^o THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING V The New Housekeeping Efficiency Studies in Home Management BY MRS. CHRISTINE FREDERICK HOCSEHOLD EFFICIENCY ENGINEER AND KITCHEN ABCHITECT. AUTHOR OP "HOUSEHOLD ENGINEEBING," ETC, COHSITLTING HOUSEHOLD EDITOB I/AOIES' HOME JOURNAL M. T. EVBNIIIG SUN, ET& ILLUSTRATED Garden Citt New Yobk ' DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY 1918 td'M Zj Copyright, 1912, by Curtis Publishing Co. Copyright, 1913, 1918, by DOUBLEDAY, PaQB & COMPANY All rights reserved, including that of translation into Foreign Languages, including the Scandinavian JUL 27 i9i8 n OCI.A5()J304 To MY MOTHER AND FATHER WHOSE HIGH SPIRIT OF HOUSEKEEPING AND HOME-MAKING HAS EVER BEEN MY STIMULATION AND IDEAL PREFACE A moderate income, two babies, and constant demands on my time, was the situation that faced me several years ago. I liked housework, and was especially fond of cooking; but the deadening point about the whole situation was that I never seemed to finish my work, never seemed to **get anywhere," and that I almost never had any leisure time to myself. I wanted to read a bit, or write out some ideas I had been thinking about, or take a half hour for personal grooming. If I devoted my day to cooking, I was appalled later at the confusion and dirt I had neglected. If I specialized on cleaning, our meals were hurried and ill-pre- pared. If I tried to do justice to both cleaning and preparing of meals, I quite certainly neg- lected the babies and myself. My husband came home only to find me "all [vii] PREFACE tired out," with no energy left to play over a song, or listen to a thoughtful article. I was con- stantly struggling to obtain a little "higher Hfe" for my individuality and independence; and on the other hand I was forced to give up this in- dividuahty to my babies and drudgifying house- work. About this time I became acquainted, through my husband's interests, with several men in close touch with the new movement of indus- trial efficiency. From them I learned what the new science of work was accomplishing for the office, the shop, the factory. At first it did not occur to me that methods which were applicable to organized industries, like shoe fac- tories, and iron foundries, could also be applied to my group of very unorganized industries — the home. Yet the more I studied it, the more possible it seemed, and I determined to try it. For once I found a use for some of the college training I had despaired of ever putting into practice. I applied to the task of bringing the science of efficiency into the home, the same detailed fviii] PREFACE analysis that I had applied many a time in " Zoology A." or " Physics B." I confess that it was discouraging at first, due to the distractions and disturbed routines neces- sary in a home where there are small children. But gradually definite results began to come — the most definite result and the most valuable benefit being the development of an efficiency attitude of mind. Once this attitude became thoroughly organized all the household prob- lems, large and small, became invested with entirely new interests and new possibilities. Instead of becoming something upon which to slave, they became objects of keen mental interest — quite the same, I am now sure after investigation, as the tasks of the business and industrial world which men tackle with zest and results. I put out this book, therefore, with a deeply earnest hope and belief that the beginnings made in the application of efficiency science to the household (however modest and inadequate) may yet assist in cutting from women the most dreary shackles of which they have ever complained. [ix] PREFACE The many letters I have received from Ameri- can housewives in response to the series of four articles on the subject appearing in the Ladies* Home Journal September-December, 1912, indi- cate definitely, and even pathetically, that conditions are sadly in need of remedy, and that in presenting this book I may entertain some hope of solving them. Christine Frederick. *^ Ajpplecrofty^ Greenlawn, L. /., March, 1916. IxJ CONTENTS CHAFTEB FAQB ♦Preface vii I, Efficiency and the New Housekeeping 3 II. Applying "Standaed Practice "and "Motion Study" to Household Tasks 23 III. Standardizing Conditions in Kitchen Arrangement ..... 46 IV. The Efficient Tool 60 V. Dispatching and Scheduling Household Tasks .... 83 VI. The Housewife as Purchasing Agent . 102 VII. Efficient Management of Household Finances 115 VIII. Reliable Records in the Household 126 IX. The New Housekeeping Cook Book . 146 X. Applying the Wage Schedule and Bonus Ideas to the Servant Problem . 153 XI. Increasing Servant Efficiency . . 169 XII. Developing the Homemaker's Per- sonal Efficiency .... 181 XIII. Men and the Household Efficiency Movement 197 XIV. The Homemaker's Relation to B usiness AND Economics 204 XV. Education and The Home Economics Movement 229 The " Applecroft " Efficiency Kitchen 24 9 Bibliography of Home Economics . 259 [a] LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Mrs. Christine Frederick at the Preparing Table in the Kitchen of the Applecroft Experiment Station - , Frontispiece FACING PAGE Diagram Showing Badly Arranged Equipment 52 Diagram Showing Proper Arrangement of Equipment 52 Fuel-Savers 62 Portable Oven with Window Prevents Loss of Heat 62 Device Utilizing One Burner for Baking ... 62 Gasolene Iron with Concentrated Heating Sur- face 62 Tea Kettle and Double Boiler Combined ... 62 Combined Gas-stove and Insulated Fireless Oven, with Automatic Cooking Clock 62 Time-Savers 68 A Measuring Spoon Set Saves Lifting Different Spoons 68 A Colander and Puree Strainer Which Gives Rapid Results 68 A Tool Which Cores and Cuts an Apple into Ten Pieces in One Operation 68 A Rapid Meat Grinder Saves Time in Every Kitchen 68 A Motor That Grinds, Polishes, Treadles, and Works Five Times as fast as Muscles ... 68 [xiii] LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FACING PAGE A Machine That Washes the Dishes of Three Meals in the Time Usually Taken to Wash Those of One Meal 68 Labour-Savers 78 Heated Ironing Machine Which Is Equivalent to a Dozen Flatirons 78 A Washing Machine Which Takes the Rub Out of Wash-day 78 A Dishdrainer Removes the Need of Wiping Dishes by Hand 78 Glass Baking Dishes Make Dishwashing Less Disagreeable 78 Step-Savers 80 "Lazy Susan"— The Silent Waitress .... 80 Portable Double Tray on Wheels ..... 80 Kitchen Cabinet Which Is a Pantry and Table in One 80 Disappearing Icebox Saves Stair Trotting ... 80 Businesslike Equipment for the Home . .138 Sample Card from the Home Record Cabinet . 138 The Time and Worry Saving Home Record Cabinet 138 A Vertical Letter File for Receipts .... 