Robert L. Williams, Ph.D., P.E., Chair
ANSI Z94 Committee on Industrial Engineering Terminology
MAKEUP OF THE Z94.0 STANDARD
This volume contains definitions of terms, symbols and acronyms that are associated with the broad field of industrial engineering. It is the result of the work of hundreds of leading practitioners and educators striving to present the best current usage of the language of the profession.
This is a revision of Industrial Engineering Terminology, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard Z94.0-1989, published in 1990. The original standard was published in 1972. This revision has been widely circulated for review and was approved as an American National Standard by ANSI in 1998.
The terminology is organized into seventeen sections as follows:
Z94.1 ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND OPERATIONS RESEARCH
Z94.2 ANTHROPOMETRY AND BIOMECHANICS
Z94.3 COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Z94.4 COST ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Z94.5 DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING
Z94.6 EMPLOYEE AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Z94.7 ENGINEERING ECONOMY
Z94.8 FACILITY PLANNING AND DESIGN
Z94.9 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING
Z94.11 MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS
Z94.12 MATERIALS PROCESSING
Z94.13 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Z94.14 OPERATIONS AND INVENTORY PLANNING AND CONTROL
Z94.15 ORGANIZATION PLANNING AND THEORY
Z94.16 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND RELIABILITY
Z94.17 WORK DESIGN AND MEASUREMENT
In accordance with ANSI procedures all of these sections were reviewed and all were significantly revised and expanded. In revising Z94.1989, a new section on "Management" was added because of the long and close association between industrial engineering and management. In order to give emphasis to the areas, the new sections "Quality Assurance and Reliability" and "Analytical Techniques and Operations Research" evolved from the 1989 section entitled "Applied Mathematics." "Anthropometry and Biomechanics" resulted from a merging of two earlier sections as was "Occupational Health and Safety." And a few sections had title changes. Otherwise, the terminology is organized in the same manner as the 1989 standard that followed in large part the taxonomy used in the Institute of Industrial Engineers AIIE Research Abstracts. The section entitled "Cost Engineering and Project Management" was adapted from the terminology of the American Association of Cost Engineers and is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
Although this present edition of Industrial Engineering Terminology recognizes contemporary trends in industrial engineering, it is only appropriate to mention those leaders who, while not directly associated with this new edition (some having passed on), did lay the foundation for the work. Col. Clarence E. Davies (whose early association was with H. L. Gantt but whose later work was involved for more than half a century with ASME at the highest level). Professor David B. Porter, who also worked with Gantt, drew the first Gantt Progress Chart, and established the first collegiate course in motion study well over half a century ago. Henry N. Muller who was a main force behind the negotiation committee for the establishment of the terminology project as well as President of ASME and Dr. Harold B. Maynard (MTM founder and author of ASME's 1955 publication, Industrial Engineering Terminology). These well known leaders, together with AIIE Emeritus Executive Director Jack Jericho, Professor Delmar W. Karger (Emeritus Dean and Ford Foundation Professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) and Dr. William J. Jaffe (Emeritus Distinguished Professor, New Jersey Institute of Technology) were involved in standardizing industrial engineering definitions which ultimately resulted in the establishment of the Industrial Engineering Terminology project under the American National Standards Institute.
Every effort has been made to produce a clear and concise set of definitions for the terms. Some ambiguities and errors may regrettably have found their way into the terminology. Corrections and other suggestions for change should be sent to:
Dr. Robert L. Williams, Chair
ANSI Z94 Committee on Industrial Engineering Terminology
Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Systems Engineering
Athens, OH 45701-29779
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
A major goal of the terminology is to standardize usage of industrial engineering terms while reflecting the diversity of current usage. It is expected that more consistency of use in terminology will be achieved as the industrial engineering profession becomes accustomed to this standard and that a profession which is so committed to standards will itself submit to standard terminology. The terminology herein presented is an attempt to capture the current best usage of the terms.
In order to meet these objectives, invitations to join the committee were issued by the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE), Secretariat for the ANSI Z94 Committee on Industrial Engineering Terminology, to a wide variety of groups including professional societies, trade groups, and labor organizations. Those that elected to participate by appointing representatives are listed below.
American National Standards Committee Z94
Robert L. Williams, Chair
Maura Reeves, Secretary
James A. Bontadelli, Vice Chair
John L. Zalusky
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
Harvey Gittler, P.E.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COST ENGINEERS
Robert C. Creese, Ph.D.
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia
Kenneth K. Humphreys, P.E., C.C.E.
American Association of Cost Engineers
Morgantown, West Virginia
AMERICAN COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION
Marc J. Wallace, Ph.D., CCP
University of Kentucky
AMERICAN PRODUCTION AND INVENTORY CONTROL SOCIETY
Timothy J. Greene, Ph.D.
Oklahoma State University
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS
Stuart R. Mirowitz, CIH, CSP
Paramus, New Jersey
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR QUALITY CONTROL
Harrison Wadsworth, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Georgia Institute of Technology
INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS
James A. Bontadelli, Ph.D., P.E.
Vice Chair of the Z94 Committee
University of Tennessee
Secretary of the Committee
Formerly of Institute of Industrial Engineers
Robert L. Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Chair of the Z94 Committee
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
Philip C. Nunn
Management Technologies, Inc.
SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS
Joseph I. ElGomayel, Ph.D.
West Lafayette, Indiana
HISTORY OF THE Z94 COMMITTEE
The Z94 Project, Industrial Engineering Terminology, was originally organized in 1966 under the procedures of the American National Standards Institute (formerly known as American Standards Association and then U.S. Standards Institute). After a lengthy period of preliminary discussions, the project was organized as a joint venture between the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Institute of Industrial Engineers (now IIE)-with Dr. William J. Jaffe, Professor (now Emeritus Distinguished Professor) of Industrial Engineering, Newark College of Engineering (now NJ Institute of Technology), as Chairman, and Professor Delmar W. Karger (then Dean and now Emeritus Ford Foundation Professor of Management, School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) as Vice Chairman. Dr. Jaffe represented ASME and Professor Karger AIIE.
The committee was reorganized under the sole secretariat of the Institute of Industrial Engineers in 1982 with Dr. Robert L. Williams serving as Chair. Invitations were issued to other organizations to join the committee in order to help in the revision and development of the terminology. Dr. James A. Bontadelli was named Vice Chair and Mr. Gregory Balestrero was appointed Secretary. In revising Z94-1972, the ASME and AIIE suggested that Z94.0 Industrial Engineering Terminology appear in a single volume instead of the individual ones of the earlier Standard. However, to retain the advantages of separating the disciplines-see below (Definitions)-it was decided that all of the twelve previously issued single volumes (Z94.1: Biomechanics; Z94.2: Cost Engineering, etc.) appear, in their revised forms as Sections 1, 2, etc., respectively, in the new edition. Hence, Sections 1 through 12 were the revisions of the 1972 sections. The section entitled Applied Psychology was retained but reduced in scope since it was judged to be unrealistically comprehensive. As a result, new sections were added: Human Factors, Wage and Salary Administration, Anthropometry, Safety and Occupational Health and Medicine.
In revising Z94-1983, the need for a new section emphasizing the emerging field of integrated manufacturing was recognized. A section entitled Manufacturing Systems was added for that purpose. The section on Applied Psychology was eliminated because of the extensive duplication of terms with the section on Wage and Salary Administration. Terms in the deleted section were incorporated into the other sections as appropriate. The titles of two sections were changed. Wage and Salary Administration was changed to Employee and Industrial Relations to better reflect the current practice. For the same reason, Data Processing and Systems Design was changed to Computer and Information Systems.
In revising Z94.1989, a new section on "Management" was added because of its long and close association with industrial engineering. In order to give emphasis to the areas, "Quality Assurance and Reliability" and "Analytical Techniques and Operations Research" grew out of the 1983 section entitled "Applied Mathematics." "Biomechanics" and "Anthropometry" were merged into one section as were "Safety" and "Occupational Health and Medicine."
Seventeen subcommittees were organized to revise the terminology. The chairs of these working subcommittees and their respective sections are listed below.
Anita L. Callahan, Ph.D. Co-chair
University of South Florida
Joseph I. ElGomayel, Professor
Lloyd English, P.E.
American Association of Cost Engineers
Mitchell Fein, P.E., C.M.C.
Mitchell Fein, Inc.
Gerald A. Fleischer, Professor
University of Southern California
Paul E. Givens, Ph.D. Co-chair
University of South Florida
Timothy J. Greene, Ph.D.
Oklahoma State University
M. Susan Hallbeck, Ph.D., P.E.
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
William E. Hammer, Jr., CSP, President
Hammer Management Consulting
L. Ken Keys, Ph.D., Dean
Cleveland State University
D. L. Kimbler, Ph.D., P.E.
Alex Kirlik, Ph.D.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Thomas A. Lacksonen, Ph.D., P.E.
University of Wisconsin, Stout
Steven A. Lavender, Ph.D.
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center
Kenneth D. Lawrence
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Soter G. Liberty, P.E., President
S.G. Liberty Associates, Inc.
Jean-Paul Prentice, CCE
Resource Optimization, Inc.
Michael R. Taafe, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota
John Talty, M.S., P.E., DEE
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
ORGANIZATION PLANNING AND THEORY
COST ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
WORK DESIGN AND MEASUREMENT
ORGANIZATION PLANNING AND THEORY
OPERATIONS AND INVENTORY PLANNING AND CONTROL
ANTHROPOMETRY AND BIOMECHANICS
COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
HUMAN FACTORS (ERGONOMICS) ENGINEERING
FACILITY PLANNING AND DESIGN
HUMAN FACTORS/ANTHROPOMETRY (Coordinator)
DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING
EMPLOYEE AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
COST ENGINEERING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND OPERATIONS RESEARCH
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Harrison Wadsworth, Jr., Ph.D. Georgia Institute of Technology
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND RELIABILITY
The Z94 Committee is deeply indebted to the pioneering work of earlier committees and their leadership. Special acknowledgment must be given for the leadership of Dr. William J. Jaffe and Professor Delmar W. Karger, the chair and vice-chair, respectively, of the Z94 Committee from its inception through 1982.
