Technology in business enterprise is defined as the way of doing daily work; then, the definition of technical progress in business enterprise should be the change in the way of doing work; change here means the creation of a new way of doing work and the exploitation of new horizons in business activities. From this view point of “change in the way”, technology in business enterprise could, according to a) whether it implies the change or not, b) what is the character of the way of change, be classified into the following four traits, or classes. 1) Basic innovative technology, based mainly on scientific research, exploiting and providing a new technical sphere, for example, the discovery of penicillin and invention of a method of extracting it, which opened the world of antibiotic, 2) Applied technology, which develop the various potential possibilities in the technical sphere exploited by basic innovative technology, 3) Imitative technology, 4) Conventional unchanging technology, which refuses to be changed or fails to recognize the necessity of changing the way. For the growth of business enterprise, basic innovative technology has the most promising perspectives, protected by patent right, both domestic and international, though it is accompanied by the greatest risk. With applied technology, a business enterprise could have great success, sometimes greater than the achievement of “basic innovative technology” enterprise. This success is, however, limited only within the sphere defined by the basic innovative technology. Which class of technology should be used in a certain business enterprise is the problem of entrepreneurial choice, decided by the entrepreneur's perception of technology.
This thesis deals with two aspects of labour management of the Lancashire cotton industry during the first half of the 1830's; 1) organization within workshops and 2) the efficient use of labour. The main difficulties of these two aspects as faced by mill-owners during the Industrial Revolution Era has been repeatedly pointed out by Andrew Ure. 1) As regards organization within workshops: as a conclusion of the author's study of that “Indirect Employment by the Master”, the intervention by the mill-owner in the matter of the management is clearly seen in several points. On the other hand, under “Direct Employment by the Masters”, the centralized management by mill-owners can be seen but even in that case there was no completed organization of management from the first. The work of the overseer was differenciated because of the division of processes, due to the expansion of the mills, and the regulation of the organization of operation. 2) As regards the efficient use of labour: though attention was paid to the appropriate placement of the labour and the skill, the maintenance of factory discipline was the most significant. For the maintaining of discipline the use of fines and threat importance was attached to educating for the purpose of moral improvement.
It is generally believed that American workers move much more freely than Japanese employees. But relatively little attention has been paid to the fact that the rate of turnover in the period of World War I was reduced to one-third in the 1950's. For the main reason why the rate of turnover has become lower, we can point out the fact that the seniority system has spread throughout the industries in America since the 1930's. In those days, seniority, though the debate about seniority and management prerogatives in furious, governs not only lay-off and re-call but also promotion, transfer, paid holidays, and many other fringe-benefits. Under these circumstances, the problem of the gain accompanied with long service and the loss accused by the employment change is important. Therefore, it is no wonder that American workers no longer quit so freely as before. Historically, seniority was not the management but union policy. The Management, however, seemed to have good grounds for accepting the unions' demands and we can attribute the rapid diffusion of seniority to the following two factors. First, according to several studies, work organization, with the growth of mass-production, had been formed as a promotion ladder by the 1930's, and it had been a rather common practice to fill a job vacancy, not with the one from outside, but by promotion within the firm. As a result, in the absence of unions, the order of lay-off by and large, comformed to the seniority principle. Second, the principle of seniority, as Reader pointed out, is consistent with the American sense of fairness, ie, the first come, first served. But in pre-union days, much was done through the foreman's personal favoritism without centralized policy, and so intra-firm wage structure was often in a chaotic condition. Confronted with union demand, the management in the 1930's tried to systematize its practice. Personnel departments were expanded and job analysis and evaluation plans were executed and so on. By these efforts the present personnel management system was to be established.