138 A Tickler Which Reminds the Busy Housewife 138 A Vertical Filing Envelope for Saving Large Chp- pings 138 A Book of Handy Labels for Home Use 138 Specimen 4x6 Recipe Card with Illustration, from Filing Cook Book 150 Filing Drawer of Recipes on Cards, Showing Card in Use on Hook on Front of Door 150 [ xiv ] ' THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING CHAPTER ONE EFFICIENCY AND THE NEW HOUSE- KEEPING 1 WAS sitting by the library table, mending, while my husband and a business friend were talking, one evening about a year ago. I heard them use several new words and phrases so often that I stopped to Usten. "Efficiency," I heard our caller say a dozen times; "standard practice," "motion study," and "scientific management," he repeated over and over again. The words suggested interest- ing things, and as I listened I grew absorbed and amazed. "What are you men talking about?" I inter- rupted. "I can't help being interested. Won*t you please tell me what * efficiency' is, Mr. Watson? What were you saying about brick- laying?" " Your husband and I were just discussing this [31 THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING new idea developed in business, called 'eflfi- ciency/ or * scientific management'," Mr. Wat- son replied. "A group of men, Emerson and Taylor among others, have come to be known in the business and manufacturing world as *efii- ciency engineers.' These men are able to go into a shop or factory, watch the men at work, make observations and studies of motions, and from these observations show where waste and false movements occur and why the men lose time. Then they go to work to build up the *ej05ciency' of that shop, so that the men do more work in less time, with less waste and greater output or gain to the owners, while the workers have shorter hours, higher pay, and better working condi- tions." "Just how do they find out what is wrong?" I asked, laying my sewing on the table, and lis- tening eagerly, "and how do they actually increase this * efficiency'?" "Well, for instance," answered Mr. Watson, "this is how they improved the method of lay- ing bricks: Formerly a workman stood before a wall, and when he wanted to lay a brick he had [4] EFFICIENCY to stoop, pick a brick weighing four and a half pounds from a mixed pile at his feet, and carry it to the wall. Suppose he weighed one hundred and eighty pounds; that worker would have to lower his one hundred and eighty pounds four feet every time he picked up each of the two thousand bricks he laid in a day ! Now an effi- ciency expert, after watching bricklayers at work, devised a simple little table which holds the bricks in an orderly pile at the workman's side. They are brought to him in orderly piles, proper side up. Because he doesn't need to stoop or sort, the same man who formerly could lay only one hundred and twenty bricks an hour can now lay three hundred and fifty bricks, and he uses only five motions, where formerly it required eighteen." *'That sounds like a fairy tale," I laughed skeptically. "What else wonderful can they do with this magic wand of * efficiency'?" "It does sound like magic," Mr. Watson re- plied, "but it is only common sense. There is just one best way, one shortest way to perform any task involving w^ork done with the hands, [5] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING or the hands and head working in cooperation. These efficiency men merely study to find that one best and shortest way, and when they have found it they call that task * standardized.* Very often the efficiency is increased because the task is done with fewer motions, with better tools, because of even such a simple thing as changing the height of a work-bench, or the position of the worker." **Yes," my husband put in, "by applying the principles of efficiency, manufacturers are enabled to save thousands of dollars. You know, Brandeis, in the famous railroad rate hear- ing at Washington, showed that if the railroads would work under conditions of scientific man- agement, they could save a million dollars a day:' "Why, I suppose you smart men and effi- ciency experts will soon try to tell me and all the other women that washing dishes can be *standarized,"' I bantered, "or that we could save a million dollars if we would run our homes on 'scientific management'!" "Now, Mrs. Frederick," replied Mr. Watson [6] EFFICIENCY seriously, "that is really not too much to im- agine. There is no older saying than * woman's work is never done.* If the principles of eflSciency can be successfully carried out in every kind of shop, factory, and business, why couldn't they be carried out equally well in the home?" "Because," I answered, "in a factory the workers do just one thing, like sewing shoes, or cutting envelopes, and it is easy to standardize one set of operations. But in a home there are dozens, yes, hundreds, of tasks requiring totally different knowledge and movements. There is ironing, dusting, cooking, sewing, baking, and care of children. No two tasks are alike. In- stead of working as she would in a factory, at one task, the home-worker peels potatoes, washes dishes, and darns stockings all in the same hour. Yes, and right in the midst of peeling the potatoes she has to drop her knife, and see why the baby is crying. "You men simply don't understand anything about work in a home," I continued, heatedly. "One day a woman sweeps and dusts, and the [7 I THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING next she irons, and the next she bakes, and in- between-times she cares for babies, and sews, answers call bells and 'phones, and markets, and mends the lining of her husband's coat, and makes a cocoanut cake for Sunday! "Perhaps she can afford one maid — per- haps she belongs to the fortunate but very small class that can afford two. But even then she has to see that servants don't waste, that they work the best way, and, in addition, put up with their foibles, which is almost as bad as having to do all the work herself. "Do you mean to tell me that so many kinds of household tasks could be * standardized/ or that the principles of scientific management could be applied in the home?" I concluded a little triumphantly. "I've talked with num- bers of maids, and they all have the same plaint: that there are too many kinds of work to be done by the same person, that they never have any dependable 'off hours,' and that no two families do the same task in the same way. That is why they prefer to work in factories where one set of operations can be standardized; [8] EFFICIENCY and there you have the whole crux of the ser- vant question." Mr. Watson shifted his chair with a realiza- tion that he had been put up against no simple problem, nor one in which he had experience. Then he answered, "Well, I hadn't considered the idea before, but I believe so strongly in the principles of eflSciency and have seen them work out so satisfactorily in every kind of shop where there are different kinds of work and where the owners have said just what you say, that I absolutely know that these principles must have application to any kind of work, and that they could be carried out successfully in the home if you women would only faithfully apply them. "I must leave now, but I tell you what I'll do. I'll come over some evening to talk to you, and see what we can figure out on home efficiency. I certainly don't see why you couldn't work out some of its principles in a mighty interesting way. Suppose you read this book on scientific management?" After Mr. Watson had gone, I turned eagerly [9] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING to my husband. "George," I said, **that effi- ciency gospel is going to mean a great deal to modern housekeeping, in spite of some doubts I have. Do you know that I am going