The standard definitions for each section were derived by the respective Subcommittee. Upon adoption by the Subcommittee, the definitions were next submitted to all other subcommittees of Z94 for examination and suggestions. Revisions were often made, and the definitions adopted by the respective subcommittees were approved and adopted by the Z94 Standards Committee. Although the subcommittee members were chosen for their expertise, it was obvious that some definitions cut across all fields of IE, despite any attempt at dividing the entire IE discipline. Thus, for example, planning could not be the sole possession of the Organization Planning and Theory Subcommittee, but could be found in other sections as well (e.g., Production Planning and Control). Again, the term control was a matter of concern to the Applied Mathematics Subcommittee (e.g., Statistical Quality Control) as well as the Cost Engineering Subcommittee. It was natural that, over the years, many supposedly common terms were used differently among the various divisions of the field. This should not be surprising, since even in the quantitative aspects the letter "c" could refer to c-charts (plotting number of defects) and to sampling plans where it represented the acceptance number. What was really surprising was the fact that in relatively few instances were there any real disagreements. However, in some instances, the term had become so ingrained that it was necessary to give both definitions. Again, in some cases, the "application" of the term was allowed to stand along with the definition.
Again, there was naturally the question as to the exact place where a definition belonged. This was especially true in cases where more than one subcommittee used the term. This may not be as simple as it sounds, for it is not limited to aspects where the same term is used in an exact sense. Consider, for example, the term industrial engineering, which might properly belong in any or all sections. However, because of the historical-as well as the continuing-association with Motion and Time Study, the term is found in the Work Measurement and Methods section. In all instances, the reader should bear in mind that the fundamental definition belongs to the basic subcommittee, and, in the event that another is given, the less general application is limited to use in a particular aspect of IE (e.g., the Distribution and Marketing Subcommittee's application of Linear Programming-an Applied Mathematics Subcommittee term-to a marketing problem). However, a cross-reference between Z94 volumes is noted.
It must be admitted that this problem of determining where a definition belonged could have been easily avoided by grouping all definitions together-with no consideration as to a subdivision of the entire IE field. As tempting as that may have been, in view of the possible boundary questions, the purpose of breaking up the IE field into specific subdivisions and the resulting separate sections was for the convenience of the practitioner. Hence, the breakdown into seventeen separate sections. It must be admitted that even this is not without its impending problems in view of the fact that IE terms cut across the fictitious boundaries. To overcome this, an overall index was prepared, and, it is hoped this will prove useful in finding definitions in any specific category.
Although the basic responsibilities for the definitions are those of the particular subcommittee, in particular, and the Z94 Committee, in general, it is likely that the reader, particularly the practitioner, for whom these definitions are of more than academic interest, will have suggestions as to omissions, revisions, and additions. Such suggestions are not only invited, but solicited with advance appreciation. It will be helpful if these discerning readers and practitioners will contact Dr. Williams, the Z94 Chairman, Industrial and Systems Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701-2979.
THE INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FIELD
The task of determining the exact limits of the IE field was not an easy one, despite the Committee's acceptance of the official IIE definition:
Industrial Engineering is concerned with the design, improvement, and installation of integrated systems of people, materials, information, equipment, and energy. It draws upon specialized knowledge and skill in the mathematical, physical, and social sciences, together with the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, to specify, predict and evaluate the results obtained from such systems.
Official recognition is, of course, exceedingly helpful, but in spite of all admonitions of strict adherence and interpretation, the field is a living and dynamic one. Even more important, terms are used by people and are at their mercy.
There is, perhaps, as far as the industrial engineer and his/her predecessors are concerned, no better example of the changing field than the statement made by the pioneer, Hoxie , who is probably best remembered as the one who was among the first to define the relationship between scientific and organized labor, and who insisted that "…Time and motion study, therefore, must be regarded as the chief cornerstone." Although hardly anyone would deny this as being the historical pattern, some today would seriously question so basic a role ascribed to this aspect of the field. Even the terms themselves-time and motion study and scientific management-are seldom used by practitioners at present. In fact, these are terms that are foreign to many of today's students, who may be unaware of the historical roots of IE.
If a pragmatic beginning is sought for industrial engineering, it can be found in the pioneering work of Taylor in his attempt to answer the question: What is a fair day's work? Taylor was fond of quoting President Theodore Roosevelt who insisted that "The conservation of our national resources is only preliminary to the larger question of national efficiency." Almost a hundred years ago, Taylor noted:
We can see our forests vanishing, our water-powers going to waste, our soil being carried by floods into the sea; and the end of our coal and iron is in sight. But our larger wastes of human effort, which go on every day through such of our acts are as blundering, ill-directed, or inefficient…
Hence, Taylor looked for the competently, well-trained employee and employer. "The principal object of management," he asserted, "should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity of each employee." Initiative and incentive of the worker was only half the problem, management was the other half. Hence, he developed four principles: develop a science for each element of the employee's work to replace the old rule of thumb method; scientifically select, train, teach, and develop the worker; heartily cooperate so that all work is accomplished in accordance with the principles of the science developed; an almost equal division of work and responsibility between management and workers.
