History - Innovation - Sustainability
By Thanasis Stathopoulos
David Nye is an American historian from Boston, an academic specializing in the history of technology and the history of energy with a focus on electricity. He is known for his extensive work on the cultural and social implications of technological developments in America, and an author of several influential books, including "Electrifying America," "American Technological Sublime," and "Technology Matters: Questions to Live With." His research often explores how technology shapes and is shaped by cultural, economic, and social forces, while through his scholarly work, he has significantly advanced the understanding of the complex relationship between technology and society. An active member of the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT), Nye has served on its Executive Board and various prize committees. Since 1981, he has been teaching in Denmark, continuing his influential academic career abroad.
In his 2013 book, "America's Assembly Line", he has delved into the profound impact and historical significance of the assembly line in American industrial and cultural development. In this book, he traces the origins of the assembly line, highlighting its accidental emergence in Ford's factories around 1913, driven by a dynamic, collaborative environment rather than a planned innovation scheme or process. Broadly and socially viewed, Nye has emphasized that the assembly line was deeply embedded in the cultural and economic context of early 20th-century America, a period marked by a burgeoning middle class and a high demand for mass-produced goods.
Nye examines how the assembly line concept became integral to various aspects of American life, influencing not just manufacturing but also food production, education, and consumer culture. This system facilitated accelerated production and consumption, creating an economic order where rising productivity was linked to higher wages and living standards. However, this model began to falter during the 1970s due to energy crises, economic recessions, and growing competition from European and Japanese manufacturers. The book also addresses the challenges of technology transfer, illustrating how both American and European companies struggled to adopt each other's manufacturing innovations while it also explores the resistance faced by American automakers when attempting to implement Japanese lean production techniques, hindered by cultural, managerial, and labor-related obstacles.
Nye concludes by reflecting on the assembly line's legacy and the need for a contemporary reinvention of production and consumption practices. He argues that while the assembly line once symbolized efficiency and prosperity, its sustainability is now in question. The book calls for a reevaluation of industrial systems to address environmental concerns and adapt to finite resources, urging a shift towards greener, more sustainable manufacturing processes. Through this comprehensive historical analysis, Nye highlights the assembly line's enduring influence and the complexities of its evolution in the modern era.
But what are the lessons of this history with regard to the innovation phenomenon and the current sustainability agenda?
The Unplanned Emergence of the Assembly Line
As David Nye narrates, the assembly line, which emerged in 1913, was not the result of a deliberate plan but arose from a dynamic, innovative environment. This development occurred as a rapidly expanding company brought together individuals from various technical backgrounds. As they moved into a new, spacious factory in 1910, these individuals shared their diverse experiences and collaboratively developed a new production method. Interestingly, Ford’s executives initially did not have a name for the assembly line, and the term was scarcely used in the technical press during 1913 and 1914. The innovation wasn’t part of a research-and-development objective nor a theory implemented into practice; it evolved within a non-bureaucratic company that encouraged managerial experimentation and lacked rigid departmental boundaries.
This pattern of innovation was not unique to Ford. The Japanese automobile industry, notably Toyota in the 1950s, also followed a similar path when developing what later became known as "lean production." Both Ford's team in the early 1910s and Toyota's team in the 1950s were continuously refining their production systems to meet escalating demand. Despite their groundbreaking results, and as noted by Takahiro Fujimoto, the Japanese innovators did not fully comprehend the systemic implications of their work at the time. This was not due to mere luck but rather due to the ingenuity of engineers engaging in an exploratory process akin to that of artists and inventors, which contrasts with the more rigid approaches of planners and bureaucrats. In David Nye’s own words “Had the employees at either Ford or Toyota applied for a grant, claiming to be able to more than double factory productivity using already existing technologies, no doubt their claim would have been rejected as unlikely or even absurd.” This concept has probably escaped other teams because the Ford team has focused on what could be achieved through collaboration rather than making grand claims upfront.
"The history of the assembly line, both its invention and reinvention, suggests that fundamental transformations are unpredictable. They can emerge unexpectedly when talented people are given time, resources, and opportunities to experiment."