to work out those principles here in our home! I won't have you men doing all the great and noble things ! I'm going to find out how these experts conduct investigations, and all about it, and then apply it to my factory, my business, my home." The more I thought about it, the stronger hold the idea took upon me. Just a few days previous I had been reading an article by a prominent clubwoman who was solving the servant prob- lem by substituting expensive household equip- ment in place of her three servants. Another review discussed the number of women who were living in apartments and boarding-houses, and who refused to shoulder the burdens of real homemaking. A third writer enlarged on the lack of youthful marriages, a lack which he claimed was due to the fact that young women of this era refuse to enter the drudgery of household tasks. On all sides it was the prob- [101 EFFICIENCY lem of the home, the problem of housekeeping and homemaking. The home problem for the woman of wealth is simple: it is solved. Money, enough of it, will always buy service, just as it can procure the best in any other regard. The home problem for the women of the very poor is also fairly simple. The women of the poor themselves come from the class of servants. Their home- making is far less complex, their tastes simple, and society demands no appearance-standard from them. Added to this, organized philan- thropy is by every means teaching the women of the poor how to keep house in the most scien- tific, eflBcient manner. Settlements, domestic science classes, model kitchens and tenements, nursing stations, slum depots, charity boards, health boards, visiting nurses, night schools, and mission classes are teaching, free, the women of the poor how to transmute their old- world ignorance into the shining knowledge of the new hemisphere. The problem, the real issue, confronts the middle-class woman of slight strength and still [IIJ THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING slighter means, and of whom society expects so much — the wives of ministers on small salary, wives of bank clerks, shoe salesmen, college pro- fessors, and young men in various businesses starting to make their way. They are refined, educated women, many with a college or busi- ness training. They have one or more babies to care for, and limited finances to meet the situation. The soaring cost of living and the necessity for keeping up a fair standard of appearances obligatory on the middle class prevent any but the more than "average" well-to-do from em- ploying regular help. Among ten average fami- lies I know (scattered the country over) whose incomes range from $1,200 to $2,500 a year, the occupations range as follows: Two high-grade mechanics One young doctor One salesman in photo supplies One lawyer One salesman in office equipment One advertising man One artist and illustrator One literary man Only one family of the ten employs regular help. The others depend on intermittent clean- ing and a woman to do the washing. It is this [12] EFFICIENCY better class of refined but small-salary-family woman who becomes "all tired out," who never has any "time to herself," or who is forced to endure the slipshod methods of one retreating Lizzie after another because she cannot afford experienced help. According to figures com- piled by the Business Bourse, there are 1, 677,150 families in the country employing domestic help, while there are 19,023,952 families keeping house. In other words, only 8 per cent, of the families in the United States keep domestic help! Figures of the United States Census show that each decade fewer women are entering service, chiefly because many new and apparently more attractive fields of employment are constantly being opened to the class who formerly confined their work to service alone. That is, there are fewer servants, there will continue to be less, and the wages of those few will be higher than at present. After Mr. Watson's talk on efficiency I began to consider this middle class — to which I be- long — and whose difficulties I faced every day. [13] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING I had two babies and was struggling with young and inexperienced help. If 'efficiency' accom- plished such marvellous results for the shop and factory, would it not accomplish as much for my home, if I studied its principles carefully, and practised them intelligently? I determined then to give this gospel of efficiency a fair trial, but first I wanted Mr. Watson, himself an efficiency engineer, to ex- plain it thoroughly. "Now, Mr. Watson," I said a few evenings later, *' I want you to explain the principles of effi- ciency to me — the how, the why — so that I and all the other homemakers can understand it fully." "Gladly," replied Mr. Watson; "I'll begin by stating the twelve principles on which the science of efficiency rests: 1. Ideals 7, Dispatching 2. Common Sense 8. Scheduling 3. Competent Counsel 9. Reliable Records 4. Standardized Opera- tions TO. Discipline 5. Standardized Condi tions 1 1 . Fair Deal 6. Standard Practice 12. Efficiency Reward [14] EFFICIENCY "You notice that the first principle is that of 'ideals.* The first thing an efiiciency expert finds out when he wishes to improve the stand- ard of a plant is, what are its ideals? What is it running for? These experts say it is astound- ing how many people are running businesses and don't know why they are running them! I sometimes think that many women don't consciously know why they are running their homes. The ideal should be so strong, so clearly kept in mind, that it will overweigh any pres- ent petty difficulties. Ideals look to the future, they are the 'something' that guides, directs, propels the whole machinery, whether of busi- ness or the home — do you get my meaning? *' Women do have ideals as to why they run their homes," Mr. Watson continued "only they are not always concretely expressed to them- selves. It may be health, it may be spotless cleanliness, social progress, or something else. I know a woman who takes her babies out for a morning's airing and leaves the parlor undusted, even though she dislikes untidiness. But her ideal of health comes first. Then another [15] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING woman has turned her guest-room over to her two boys for their wireless and electricity appa- ratus. You know what a pretty guest-room means to a woman! But this mother has such a strong ideal of the future training and habits of her boys that she is willing to sacrifice a present pleasure for a remote end. Ideals can be so strong as to buoy up, overweigh difficulty, and be a vital spur to effort, in the home par- ticularly. The clearer a woman's ideals, the eas- ier her work, the greater her strength and success. She must know the *why' of her business. "Common Sense is the next principle, and some people think this homely term covers all the principles. It is only common sense not to stoop for a pot if you can hang it where you don't need to stoop — and it is efficiency as well." "And what does 'competent counsel,' mean?" I questioned. "Competent Counsel means expert advice and help. The efficiency engineers who are called in to large factories to find what is wrong, or suggest