science sections of the BAAS, relating to industrial revolutions. The author is grateful to all those attending for their comments.
2.
BellM. and PavittK.: ‘Technological accumulation and industrial growth: contrasts between developed and developing countries’, Ind. Corp. Change, 1993, 2, 157–210.
3.
FransmanM.: ‘Information, knowledge, vision and theories of the firm’, Ind. Corp. Change, 1994, 3, 713–758.
4.
TeeceD. and PisanoG.: ‘The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction’, Ind. Corp. Change, 1994, 3, 537–556.
5.
Von tunzelmannG. N.: ‘Time-saving technical change: the cotton industry in the English Industrial Revolution’, Explor. Econ. Hist., 1995, 32, 1–27.
6.
‘Normal engineering’ is being defined here as by W. G. Vincenti: ‘What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history’, Chap. 1;1990, Baltimore, MD, London, Johns Hopkins University Press. It parallels the notion of ‘normal science’ as argued by T. S. Kuhn.
7.
Von TunzelmannG. N.: ‘Time-saving technical change: the cotton industry in the English Industrial Revolution’, Explor. Econ. Hist., 1995, 32, 1–27.
8.
ArmytageW. H. G.: ‘A social history of engineering’, 4th edn; 1976, London, Faber and Faber(1st edn 1961).
9.
FairbairnW.: ‘Treatise on mills and millwork’; 1861–1863, London.
10.
BergM.: ‘The machinery question and the making of political economy 1815–1848’, Chap. 7; 1980, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
11.
BuchananR. A.: ‘The engineers: a history of the engineering profession in Britain, 1750–1914’, 122; 1989, London, Jessica Kingsley.
12.
Quoted byArmytageW. H. G.: ‘A social history of engineering’, 1st edn, 122–123; 1961, London, Faber and Faber.
13.
See, for example, GloverI. A. and KellyM. P.: ‘Engineers in Britain: a sociological study of the engineering dimension’; 1987, London, Allen and Unwin, and sources quoted therein.
14.
There were some exceptions, of course; for instance in gas engineering where managers’ associations and engineers’ associations had much greater interaction.
15.
LazonickW.: ‘Competitive advantage on the shop floor’; 1990, Cambridge, MA, London, Harvard University Press.
16.
FinnistonM.(Chairman): ‘Engineering our future: report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Engineering Profession’, 22; 1980, London, HMSO(original emphasis).
17.
FinnistonM.(Chairman): ‘Engineering our future: report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Engineering Profession’, 26; 1980, London, HMSO(emphasis added).
18.
The only significant exception was the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the state of New York, for civil engineering from1824.
19.
CalvertM. A.: ‘The mechanical engineer in America, 1830–1910: professional cultures in conflict’; 1967, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
HounshellD. A.: ‘From the American system to mass production, 1800–1932: the development of manufacturing technology in the United States’; 1984, Baltimore, MD, London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
21.
ChandlerA. D.Jr: ‘The visible hand: the managerial revolution in American business’; 1977, Cambridge, MA, London, Belknap Press.
22.
Quoted byCalvertM. A.: ‘The mechanical engineer in America, 1830–1910: professional cultures in conflict’, 225; 1967, Baltimore, MD, London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
23.
WeberM.: ‘General economic history’, (trans. KnightF. H.); 1927, New York, Greenberg (reprinted (ed. CohenI. J.), 1981, New Brunswick, London, Transaction Books).
24.
ClarkJ. M.: ‘Studies in the economics of overhead costs’; 1923, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
25.
VeblenT.: ‘The theory of business enterprise’; 1904(reprinted 1964, New York, AugustusM. Kelley).
26.
TaylorF. W.: ‘The principles of scientific management’; 1911, New York, London, Harper(reprinted 1967, New York, London, Norton).
27.
CalvertM. A.: ‘The mechanical engineer in America, 1830–1910: professional cultures in conflict’, Chap. 4;1967, Baltimore, MD, London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
Quoted byCalvertM. A.: ‘The mechanical engineer in America, 1830–1910: professional cultures in conflict’, 151; 1967, Baltimore, MD, London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
ChandlerA. D.jr: ‘The visible hand: the managerial revolution in American business’, Chap. 8;1977, Cambridge, MA, London, Belknap Press.
30.
DevineW. D.jr: ‘From shafts to wires: historical perspectives on electrification’, J. Econ. Hist., 1983, 43, 347–372.
31.
CalvertM. A.: ‘The mechanical engineer in America, 1830–1910: professional cultures in conflict’, 74–75; 1967, Baltimore, MD, London, Johns Hopkins University Press.
32.
WiseG.: ‘Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the origins of US industrial research’; 1985, New York, Columbia University Press.
33.
ReichL. S.: ‘The making of American industrial research: science and business at GE and Bell, 1876–1926’; 1985, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
34.
These arguments are summarised in G. N. Von tunzelmann: ‘Technology and industrial progress: the foundations of economic growth’, Chap. 8;1995, Aldershot, Edgar Allen.
35.
ChandlerA. D.Jr: ‘Scale and scope: the dynamics of industrial capitalism’; 1990, Cambridge, MA, London, Belknap Press.
36.
OdagiriH. and GotoA.: ‘The Japanese system of innovation: past, present, and future’, in ‘National innovation systems: a comparative analysis’, (ed. NelsonR. R.), 76–114; 1993, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
37.
MorikawaH.: ‘The education of engineers in modern Japan: an historical perspective’, in ‘Industrial training and technological innovation’, (ed. GospelH. F.), 136–147; 1991, London, New York, Routledge.
38.
FukasakuY.: ‘Technology and industrial development in pre-war Japan: Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard 1884–1934’; 1992, London, New York, Routledge.
39.
doreR. R: ‘British factory: Japanese factory: the origins of national diversity in industrial relations’; 1973, London, Allen andUnwin; also his recent unpublished research.
40.
GloverI. A. and kellyM. R: ‘Engineering in Britain: a sociological study of the engineering dimension’, Chap. 6;1987, London, Allen andUnwin; note that in1982–83some 9342 students began engineering courses in Britain, only about one-fifth of the number in Japan. Of that British number, just 155 were assigned to production engineering courses. By comparison, there were, say, 635 entering to study classics.
41.
AokiM.: ‘Horizontal vs. vertical information structure of the firm’, Am. Econ. Rev., 1986, 76, 971–983.
42.
SchonbergerR. J.: ‘Japanese manufacturing techniquës: nine hidden lessons in simplicity’; 1982, New York, Free Press.
43.
CarmichaelH. L. and MacleodW. B.: ‘Multiskilling, technical change and the Japanese firm’, Econ. J., 1993, 103, 142–160.
44.
WestneyE.: ‘Country patterns in R&D organization: the United States and Japan’, in ‘Country competitiveness: technology and the organizing of work’, (ed. KogutB.), 36–53; 1993, New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
45.
MiyazakiK.: ‘Building competences in the firm: lessons from Japanese and European optoelectronics’; 1995, London, Macmillan.