(Nye, 2013, p.264)
Once a new technological process is established, it becomes easier for observers to trace how existing techniques, ideas, machines, and processes contributed to its development. In a retrospective viewpoint, major innovations often appear inevitable. Historical progressions, from Oliver Evans' automated mill to Eli Whitney’s development of interchangeable gun parts and the mass production of clocks and sewing machines to the “disassembly line” of Chicago meatpackers, seem to logically lead to the assembly line at Highland Park in 1913. However, this appearance of inevitability is misleading. Early prototypes of the assembly line appeared briefly in Sweden and France before 1800 but were not developed further. Similarly, the assembly line might not have emerged in Detroit in 1913 because craft production was profitable and could have continued, potentially leading American automobile factories in the 1920s to resemble their European counterparts. This alternative trajectory might have resulted in denser American cities with greater reliance on mass transit and bicycles in contrast to the suburban expansion led by automobile driving consumer choice.
In essence, understanding the assembly line's history highlights that it was not an unavoidable outcome but a product of specific circumstances and innovative efforts that flourished in an environment of experimentation and collaboration, rather than in a condition of structured planning. If this was crucial to its development, one should retrospectively expect that structured planning could probably and inclusively provide wider social benefits.
Challenges in Technology Transfer and the Impact of Cultural Context
The challenges of transferring technology highlight that major innovations are far from inevitable. Ford and General Motors invested significantly in expanding their operations in Europe, while European automakers frequently dispatched teams to Detroit to study American automobile plants and the “American System” of production. However, the transfer of technology was often slow and complex and no European factory replicated the functionality of an American plant exactly. The assembly line, like other technologies, is deeply rooted in cultural contexts. In 1913, the United States had a large market with a rapidly growing middle class, creating millions of potential customers for mass-produced, affordable automobiles. This scenario was not replicated in Europe, where automakers faced smaller production runs and a demand for a more diverse range of vehicles. Additionally, protectionist tariffs fragmented the European market, compelling Ford and General Motors to establish separate national plants and develop different models for each market. This made their European cars more expensive than their American counterparts. While American companies struggled to adapt their mass-production systems to European conditions, European manufacturers like Austin, Renault, Citroën, Fiat, and Opel adopted the assembly line gradually and selectively during the interwar years and within national, economic, managerial, and industrial cultural differences that hindered the full transfer of the classic assembly line.
Half a century later, Americans encountered similar difficulties when faced with new Japanese manufacturing techniques. By the 1970s, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan were outperforming Detroit, but it took over two decades for American firms to understand and adopt these new practices. Similar to the European experience between 1910 and 1930, U.S. engineers and managers made numerous trips to study their competitors, engaged in joint ventures, and selectively tried to implement new ideas. Despite these efforts, technology transfer remained slow between 1975 and 1985 due to resistance from labor unions, suppliers, and management. GM's Saturn Division, despite being backed by GM's president and having its own factory and streamlined labor system, failed to lead a transformation. GM lost a significant share of the automobile market before achieving lean production efficiencies by the late 1990s, while Ford adapted more quickly, though still requiring about 15 years. The difficulty of technology transfer lies in the fact that it is never just a technical change; it is always a complex social transaction. This resistance stems partly from what historical economists call "path dependency" within firms, and partly from what historians of technology term "technological momentum," which encompasses the entire array of institutions and practices surrounding any large, successful system, such as a centralized electrical grid, a railroad network, or the assembly-line production system.
Evolving the Assembly Line: From Historical Foundations to Future Sustainability
The history of the assembly line reveals interconnected generalizations about technological progress and resistance to change. The existing momentum within established systems tends to favor small, incremental changes, reinforcing the status quo and hindering the introduction of alternative systems. Significant shifts in production methods are unlikely in older industries with entrenched practices and stable markets. Conversely, technological innovation flourishes in newer industries, exemplified by the American auto industry around 1913 and the Japanese auto industry around 1955, where high demand and rapid expansion attract diverse talent and foster innovation. This environment can lead to what Joel Mokyr (cited by Nye) describes as "macroinventions," groundbreaking innovations without clear predecessors.
Detroit was the birthplace of this particular macroinvention, but the assembly line concept has since become a global phenomenon. It has been continually adapted to new products, cultural contexts, and markets, evolving into a ubiquitous general-purpose technology. In the United States, the assembly line is deeply ingrained in the national consciousness, shaping various aspects of life. Americans have applied assembly line principles to services along highways, meal preparation in cafeterias, modular education systems, and a preference for identical mass-produced goods. This embrace of the assembly line also accelerated production and consumption, necessitating high wages to sustain it. Henry Ford recognized this dynamic in 1913, leading to the introduction of the $5 workday, which helped align production, consumption, and wages for the next two generations, barring the Great Depression.