better methods, are one kind of com- petent counsel." [16] EFFICIENCY "Yes, but there are no eflBcIency experts in housekeeping, are there?" I inquired. "If the housewife would only realize it, there is more expert advice being offered her free than is being offered any manufacturer. Take the pages in all the best publications devoted to the science of home management. The finest spe- cialists and experts are retained by magazines to tell women how to care for babies, prepare foods, how to economize and how to make clothing. Both the booklets and the advertisements of various advertisers inform the housewife of new methods, recipes, devices, materials. The so- called * Farmers' Bulletins' issued by the Depart- ment of Agriculture are many of them equal to a correspondence course in home economics, as for instance, *Eggs and Their Uses as Food,' * Economical Cuts of Meats,' which are sent free to any one on application. Perhaps you do not know how to use your oven properly. Large corporations like the gas company and others are only too glad to send a representative to tell you just how to use your stove, and inform you on other points. I learned the other day that [17] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING it costs a certain sum an hour for the large burner, so much for the small burner, and so much for the little *simmerer.' This exact knowledge should help one to save fuel. Demon- strators of other concerns, food and household shows, all act as * competent counsel' to the housewife and homemaker. "Then comes Standardized Operations, which includes the oft-mentioned * motion study,"* Mr. Watson continued. "The homemaker takes countless steps and motions in every task, many of which are entirely avoidable. She may walk twenty feet to hang up the egg-beater; she may wash dishes in a way that wastes time and effort; or she lifts separately each piece of laundry from the basket at her feet, when the efficient thing would be to place the whole basket at her own level. Standardized conditions mean the right height of work-table, proper light, ventilation, and the correct tool for the purpose. In shops and factories where the experts have studied the manner in which work is done, and where, after repeated experiment, the one best method and best set of conditions has been determineds [18] EFFICIENCY this best, shortest and most efficient way is written down so that all workers may read it. That is, the task is reduced to * standard prac- tice,' and the housekeeper can find countless tasks which she can reduce to standard practice, with a saving of effort, time, and vitality.'* "What is this next point of 'Dispatching'?" I asked. "I know the best way to do a number of things, but I never can plan my work so as to get it done without interruption. I begin to cut out a waist, and the children want a drink and I have to stop and get it, and when I come back my pattern and goods are all upset, and I have almost forgotten what I was doing." "There," laughed Mr. Watson, "is just where you need the principles of * dispatching,' and *scheduHng.' Planning and arranging work come under these points. For instance, a train starts from New York at 4 p. M., and arrives at Chicago the next morning at nine. The 'dis- patching' consists in moving the train along so that it will reach every station at the right time. Applied to housework it would mean that there was a definite regular time for each task, so that [19] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING each task was done at a certain time in relation to other tasks. You wouldn't cut out your waist unless you were sure you wouldn't be interrupted, you see. " The 'Schedule' is the eighteen hours it takes the train to reach Chicago, and it is based on various trials and methods which enable it to make Chicago in just eighteen hours and no less. A housewife can find out her schedules for various tasks, how long it takes to make a cake, or clean the bathroom. Then, when she knows her schedule, she can more accurately plan or dispatch her work without fear of inter- ruption." "Very often I read some helpful article in the magazines," I remarked, "but when I want it, I can't find it." "Ah, I thought so," Mr. Watson laughed. "You need 'Reliable Records' in your home- management, I see. We will take that up in detail later. "And if the remaining principles of *Discip- line,' 'Fair Deal' and ' Efiiciency Reward ' could be carried out in the home," he concluded, *'I [20] EFnCIENC Y venture to say that this whole awesome * servant problem' would be solved. One of the remark- able things about scientific management is that there have been few, if any, strikes in the shops where its principles are in practice. The men remain because they are treated fairly, and their interests looked out for by the owner. "Ninety per cent, of servant troubles are at bottom the fault of the mistress," Mr. Watson declared. "Now if a woman knew and applied scientifically the principle of 'fair play' her help wouldn't leave her, sick, in bed, as I have heard some maids have done. An efiicient mistress would handle her help as scientifically as the manager of a big shop. She will use the prin- ciple of *eflBciency reward' with her helpers, and know how to secure from them that 'ini- tiative' — that something over and above mere work which is essential, while at the same time she improves the conditions under which they work." Mr. Watson looked at me across the table. "Now you understand clearly what efficiency means — not expensive equipment or impracti- [21] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING cal theories, but simple principles of work which enable you and every homemaker to do her household tasks in the best way, with least effort and greatest success.'* "If eflSciency in the home can accomplish all you make me believe it can," I replied, "a new housekeeping will have come, and homemaking will be the greatest profession." 1221 CHAPTER TWO APPLYING "STANDARD PRACTICE" AND "MOTION STUDY" TO HOUSE- HOLD TASKS Usually after our dinner I wash forty-eight pieces of china, twenty-two pieces of silver and ten utensils and pots, or eighty pieces in all; and for years I never realized that I rxtually made eighty wrong motions in the washing alone, not counting others in the sorting, wiping, and laying away. Like all other women I thought that there couldn't be much improvement in the same old task of washing dishes. The drainboard of my sink was at the right. Now imagine me at the sink, dishes in dishpan, with a tray at my right to lay the dishes on when washed. How do I work? I take up a plate with my left hand and scour it back and front with the dishcloth which I hold in my right hand. Then I pass my left hand across my right arm, away over the tray, and lay the plate on the tray. [23] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING I move my left arm across my right arm in this awkward way every time I lay a dish on the tray. If I didn't do this I would have to drop the cloth from my right hand and change the plate from my left hand (in which I had held it while washing it) to my right hand, which would lay it on the tray. What else could I do? I will tell you in a minute. I measured the height of the bottom of my