Early in his career it was Taylor's need to discover "some rule or law which would enable a foreman to know in advance how much of any kind of heavy laboring work one who was well-suited to the job ought to do in a day: that is, to study the tiring effect of heavy labor on a first-class man." Research on earlier work, indicated that two types of experiments had been made. Physiologists studied the endurance of the human animal; engineers, determined to discover what part of a horse-power a man-power was, had men lifting loads by turning winches, lifting weights, etc. Workers were studied by Taylor, and data were translated into foot-pounds. Using the concept of the product of force and distance could obviously not yield a relationship between foot-pounds of work and the tiring effect on the worker. (Clearly, a worker, standing still but holding a weight in his hands, was, according to the physicists, not working.) Convinced that there was a relationship somewhere in his data, Taylor assigned the task to Carl Barth, who derived a law, confined to that class of work in which the limit of a worker's capacity is reached because of being tired. This was the law of heavy laboring where the worker's strength is exerted by pushing, pulling, grasping. The worker could be under load only part of the day. Thus when pig iron was handled (with a pig weighing 92 pounds), the worker could be under load only 43 percent of the day, and free of load for 53 percent. Handling half a pig, the worker could be under load 58 percent of the day. As the load lightens, the time under load increases, until the load is so light, the worker can carry the load the entire day. At this point the law of endurance ceases to operate, and some other law must be found to indicate a worker's capacity for work.
Taylor, influenced by his early teachers-especially the celebrated American mathematics text writer, Wentworth- relied on the stopwatch. Hence, the pioneering work took place in what became known as time study. The Gilbreths, insisting on emphasizing the method of work, set the goal as the one best way; this became known as motion study. This schism has, over the years, subsided-but motion and time study marks the beginning of industrial engineering as we know it. It is altogether possible that the educators themselves-few, if any, of whom identify their respective departments as teaching scientific management-have added to the confusion of all, including students. Educators are prone to identify their IE departments as teaching solely industrial engineering. In fact, they often couple the IE with numerous other connotations. Thus, there are departments of Industrial Engineering and…Operations Research, Management Science, Management Engineering, Systems Engineering, Administrative Engineering, Engineering Management, to mention a few. To complicate matters further, they also teach, in addition to courses with the aforementioned titles, those in Industrial Management, Production Management, etc.
The IE educators are not alone in this endeavor to search for more encompassing appellations. The practitioners, themselves, have also engaged in this practice. Many, schooled in IE techniques, have identified themselves by titles quite similar to those that the educators have adopted: thus, they use the names Management Consultant, Management Engineer, Systems Engineer, and so on. Many believe, simply, that the adoption of the term Engineer, of course, should be limited to those licensed by the respective state boards. Many of these, in fact, simply use the term Professional Engineer, without further definition of their specialties. Naturally, their respective societies have followed suit, and these practitioners are found in divisions of the "founding" engineering societies, as well as in the "management," the "operations research," the "system" societies, in addition to the basic society for the IEs. In all of these societies, there has been, from time to time, strong movements for name changes. The reasons, like those in the educational institutions, have been manifold: the field is dynamic and not static, the splinter societies are attracting a great number of members merely by stressing these new fields, the name no longer identifies what the practitioner does, etc.
There is a sufficient history for this-in other fields as well. Probably the best example is the oldest of the engineering societies' fields-Civil Engineering. In many of the American schools of engineering, the "classical" title Civil Engineering Department is no more. If the name has not been changed completely, it has taken on companion titles-Sanitary Engineering, Urban Planning, Environmental Engineering, and others. Again, this is understandable, for the history of engineering shows a pattern of fragmentation, consolidation, and then further fragmentation and consolidation. Thus, in the United States, the American Institute of Civil Engineers, owes its foundation (1852) to those who felt that engineering had applications other than those with which the military was concerned. Moreover, this great interest and concern for nonmilitary (or civil) engineering was not limited to this country. The British Institution of Civil Engineers adopted quite early the famous definition of Thomas Tredgold (1882) and included it on its membership certificates :
A society for the general advancement of mechanical science and more particularly for promoting the acquisition of that species of knowledge which constitutes the profession of civil engineer, being the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man.
Hence, what began as a seeming fragmentation resulted in an all-encompassing objective.
Yet this was followed by more fragmentation. The engineers with specific interest in mining, for example, broke away and formed their own society which, incidentally, followed the fragmentation by a consolidation with the metallurgists to establish the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. The nonmilitary group soon experienced further fragmentation when the engineer with interests in machinery formed The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Soon the electrical machine group broke away to form the American Institute of Electrical Engineers-only to experience similar fragmentation and consolidation with the radio engineers and the electronics group. Hence, the breaking away of the group of engineers and others who rallied around Frederick W. Taylor-himself a former ASME president-repeated the cycle that had become so common in engineering. In the first place, the "break" was never clear-cut. Although a few left ASME to join the Taylor Society, many retained dual membership-a practice that was continued when the Taylor Society combined with the Society of Industrial Engineers to form the Society for (the) Advancement of Management. In fact, when the AIIE came on the scene in 1948, many maintained triple membership.
This process continued as more and more specialized interest groups appeared-Quality Control, Operations Research, Management Science, Systems, etc. The IE practitioner, like the IE educator, often views these newer groups with forebodings. Unsure that his discipline has taken sufficient cognizance of this development, and fearful that many, in pursuit of this newer field, will forsake the older, he seeks to identify the old with the new. However, this search for the "best of all possible worlds" is not without its dangers, as well as its confusion.
