The author is in debt to the following for part of the scarce background material on Richards: The California State Library and the Department of Public Health, Sacramento; the San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco; and the Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino.
2.
RichardsJ.[ohn], Works AdministrationNos. 1–10. A series of lectures before the Students of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Palo Alto, California. Oct. 17, 1895–Jan. 23, 1896. [n.p.] [n.d.]. Each lecture had separate pagination and the printed series was not bound in regular book form.
3.
Ibid., No. 1 (Oct. 17, 1895), p. 2. Italics mine.
4.
Ibid., p. 1.
5.
Ibid., p. 6.
6.
Ibid., p. 9.
7.
TaylorFrederick W., “Shop Management,”The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Transactions, XXIV (1903), pp. 1, 389.
8.
Richards, op. cit., No. 6 (Dec. 5, 1895), pp. 1–2.
9.
Ibid., pp. 3–4.
10.
Ibid., pp. 4–5.
11.
RichardsJ., An Engineering Student's Notes (San Francisco: Industrial Publishing Company, 1904).
12.
HenryR. Towne's 1886 article mentioned general management very briefly (two sentences). The discussants did not pick up the idea at all. See “The Engineer as an Economist,”The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Transactions, VII (1886), 428–432. All of Towne's details on the nature of his “management” referred to record keeping and cost determination. Similarly, Henry Metcalfe wrote of principles and the science of administration but the details he gave to explain these dealt with cost determination, record keeping, and records systems. See The Cost of Manufactures and the Administration of Workshops, Public and Private (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1885). Frederick W. Taylor's published writings in the nineteenth century did not reveal his general management ideas. It was not until 1903 that his ideas on functional foremanship were published (though Taylor had the idea and practiced it in the early 1880's). Taylor's contemporary ideas on initiating changes, the broad nature of management, the importance of the objective, and discipline, were inferior to those of Richards. See Taylor, op. cit., pp. 1,337–1,456.