sink from the floor and found it was only 24 inches. The sink basin was only 5\ inches deep. That is why the water slopped over the pan and over the edge of the sink. Besides, our builder had carefully planned a dish closet over the sink at the exact height to strike the top of my head when I bobbed it up from my work! Now for some other mistakes : I didn't scrape my dishes thoroughly, so the water became greasy very soon. I sloshed a cake of soap, about in the water^ — particles of which stuck to the edges of the dishes. I used a tray to drain on, and the bottom dishes became cold and sloppy before they could be dried. My towels became wet, and I had to walk to the hall shelf [24] STANDARD PRACTICE for others. I dried the dishes and laid them on the table, then I picked them up (a second handling) and carried them to the pantry at the far end of the kitchen. It took me forty-five minutes to scrape, wash, and dry those eighty dishes by using wrong methods; now I wash the same number of pieces in thirty minutes, or a gain of fifteen minutes. How did I do it? I couldn't raise the sink because it is built in at that height; but I raised my pan four inches by placing it on an inverted sink-strainer (or I might have bought a sink- rack, costing 10 cents, for the same purpose). Lifting the pan to a table or the top of set tubs is not wise, as the pan must be lifted up and down each time the water needs changing. Neither could I make the sink deeper. Stupidity of builders is the only reason why sinks are low and shallow, and why out of sixty house and apartment sinks examined recently two thirds measured only from 22 to 30 inches from the floor. I have made careful tests on women of differ- ent heights to find the approximate proper height [25] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING of sink for any given height of woman. A uni- form ratio seems to be in effect; for every five inches difference in the woman's height there is a corresponding change of two inches and a half in the proper height of sink, table, or ironing- board. That is, the best height for a woman 5 feet 2j inches tall is 2 feet 5 inches, or 29 inches. For a woman five inches taller the proper height is 2 feet 7| inches, or 31 J inches. I have also found that the proper and best height for a table is, for the same woman, the proper height for the bottom of her sink to be from the floor, and the best height for her ironing-board. This shows that there is one best height for all work- ing surfaces in the home at which the least strain is felt on the arms. The following figures will show you if your ironing-board or sink or table is at the proper level for your height: Height of Proper Height of Woman Working Surface 4 feet 10 inches 27 inches 4 " 11 " 27| " 5 " 28 •• 6 " 1 " 28| " [26] "standard practice" Height of Proper Height of Woman Working Surface 5 feet 2 inches 29 inches 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 29| 30 30| 31 31^ 32 32| 33 33^ Fortunately I have been able to have my drain- board changed from the right to the left of the sink, which is always the one best position for a drainboard. Now I pick up a plate with my left hand, scour it wdth the cloth held in the right hand, and lay the plate on the tray with my left hand, without changing hands or passing my left arm across my right arm. My left hand is capable of repeating the "laying-down motion" very fast and very easily, while the right hand never drops the cloth, but scours one dish after another rapidly. Try it and see the difference it makes. Had I not been able to change the drainboard from right to left I might [27] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING have wheeled a table to the left side of the sink. I also bought a wire dish-drainer costing 50 cents, and a soap-shaker, a dish-mop and a plate- scraper costing 10 cents each. Then I carefully separated the whole process into three opera- tions: scraping and stacking, washing, drying and laying away. My first step was: Pots and pans filled with water. Dishes scraped with plate-scraper and stacked as to size, at right of worker. Towels to hand, hot suds made in pan by soap-shaker. My second step was: Glassware placed in pan, washed with mop or small-handled brush in right hand, lifted to drain-rack with left hand. Silver placed to soak in pan while glass is dried, sorted, placed on tray and carried to place. Repeat process with silver, drying and sorting on to tray at the same time, and remove to place. My third step was: Dishes of same kind placed in pan, washed, lifted out by left hand to dish-drainer. Pour scalding water on dishes in drainer, and leave to dry without wiping, while the pots and pans are scoured with a com- bination wire-bristle brush. If there is a hot- [28] STANDARD PRACTICE water faucet a method that saves still more steps and time is to attach a foot or two of rubber hose and spray the dishes from the nozzle. Dishes are dry by the time pots are finished. Lift dishes from drainer, sort and stack on to tray, and carry to place. Hang up pots, pans, and all utensils. Rinse out towels and hang to dry. Note, please, that my drainer is at my left and the dishes are stacked to the right. (The ideal arrangement is a drainboard on each side of the sink.) This will make a difference of ten min« utes on a task requiring forty-five minutes. Note also that dishes, and particularly silver, are sorted as laid down on the tray. Note that the drainer does away with all wiping of the dishes. This cuts the time down consider- ably and saves the necessity of rubbing each piece with a dish-towel of doubtful cleanliness. While the dishes are drying the pots are cleaned with a wire-bristle brush. "Don't you wipe the dishes at all?" some woman will ask. What is the use, when it is unnecessary and takes useless time? The glass [29] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING must be wiped, of course, because very hot water cannot be poured on it; silver must be wiped, because it doesn't dry itself as china does. Rinsing in scalding water gives china a better gloss than hand polishing. I have thus worked out for myself a "stand- ard practice" method of dishwashing which I have described in detail to show how any house- hold task can be studied, analyzed, and separated into two or three simple processes. By doing dishwashing in this best, or "standard," way, I am able to do it quicker, more easily, and with- out awkward, useless motions. In housekeeping, just as in other industries, "motion study" means close analysis of work, whether it is peeling potatoes, making bread, or dusting a room. By this careful observation of how I do my work, I find what motions are efficient motions, and what motions are unneces- sary and inefficient. There is nothing difficult or mysterious about "motion study." Everything we do is motions, whether we stand or stoop; every task is com- posed of motions or groups of motions; if the [30] STANDARD PRACTICE motions are few, easy and pleasant, the task is easy; if the motions are useless and fatiguing, the task is drudgifying. The whole object of "motion study" in the home is to analyze the way we do each task so that we may learn to do it in the way that is most pleasant and least fatiguing. Another general