Consider the use of the "systems" term. A "system," to quote Johnson, Kast, and Rosenzweig, authors of the Theory and Management of Systems , is an "organized or complex whole; an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex of unitary whole." Thus, the data processing engineer, the electronics engineer, as well as the geographer, the clergyman, the anatomist, to mention but a few-can lay claim to data processing systems, communications systems, transportation systems, religious systems, anatomical systems, etc. The same is true of the industrial engineer. The quoted authors insist that, in input-output language, managers are essentially the agents who convert the inputs of disorganized resources of man (now identified as people), money and machinery, into outputs of useful goods and services. Thus management is decision systems, communication systems, control systems, etc.
This is not something new. In fact, it is almost impossible to discuss IE without reference to its historical roots, scientific management and Taylor. Here, too, matters seem a bit hazy, for even in reference to management itself, a babel of terms has persisted and continue to plague us. Even among English-speaking countries, there is confusion about the meaning of the term and its use.
Although the articulate may carefully distinguish among management, rationalization, rationalisation, organization, organisation, administration, the terms seem to be used almost interchangeably . Although management has Latin roots (from Italian maneggiare = to handle horses; from Latin manus = hand), none of the other languages especially the Romance languages-use any form of the term. They advocate: organisation scientifique (thus, for example, Comite International de l'Organisation Scientifique), organizacao racional de trabalho, racionalizacion del travajo, organizzazione del lavore, Wirtschaflichkeit, Betriebslehre, Betriebsfuhrung, etc. Thus, the noun in the title of Fayol's classic, Administration Industrielle et Generale, was first-translated as administration by Conbrough (1929) and later management by Storr (1949). As a matter of fact, Urwick, not only noted the correctness of the Storr translation, but he also noted, unhappily, that the term management is popularly associated with definitions connotating cajolery and trickery on the one hand, but used more authoritatively, as an activity, a body of knowledge, a group of persons, etc. Just as there were problems of translating the title of Fayol's work into English, there were problems in the reverse process-viz., translating Taylor's title into French by Le Chatelier, who used the term l' organisation scientifique du travail, which essentially is the French equivalent for a labor union. As for the German term, it is not a happy choice, for Betriebsfuhrung is related to the German verb treiben-to drive.
The direct association of management with engineering-particularly in the United States-came early in the history of ASME, and when Taylor spoke of management-particularly shop management-the concern was a matter that had occupied the attention of the earlier ASME presidents. In fact, R.H. Thurston  the first ASME president, in his inaugural address, included social economy among the "Objects of the Society." Not only did H.R. Towne, in that "bench mark of scientific management," The Engineer as Economist,  include "shop management" as a field of interest, but, in an ASME session, substituting for President Coleman Sellars,  he suggested "industrial or economic questions" because ASME had, among its membership, "more than the Civil Engineers or the Mining Engineers men who are managers of labor, who are either owners or representatives of owners, and who, therefore, control capital." And, it is of special interest to note that (1920) the ASME council approved and adopted the First Report of the Committee of Aims and Organizations  (L.C. Marburg, Chairman), which included the statement: …that Industrial Engineering is a major subject for consideration by the Society and shall be placed on par with all major subjects. In his Cost and Production Handbook, L.P. Alford , codifier of management laws and principles, included under the all-inclusive term Industrial Engineering, the "laws" of Taylor, Fayol, and Alford, himself. Little wonder, then, that ASME in 1955, as an outgrowth of its Management Division's Work Standardization Committee (1948), sponsored an IE Terminology , which itself, has had its influence on this present Terminology.
Although it must be noted that the ASME never did establish an IE division, its IE partisans were mainly housed in its Management Division, again indicating some sort of concomitance between IE and Management. Nor was this the only instance. As already noted , some ASME members joined with some non-ASME members to form a group-at first informal, but later formal-known as the Society to Promote the Science of Management, which, after Taylor's death in 1915, became known as the Taylor Society. This society, in 1936, merged with the Society of Industrial Engineers-a group which, in 1917, probably as a measure for helping the war effort, was formed from the Western Efficiency Society (1910-to establish the Society for (the) Advancement of Management (SAM). SAM attracted a wide spectrum of members-some with ASME's Management Division, some with the National Association of Cost Accountants, some with the National Personnel Association, some unattached-to form an overall umbrella for most of the management practitioners. SAM's interests can be readily perceived from its Glossary of Terms Used in Methods, Time Study and Wage Incentives . Among its other interests were problems relating to budgets and costing in production and distribution, performance in factories, offices, and stores, as well as operations in both profit and nonprofit institutions. In addition there were numerous other organizations specializing in all of these plus many more aspects of IE. Finally, in 1948, the American Institute of Industrial Engineers (AIIE) was established: its objectives were many and compelling, but perhaps the most important was the professional recognition of IE. AIIE published a terminology in 1965 to document terms in common usage . This organization is now known as the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE).
The growth of AIIE has tended to emphasize the engineering aspects of the field, and, at the same time, has caused a continual re-examination and re-appraisal of the old concept of equating IE with Management. To date, no clear cut definitions have been recognized as far as the lay public is concerned, even though specific moves have been made by the professionals in identifying the field and acquainting the public with such notions. However, in many instances there have been concerted efforts to broaden the limits so as to encompass as much territory as possible. This has been especially true as new concepts and ideas have come into being: for example, operations research, bioengineering, systems engineering, to mention but a few. Many practitioners have found that such acquisition can be accomplished by considering themselves not only as adherents to an IE practice, but as advisers to management, in general. Many of the professional societies, fearful of either an exodus of members from their societies, or a failure to attract the new adherents who might seek independent societies devoted entirely to these "new frontiers" have attempted to solve the dilemma by establishing divisions in which specific interests may be pursued. Some societies have, in fact, considered name changes. This concern about territorial limits as well as the accompanying titles has long been a problem of the colleges which, of course, are among the first to sense the rise of the new branches.
