SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE STANDARD AND THE “JUDGMENT” OF PSYCHOLOGY.—­There are many points of similarity between the “Standard,” of management, and the “judgment” of psychology.  Sully says, in speaking of the judgment,[4]—­“This process of judging illustrates the two fundamental elements in thought activity, viz., analysis and synthesis.”  “To judge is clearly to discern and to mark off as a special object of thought some connecting relation.”  “To begin with, before we can judge we must have the requisite materials for forming a judgment.”  “In the second place, to judge is to carry out a process of reflection on given material.”  “In addition to clearness and accuracy, our judgments may have other perfections.  So far as our statements accord with known facts, they should be adhered to,—­at least, till new evidence proves them untrue.”

PSYCHOLOGY A FINAL APPEAL AS TO PERMANENT VALUE OF ANY STANDARD.—­The standard under management, even under Scientific Management, can lay no claim to being perfect.  It can never nearly approach perfection until the elements are so small that it is practicable to test them psychologically and physiologically.  The time when this can be done in many lines, when the benefit that will directly accrue will justify the necessary expenditure, may seem far distant, but every analysis of operations, no matter how rudimentary, is hastening the day when the underlying, permanently valuable elements can be determined and their variations studied.

COOePERATION WILL HASTEN THE DAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDY OF STANDARDS.—­Cooeperation in collecting and comparing the results of motion study and time study everywhere will do much to assist toward more ultimate determination of elements.  At the present time the problems that management submits to psychology are too indefinite and cover too large a field to be attacked successfully.  Cooeperation between management standardizers would mean—­

    1. that all management data would be available to
       psychologists and physiologists.
    2. that such data, being available also to all standardizers,
       would prevent reduplication of results.
    3. that savings would result.
    4. that, from a study and comparison of the collected data a
       trained synthetic mind could build up better standards than
       could be built from any set of individual data.
    5.  Savings would result from this.
    6.  Inventions would also result.
    7.  Savings would again result from these.
    8.  All of these various savings could be invested in more
       intensive study of elements.
    9.  These more valuable results would again be available to
       psychologists and physiologists.

This cycle would go on indefinitely.  Meantime, all would benefit with little added cost to any.  For the results of the psychological and physiological study would be available to all, and investigators in those lines have shown themselves ready and glad to undertake investigations.