task is cleaning, and I next studied how I worked on my general cleaning day to see if I could improve my methods. I had been accustomed to clean windows, sweep the rugs, and wipe and dust the furniture of each room separately. On noticing carefully what I did, I found that cleaning was composed of four or more processes requiring many kinds of motions, and the use of different utensils, such as broom, duster, mop, and pail. Particularly these processes required change of position, and were totally unrelated. That is, first I swept, standing upright; then I ran for water and window-rags, and cleaned windows, sitting. Then dropping these tools I wiped floors with water or with an oiled rag, on my knees; and last I stood up or bent over to do the dusting. [31] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING f lost time whenever I laid down or picked up utensils, or whenever I changed my ''shift" from one task to another; and it took some time to change my speed from sweeping to scrubbing, for instance. What did I do? The simplest thing. First, I changed the window cleaning to a different afternoon entirely, as it is an unrelated task and need not be loaded on to the general clean- ing day. Then I did the sweeping of all the rooms first, and carried the utensils in that work to the kitchen. Next I wiped all the floors and carried the pail, etc., to the kitchen. Last I dusted one room after another. By specializ- ing these tasks in this simple way I just naturally speeded up on each one and finished the work more rapidly, by at least twenty minutes, than if I had cleaned each room and done each task separately. Our washing was done at home, as it is done in many homes, without a washing machine, and with only a common boiler. I next studied to see if I could find any improvement in the method of this common task. I noted that a [32] "standard practice great deal of time was lost in handling clothes which had not been properly sorted before the washing. Then, as I put all the clothes through the blue rinsing water, I noticed that I lifted up each piece from the water, and opened it out, particularly the smaller pieces. "Why do I lift each piece like this?" I said to myself, *'and is it necessary?" The answer was that I lifted each piece out of the water to see if it were a piece to be starched or not. I decided there must be some way to avoid this repeated motion of lifting each piece, and after a little experi- menting I soaked the starched pieces in one tub and the unstarched pieces in another tub before washing. Then I boiled all unstarched white pieces first, then rinsed them and placed them in a basket to be hung up. Then I washed and boiled all starched pieces separately, and rinsed and hung them up. I saved more than fifteen minutes by washing the two different kinds of clothes separately, because it previously took me that time to hold up each piece and decide whether it was to be starched or not — just lost motion. [33] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING In ironing, I found that my board, just like the sink, was not at the right height. It was so high that I couldn't obtain enough purchase on my iron without extra effort. I simply lowered the board, made it very steady, and thus helped my efficiency. Even to-day so many women use the poor and inefficient method of supporting an ironing-board upon the back of a chair and the table, where it is always shaky, instead of using a good board on a stand capable of adjustment to various heights. In ironing I followed the same idea of special- ization: all starched pieces first, all flat pieces last. It is this separation and specialization that enable the worker to "speed up" as no other plan allows. I noticed that when I sprinkled clothes I first piled them all on a table, dampened each piece, rolled it and stooped to lay each separate piece in the clothes-basket at my feet — an unneces- sary motion for each of the dozens of pieces! I now place the basket on a high chair beside me, level with my table, and never stoop. I found I was making the same mistake when [34] "standard practice I hung up the clothes, stooping for each piece in the basket to hang it up. I found I could stand between two lines and fill both alternately without waste motion. The clothes-basket 1 wheeled about in an abandoned go-cart ■ — motion, effort and time saved — which kept the basket at the level of my waist instead of my feet. Even the simplest one-process tasks may be standardized, and a better way found which will entail less waste motion, which means waste vitality. One of the most common of tasks is to beat eggs, whip cream, or mix a cake batter. In each of these cases, the general way is to have the ingredients in a bowl, using the right hand to beat or manipulate the spoon or egg whip, while the left hand holds the bowl steady. We have become so accustomed to steadying a bowl in this way, with the left hand, that we can hardly believe such a method is extremely inefficient. It requires a strong and steady hold on the bowl to keep it at the proper slant or purchase for beating its contents. Why waste energy in keeping a utensil in place when we can easily [35 1 THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING clamp any bowl or glass churn to the table, and save the wasted motion of holding the utensil in place for the real task of beating or whipping? Yet I could multiply instances where a woman mashes potatoes, strains apple sauce or puree, or beats mayonnaise, using a great deal of energy to steady the bowl in her left hand when she might use this wasted motion on the real task of the right hand. In connection with the sink and the ironing- board I have mentioned the height of the working surface as most important. No less important is the comfortable position of the worker. I should lay it down as a cardinal principle of efficient work, to sit down to it, rather than stand, whenever possible. One can prepare all vegetables, make cake or pie, wash dishes and iron sitting down. When one is standing there is a strain to keep the body up- right; when the body is seated this strain or motion is removed, and that much effort put at the service of the real task in hand. Another form of waste motion occurs in the bringing together of the proper ingredients, [36] STANDARD PRACTICE" utensils and materials in one place, before the real task begins. The efficiency engineers who study conditions in factories watch a man at work. They note how much time it takes him to do the actual work. They time him on how long it takes him to bring his tools together, and how long it takes him to put the finished work away. Supposing it should take a man ten minutes to do a piece of work. If he does it in ten min- utes, he will have an efficiency of approximately 100 per cent. But if it takes him four unneces- sary minutes to bring his tools together, or to lay iiis work away, his efficiency will be lowered to 71 per cent. The whole aim, of course, is to have the efficiency of the worker as near 100 per cent, as possible. I know dozens of women who would be graded 100 per cent, on the actual time they take in making a cake, or doing other tasks; but they waste motion — and hence time — bringing utensils and materials together before they begin the actual task; instead of grouping flour and flavouring, baking-powder, eggs and sugar all [37] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING on the table at once, they beat the eggs, then stop and get the sugar, then reach for the flavouring, and possibly have to go for the for- gotten cup of milk in the icebox. Another most important cause of waste motion in the kitchen is poor arrangement of utensils, not only with regard to a particular task, but with regard to all tasks, and other equipment. This is a point given great emphasis by eflSciency engineers. Whole factories have been remodelled so that the machines could be in a right position, not only for the individual worker, but in right relation to other equip- ment and processes of the factory. This idea is especially applicable to the home. Perhaps you have a bread board of just the right height for your work — but where is its right position in your kitchen in relation to other utensils and to other tasks you have to do.