Probably, of all the colleges, the most concerned have been the engineering colleges, in general, and the IE departments, in particular. Although accreditation is a major factor in all recognized colleges, it is particularly acute in the engineering college because of its relation to professional registration, a matter which is less critical in the liberal arts and the business colleges. In fact, a whole system of "common law" definitions have come about with management (without an identifying adjective) as the property of the business school, and management (accompanied by such terms as engineering and/or industrial engineering) as the concern of the engineering school, and management (with the single adjective industrial) as the subject matter of the technological institute. There is, of course, no hard and fast rule, but "IE" has been taken as belonging solely to the engineering school. However, this, despite the IIE definition, did not solve the boundary problem.
Historically , the first IE department was established at The Pennsylvania State-then, College, but now University, with Hugo Diemer at the head. He had been recommended by Taylor, who, in turn, had been asked by Beaver, a former Governor of Pennsylvania and President of the Penn State Board of Trustees, to suggest a "man who could teach mechanical engineering from the standpoint of production rather than machine performance" (1907). It is interesting to note that Diemer had, since 1905, been teaching courses in shop management, at the University of Kansas . Individual courses were offered by Professor Diemer at the University of Kansas in 1901, by Professor Dexter Kimball at Cornell University in 1904 and by Professor Walter Rautenstrauch at Columbia in 1907 . The University of Pennsylvania, on the other hand, was pioneering with its Wharton School, which had been established (1881) on the recommendation of James Wharton, in the belief that "management should be separated from ownership and developed as a profession." Because of the "scientific management" tradition associated with Taylor, it was clear that the engineering school's program included management courses. In fact, the management term appeared frequently in describing the courses and the departments, because many shied away from the IE term since it was associated by some with "efficiency" practitioners. And so, for a while, many departments named themselves with such titles as Administrative Engineering, Engineering Administration, Industrial Administration, Manufacturing Engineering, Manufacturing Management, Management Engineering, Commercial Engineering, etc. However, a basic group retained the IE appellation, which, eventually with accreditation programs, became the dominating title, especially with the establishment of AIIE and its promotion of a professional status.
Despite the title, management courses formed a most important part of the IE curriculum, and these attracted many students less technically oriented but anxious for positions in industry with high status and high wages. AIIE's attempt to solidify the professional engineering aspects, provided an external impetus, while the development of courses in mathematical and statistical applications served as an internal catalyst in strengthening the IE program. Soon the titles Operations Research, Management Science, and Systems Engineering, were added to the IE name.
These supplementary titles-used by the educators and the practitioners alike-have certainly not clarified matters, and both students and non-students are not too clear about the domain of IE. The defense, if any is needed, is quite simple: The IE field is broad and can and does encompass all such disciplines. Moreover, as each new vista appears, it attracts many, and so the consolidation-fragmentation cycle, noted above, begins all over again. Thus, in the World War II period, it was the application of statistical methods (especially in the field of quality and inspection), next came the more sophisticated mathematical and team approach (with operations research and management science), then the systems concept. In all probability, the next phase will be the application of biology and the life sciences.
IE, MANAGEMENT, ETC.
Through all these metamorphoses and connotations, one aspect seems to have prevailed from the beginning. This is management, for IE begins, as we know it, with Taylor-"the Father of Scientific Management." All of the pioneers were, in one way or another, concerned with it: Church (The Science and Practice of Management), Alford (Laws of Management Applied to Manufacturing), Cooke (Spirit and Social Significance of Scientific Management), Diemer (Factory Organization and Administration), the Gilbreths (Primer of Scientific Management, The Psychology of Management, etc.), Gantt (Industrial Leadership, etc.), Kimball (Plant Management), et al.
However, it must be admitted that no single definition of management has been accepted. The famous ASME Report of 1912 [l7] dealt with the "new element," but did not offer any specific definition of management, scientific or otherwise. In fact, the very term scientific management was seemingly concocted by a distinguished group-Gantt, Gilbreth, Emerson, and others-to aid Brandeis in the celebrated Eastern Rate Case Hearings (1910), even though Taylor had used the term in a limited sense earlier (1903). The adjective was probably meant to indicate that management could be studied and practiced deliberately and systematically, and that it was not the result of capricious, rule-of-thumb, seat-of-pants, meanderings. However, the term (scientific management) has had limited use during approximately the last quarter of a century. On the other hand, the term, management, has been used extensively both as a noun and as an adjective especially in all fields associated with IE.
Numerous definitions of management have appeared, and even the briefest examination of a few of these will show the wide diversity the matter has aroused even among the professionals.  Thus,
Management is a broad term and covers almost all factors of an enterprise. 
Management proper is the function in industry concerned in the execution of policy, within the limits set up by administration and the employment of the organization for the particular objectives set before it. 
Management is the science of applied human effort…
Management is involved in the avoidance of waste in any human effort. 