However, this economic order began to unravel during the 1970s due to the energy crisis, recession, and increasing competition from Europe and Japan. Real wages for assembly-line workers stagnated, and blue-collar jobs dwindled as production shifted to Latin America and Asia, or became automated. By 2012, the "Big Three" automakers—General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford—had drastically reduced their workforce, with more than 80% of their jobs gone compared to their peak.
Despite the massive loss of manufacturing jobs, Americans continued to expect a plethora of assembly-line products. Yet by 2013, with fluctuating gasoline supplies and the looming threat of global warming, it was evident that America's understanding of the assembly line needed revision. Accelerated production no longer guaranteed higher wages or better living standards. Instead, the assembly line had often exacerbated class divisions rather than fostering an egalitarian society. The plight of workers at factories like Foxconn highlighted that exporting mass production did not ensure economic equality or political democracy abroad.
By 2013 and probably today, the world seems to be connected to the lifestyle created by the assembly line, with its promise of high wages and abundant goods. This way of life has persisted through decades of long work hours, extensive commutes, and homes filled with mass-produced items. Younger generations could hardly conceive of a different existence, as mass production has defined life and culture for over a century. It would be safe to say that most people have viewed mass production as a natural order that emphasizes in efficiency and productivity, no matter if this model has become outdated and unsustainable. The traditional assembly line relied on a large semi-skilled workforce, not on robots and outsourcing. It assumed endless raw materials, not a finite supply for which nations would compete in a world of expanding global population. David Nye declared in 2013, that a reinvention of both production and consumption (or even “efficiency) is necessary to construct a greener, more sustainable world.
Transforming the Assembly line for Sustainability
The assembly line was originally designed without sustainability in mind, and transforming it into a sustainable system necessitates significant cultural changes. Focusing on the Ford automaker history, David Nye narrates how architect William McDonough, who spearheaded the redesign of the River Rouge plant, emerged as a prominent advocate for integrating recycling into production processes. His 2002 book, "From Cradle to Cradle," co-authored with Michael Braungart, has emphasized the importance of planning for reuse at every stage of manufacturing to enhance productivity. McDonough argues that creating a truly sustainable automobile industry requires closed-loop systems for both the production and reutilization of auto parts. In this sense, the European Union's End-of-Life Vehicle Directive, enacted in September 2000, mandates manufacturers to design for disassembly and efficient resource recovery, encouraging cradle-to-cradle systems where materials are either reused in industry or safely returned to the environment.
In Germany, for instance, vehicles registered in the EU for at least a month before disposal can be returned for free disassembly and shredding. By 2006, three-fourths of all vehicles in the EU were being recycled this way, with further improvements mandated. Nonetheless, Nye insists that while these practices are better than merely discarding old cars, they still fall short. Recycled materials often lose quality and purity resulting in lower-grade products unsuitable for new car bodies (for example, car shredders mix high-grade steel, copper, and other metals). To avoid such "down-cycling," McDonough has developed products designed for genuine recycling, advocating for industrial production to mimic natural nutrient cycles in a closed-loop system. This concept of "technical metabolism" ensures that high-tech synthetics and minerals are continually produced, recovered, and remanufactured without degradation. Nye points out that effective resource recovery lines should be established to maintain material quality for reuse in new products. Ideally, this "technical metabolism" should be powered by renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The goal is to maximize environmental benefits, not just minimize harm, by measuring the health of production sites in terms of ecological diversity and attractiveness to local communities.
However, at the centennial of the assembly line, "technical metabolism" remains largely a conceptual model rather than a practical reality. Achieving this vision demands new types of factories, corporate values, and consumption patterns. Environmentally sustainable production can thrive if consumers prioritize recycling over discarding old products. The assembly line must be reimagined beyond its physical configuration; it is an actant that lies at the heart of a cultural system extending from factories to farms, mines, transportation networks, energy systems, and recycling programs. Misuse of the assembly line means turning it into a source of waste and environmental harm.
Even a century after its inception, we are still exploring the assembly line's potential and limitations. In 2013, when David Nye published his book, the assembly line continued to simultaneously enrich and impoverish, create and eliminate jobs, and both alleviate and exacerbate class differences. Up till now, its future trajectory remains uncertain, and its impact is still unfolding, reflecting varying perceptions across generations and contexts.
-
References
- David E. Nye (2013), America's Assembly Line (Cambridge: MIT Press)
Thanasis Stathopoulos is a Food Safety Culture expert, Industrial Food Safety Systems Mgt, MSc, Science and Technology Studies MSc, PhD candidate - History of Technology: Environmental History of Food Packaging