^* You may have the finest egg and cream whip, but where do you hang it, so that it is in just the right relation to all your other equipment? And do you have to walk twenty feet for it when you need it? This point of eflSciency in arrange- [38] "standard practice ment is so vital and extensive that I want to take a whole chapter to discuss it. When we have studied a task, and stand- ardized it, we have found out, not only the best method of doing that task, but the time that best method requires — how long it will take us to do that task. The object of all standardization is really, then, to find out the shortest way, as well as the best way. Standardization im- plies skill, and the rapidity that comes from practice. In music we see that this is partic- ularly true, because by holding the hands in just the right way, the performer has so stand- ardized his work that he is able to play hundreds of notes a minute. In shops and factories the efficiency engineers make " time studies" of the work of the men, down to the fraction of a second, and on these studies the wages of the men are determined. Such detail is not needed in the home, but the object of our standardization in the home also is to find out the shortest, or more properly the average, time it takes us to perform any given task. When I know how long it takes me to do [39] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING some of my common tasks, I can the better plan my entire work along "schedule" lines. Here is a list of some of the common tasks I do, and how long each requires, working under ' ' standard ' ' conditions : Task Baby's bath Working bread (3 operations) Mix layer cake Ice layer cake . Salad dressing Pudding or dessert . Dust, brush up five small rooms daily Mix pan of muflBns Mix pan of biscuit Make pie .... Polish silver Clean bathroom Time required 25 minutes 12 minutes 10 minutes 5 minutes 15 minutes 12-15 minutes 30 minutes 6 minutes 8 minutes 10-12 minutes 40 minutes 20 minutes A last cause of waste motion is the use of the ineflScient or wrong tool. I have often used a chopping bowl and knife, and it took me seven minutes to chop one pound of cooked meat. The person using a chopping knife raises and lowers his knife as he chops, and half the time [40J "standard practice" he is not chopping meat, but air. Now with a meat chopper of family size I can grind three pounds of meat in one minute. That is because I am grinding meat all the time, and air none of the time, and because there is no wasted motion of raised and lowered arm fifty times or more. It is very often true that an improved labour- saver or household device is able to standardize work better than any method. This is true of a chopper, of a vacuum cleaner, which takes the place of both broom and duster; of a gas or elec- tric iron, which saves the repeated motion of changing irons, and of other equipment. But too many women put over-emphasis on the tool and too little on themselves. If a woman is inefficient, how can she use a tool except in an inefficient way? I believe strongly that wom- an's liberation from drudgery lies not so much in tools as in her own improved methods of work. A strong reason why the tool is not as impor- tant as more efficient working methods is that while some women can afford a vacuum cleaner or electric motor or other excellent tool, hun- [41] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING dreds and thousands of women cannot afford them and other devices, even though they wish to use them. But any one of these thousands of women can reduce the drudgery of their work, by better planning, more inteUigent systematiz- ing, and observation and experiment with their work and how they do it, until they have raised it to a greater skill — to " standard practice." For instance, in improving my method o^ dishwashing, I did buy several small tools to render the work more eflScient. But was that the main factor in making the work easier, and causing it to require less time? The important thing was the way the dishes were handled, the position of the sink, the height of the sink, the method of sorting, etc. It might be argued that it is useless, anyway, to reduce dishwashing or any other task to a "standard practice," because there are mechani- cal dishwashers and devices which will event- ually replace all hand washing — that, in short, the tool is the salvation of the housekeeper, and not standard practice methods. But while one woman is able to afford such a [42] "standard practice device, thousands of other women are not able to afford all the labour-savers on the market. Moreover, no matter how perfect may be a mechanical labour-saver, human hands must bring the dishes to it, take them out, lay them away — in short, operate this device or any other; and whether the worker performs all the operations by hand or operates a machine, the principles of efficiency are the same, and the more deftly she handles her tool the greater her speed and output. From closely watching myself and others at work, I have grouped the causes which make for 80 per cent, of the inefficiency in household tasks, as follows: 1. The worker does not have all the needful tools or utensils at hand before her when she begins work. Therefore 2. She wastes time and effort walking to, hunting for or fetching ingredients, tools or materials she neg- lected to have at hand when she began the task. 3. She stops in the middle of one task to do something else quite unrelated. 4. She lowers the eflBciency of good work by losing time putting tools or work away, generally due to poor arrangement of kitchen, pantry, and closets. [43] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING 5. She uses a poor tool, or a wrong one; or works at a table, sink, ironing-board or moulding-board of the wrong height from the floor. 6. She loses time because she does not keep sufficient supplies on hand, and because she does not keep her tools and utensils in good condition. Any worker who desires to eliminate waste motion, standardize her tasks, and increase her eflBciency 50 per cent., can ask herself these questions : 1. Is my table, stool, board, or working surface at the right height? 2. Are my utensils and materials needed for this task all before me when I begin? 