Management-the development of people, not the direction of things. 
Management is the art and science of organizing, preparing and directing the human effort applied to control the forces and utilize the materials of nature for the benefit of mankind. 
Management is the art of getting work done. 
To manage is to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate and control. 
Of course, there are others, but the definition given in this Z94 Standard (see Z94.9 Organization Planning and Theory) is:
Management: (1) The process of utilizing material and human resources to accomplish designated objectives. It involves the activities of planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling. (2) That group of people who perform the functions described in (1), above.
This definition is basic. Certainly, it can be restated in many other ways, but retaining these fundamental concepts. Thus, it can be seen to be the process by which the execution of a given purpose is put into operation and supervised. Or, again, in another way, management may be defined as the process by means of which the purposes and objectives of a particular human group are determined, clarified, and effectuated.
Thus, Professor D.W. Karger can paraphrase his School of Management (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) Long Range Planning Document to say:
Management refers to the systematic organization, allocation, and application of economic and human resources to bring about a controlled change; the role of management in these proceedings is one of organization and coordination of human effort in exploiting resources for the improvement of the organization involved.
With all these diverse "definitions" among the experts, it is not surprising to find that management takes on a wide variety of meanings among the laymen (including cajolery, trickery, and totalitarianism). However, even among the "experts" two other words-administration and organization have often been used interchangeably with it, especially administration. The interchangeable use, among many, of management and administration has been noted in this Z94 Standard, which also calls attention to a distinction (concerned with the goal-establishing, policy-formulation part of management). This concept is consistent with Sheldon and Spriegel, who point out some very interesting aspects of the two terms. According to Spriegel , business circles consider management the more inclusive term, while governmental agencies consider administration the more inclusive. To the business world, administration is usually equated with that part of management usually described as top management. Sheldon  puts it quite succinctly in considering administration as "the function in industry concerned with the determination of corporate policy."
Whether it is because, as Dionysius has said, "education is contact with manners," or, as Shakespeare has insisted, namely "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet," the engineering college, in general, and the IE Department in particular, have adopted a great variety of names-not only to describe their courses, but to describe the IE Department itself. Others, of course, shy away from the IE connotation completely, and choose such names as a "Department of Administrative Engineering, Department of Engineering Administration," etc. Theoretically, industrial management, a term that had for years been used to describe some of the Industrial Engineering Department courses concerned with application of management to industrial problems, has been exiled to a strange limbo-a field that combines management with business, and "outside" the "true" engineering curriculum. It is paradoxical that it has been adopted by some of our foremost technological institutes-with great success. More often than not, the departure of industrial management from current IE curricula arises from a fear of a misunderstanding by engineering accreditation groups, as well as an inhibition on the part of purists who sense some contamination. On the other hand, in full realization of the need of such knowledge on the part of its students, quite frequently, the IE Department has adopted the material under some other name-probably being careful to add the term engineering to the title: e.g., Management Engineering, Administrative Engineering.
Because of the heavy mathematical orientation, Operations Research (OR) and Management Science (MS) have been quickly embraced as titles by the IE Department. In fact, so enthusiastic has been the adoption that many have given these equal billing with IE. (This has not been without problems, for the broad base of OR, for example, has caused it, in at least one great American engineering college, to move the subject from the IE Department to the Civil Engineering Department. In another, it was moved to the School of Commerce.) The breadth of the OR field allowed the IE Department to assume this discipline among its courses, while, on the other hand, OR provided a potent weapon for attacking IE problems.
The strength of OR can be readily observed from the definition given by Churchman, Ackoff, and Arnoff in their pioneering text :
Operations research in the most general sense can be characterized as the application of scientific methods, techniques, and tools to problems involving the operation of systems so as to provide those in control of the operations with the optimum solution of the problem.
With heavy emphasis on the multi-disciplined team and with a heavy orientation to a mathematical and statistical approach, OR, originally applied to military matters (hence its name), soon was useful in civilian matters. And the industrial engineer especially became interested in its application to management problems, particularly when they could be studied by mathematical models with optimization as a prime objective. Weinwurm  and others felt the "need for a thorough and detailed analysis of the decision making process…as a cause for the development of a management science"-with two approaches possible. One approach was "rationalistic with emphasis on building models," while the other insisted that the human element could not be neglected and took special cognizance of the fact that decisions were made by human beings-with the consequent result of a great need for the incorporation of "behavioristic and organization concepts." An integrated theory of organization soon took place (Simon) .
Thus, IE, whose relationship with Management continued, could not possibly overlook the development of OR and MS. And, hence, its association with these fields developed. But, this IE-Management association did not stop here. In more recent years management has come to be viewed in terms of systems. A system can be defined as…an organized or complex whole; an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex of unitary whole . The organization is, in this sense, a system wherein certain inputs are transformed to certain outputs-i.e., Management is a system that converts men, money, materials and machines into goods and services. Moreover, management can thus be viewed as control systems, decision systems, and communications systems-domains claimed by managers and their IE advisers.
Little wonder, then, that IE, whose official definition includes such concepts as systems, mathematical, physical, and social sciences, engineering analysis and design, can take on, along with management, a term which has been with IE since its beginning, such appellations as OR, MS and Systems. Admittedly, the IE field is broad-exceedingly broad-and further and further horizons may be expected, and the consolidation-fragmentation cycle will, in all probability, continue. It is hopeful that this Z94.0 Industrial Engineering Terminology will-like the others that preceded and are bound to follow it-become a chart for delineating and defining the field.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 The following sections (Definitions; The Industrial Engineering Field; IE, Management, etc.), were written by Dr. William J. Jaffe for earlier editions of the terminology and have been changed only in minor ways.
 R. R. Hoxie. Scientific management and labor welfare. Journal of Political Economy, XXIV, 1916, p.838. (C.F. Taylor said many years ago: "Time study is by far the most important element in scientific management." q.v. by A. H. Mogensen. Common Sense Applied to Motion and Time Study. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1932, p. 7.)
 A. C. Humphreys. Lecture Notes on the Business Features of Engineering Practice, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Stevens Institute of Technology, 1916, p. 7.
 R. A. Johnson, F. E. Kast, and J. E. Rosenzweig. The Theory and Management of Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963, p.4.
 L. M. Gilbreth and W. J. Jaffe. Management's past-a guide to its future. Fifty Years Progress in Management 1910-1960. ASME, 1960, p. 6.
 R. H. Thurston. President's inaugural address. Transactions ASME, 1, 1880, pp. 14-29.
 H. R. Towne. The engineer as economist. Transactions ASME, VII, 1886, pp. 428-432.
 W. J. Jaffe, L. P. Alford. The Evolution of Modern Industrial Management. New York University Press, 1957, pp. 29- 34.
 L. P. Alford (editor). Cost and Production Handbook. New York: Ronald, 1934.
 Industrial Engineering Terminology, ASME Standard 106, 1955.
 W. J. Jaffe. op. cit 111-117.
 Glossary of Terms Used in Methods, Time Study and Wage Incentives, Society for the Advancement of Management, 1952.
 R. L. Williams, et al. Industrial engineering terminology manual, Journal of Industrial Engineering, AIIE, XVI, No. 6, Nov-Dec 1965.
 W. J. Jaffe. op. cit 286-288.
 C. W. Lytle. Collegiate course for management. Professional Society for Promotion of Engineering Education, XXXIX, 1936, pp. 806-839.
 H. P. Emerson, D. C. E. Nachring. Origins of Industrial Engineering, The Early Years of a Profession. Norcross, GA: Institute of Industrial Engineers, 1988.
 The present state of the art of industrial management. ASME's 1912 Report, Fifty Years Progress in Management 1910-1960, pp. 293-323.
 E. H. Anderson and G. T. Schwenning. The Science of Organization Production. New York: Wiley, 1938, pp. 9-29.
 R. H. Lansburgh. Industrial Management, (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley, 1920, p. 4.
 O. Sheldon. The Philosophy of Management. London: Pitman, 1923, pp. 101 ff.
 A. H. Church. The Science and Practice of Management. New York: Engineering Magazine Co., 1914, p. 282.
 S. Webb. The Works Manager Today. New York: Longmans, Green, 1918, p. 5.
 B. W. Niebel. Letter to author.
 ASME Management Division 1921.
 L. P. Alford. Scientific industrial management. Paper No. 341, World Engineering Congress, Management Section, Tokyo, Oct. 30, 1929.
 H. Fayol. General and Industrial Management, Storrs Translation. London: Pitman, 1949, pp. 5-6.
 W. P. Spriegel. Industrial Management, (5th ed.) New York: Wiley, 1955, pp. 1, 8-10.
 C. W. Churchman, R. L. Ackoff, and E. L. Arnoff. Introduction to Operations Research. New York: Wiley, 1957, Chapter 1.
 E. H. Weinwurm. Management Science. Fifty Years Progress in Management, 1910-1960. ASME 1960, pp. 90-95.
 H. A. Simon. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan, 147.
HOW TO USE THIS TERMINOLOGY BOOK
1. The terminology consists of seventeen sections: (1) Analytical Techniques and Operations Research, (2) Anthropometry and Biomechanics, (3) Computer and Information Systems, (4) Cost Engineering and Project Management, (5) Distribution and Marketing, (6) Employee and Industrial Relations, (7) Engineering Economy, (8) Facility Planning and Design, (9) Human Factors Engineering, (10) Management, (11) Manufacturing Systems, (12) Materials Processing, (13) Occupational Health and Safety, (14) Operations and Inventory Planning and Control, (15) Organization Planning and Theory, (16) Quality Assurance and Reliability, and (17) Work Design and Measurement. All terms in each of the respective sections are listed alphabetically. (However, if the term begins with a symbol, e.g., -Criterion-the key word will be "lambda"-look under the word the symbol represents.)
2. In addition to the seventeen sections, there is an overall index-containing references to all the terms in each section. Hence, if you are not certain in which section you can find the term you seek, consult the overall index. The index is an alphabetical listing of every term from each section followed by the page number(s) where the definitions(s) can be located.
3. Although most terms owe their definitions to the writing of experts on the subcommittees and/or to conferences among the various Z94.0 subcommittees, some definitions come from accepted sources (books, societies, etc.). Hence, a Bibliography appears at the end of affected sections. In some sections-e.g., Section 5 Distribution and Marketing-many terms are followed by a code number that refers to a specific source listed under the heading "Bibliography" or "References."