3. Do I have to stoop unnecessarily? Do I take useless steps? 4. Are my utensils arranged with proper regard to each other, and to other tasks? 5. Do I waste motion and energy holding a bowl or utensil in place when it should be screwed to the table? 6. Is my position comfortable? 7. Are the tools and utensils grouped properly before me for this particular task? 8. Am I using the best and right tool for the purpose? 9. Is the tool properly adjusted and in good condition before I begin work? 10. Am I making any awkward motions, or ones I could omit? [44] STANDARD PRACTICE Since much inefficiency and waste motion is due to poor arrangement of the kitchen and its fittings, I will devote the next chapter to dis- cussing "Standardized Conditions" in kitchen arrangement. [45] CHAPTER THREE STANDARDIZING CONDITIONS IN KITCHEN ARRANGEMENT 1 RECALL a young bride who recently showed me her new kitchen. "Isn't it a beauty?" she ex- claimed. It certainly had modern appliances of every kind. But her stove was in a recess of the kitchen at one end. Her pantry was twenty feet away 'at the opposite end. Every time she wanted to use a frying pan she had to walk twenty feet to get it, and, after using it, she had to walk twenty feet to put it away. I know blocks and blocks of houses in a city over 100,000 population which are all built that way. When I see such a kitchen I am reminded of the barker I once heard outside of a country circus. "Ladies and gentlemen,'* he was calling, "come in and see the great African crocodile. It meas- ures 18 feet from the tip of its nose to the tip of its tail, and 18 feet from the tip of its tail to [46] STANDARDIZING CONDITIONS the tip of its nose, making in all, ladies and gentlemen, a grand total of 36 feet." How many women are "making a grand total" of thirty-six steps every time they hang up the egg-beater? The first step toward the efficiency of any kitchen is to have the kitchen small, compact, and without long narrow pantries and closets. Many women are under the impression that a "roomy" kitchen is desirable. It may appear attractive, but a careful test of the way work is done in a "roomy" kitchen will discover waste spaces between the equipment, and hence waste motion between the work. Country kitchens are particularly apt to be large, and are often a combined sitting-room and kitchen. This plan seems cosy, but is inefficient because of the presence of lounges, flowers, and sewing — all unrelated to the true work of the kitchen, which is the preparing of food. It is much wiser to have the kitchen small, and make a separate sitting-room so that the tired cook may rest in a room other than the one in which she has worked. [47] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING A good-sized kitchen for a small-sized house is 10x12; the ideal is nearly square, or only slightly longer than wide. After deciding that our kitchen must be small, the next step in standardizing its arrangement is to place the principal equipment of stove, sink, tables, and closets in right relation to each other and the processes they develop. In planning for any kitchen I have found, after close study, that there are just two main processes in all kitchen work. Every task done, peeling potatoes or washing a skillet, can be divided clearly under one or the other group. One group is those processes which prepare the meal; the second group is those processes which clear away the meal. Each of these processes covers distinct equipment. The reason for so much inefficiency in kitchen work is almost solely because these two processes are not kept separate, and be- cause, particularly, the equipment of each proc- ess is not kept together. I want to explain this idea in detail, because it is so very important, although so very simple, as every intelligent woman will see if she [48] STANDARDIZING CONDITIONS only stops to think. Let me state it in this way: Preparing Meal Group I Group II 1. Prepar- ing 2. Cooking I 3. Serving Clearing Meal 1. Removing 2. Washing 3. Laying away >A11 foods 'All foods >utensils k dishes Equipment 1. Icebox, pantry, table, kitchen- cabinet 1 2. Stove, utensils y,3. Table, trays '1. Trays, tables 12. Sink, drain Is. Closets, panv try, icebox Suppose, for instance, we wish to make an omelet. We take eggs and milk from the ice- box or pantry (follow diagram), beat it at a table, cook on stove, serve on platter, and take to dining-room. This is the preparing process of this dish, and is the simplest method we can follow. On the return trip, or the processes of clearing away, I take the empty platter from the dining-room to the kitchen sink, wash it, and lay it away. [49] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING Now if the kitchen table, stove, and sink are in the right relation to each other, we can make our omelet or any other dish with the least possible number of steps, motion, time, and fatigue. But if the stove, sink, and tables are not in right relation to each other, it will require twice as much energy to cook and serve our omelet. The definite equipment of the processes of Group I come in order this way : Icebox — preparing table — stove — serving table — dining-room. The definite equipment of the processes of Group II come in this order: Sink table — sink-drain — china and dish closets. In my small kitchen, therefore, I have ar- ranged the equipment as follows: first, at the south, an icebox, then a kitchen cabinet, then the stove, and last a small serving table. At the other side of the room come, first to left, china shelves, then sink, and last at right, sink table. [50] STANDARDIZING CONDITIONS To make my omelet, I take materials from icebox, turn a step to right, where I beat it on surface of cabinet, turn one more step to right for stove, and a last step to right lays it on the serving table, when I can carry it to dining room. On the return trip I take the soiled platter from dining-room directly to sink table, wheel left to sink, left to drain, and last, left to closet shelves. I have drawn two diagrams which show the making of an omelet under two arrangements of equipment. One is a steady track from icebox to dining-room; the other is a crossing and recrossing like the tracks of a hound after a hare. I have dwelt at length on this point, because it is the first vital point, the heart, or crux, of the whole matter of "step-taking.'* It is so easy to have the equipment in right relations, but how many kitchens there are where the sink is next the pantry, where it is useless; where the stove and sink are adjacent; where the china shelves and the stove are alongside, with noth- ing to do with each other. Efiiciency engineers who have been called in to standardize the tasks [51] THE NEW HOUSEKEEPING in factories have, after examination, found that each separate operation was being done very well; but time and recrossing of materials re- sulted in waste, because the main equipment was not in right relation to other processes in the same room or the same building. In general, I should lay down these simple rules for a right-handed person: 1. Icebox or pantry to left of preparing table; stove to right of working table, and serving table to right of stove. 2. Sink table to right of sink; drain to left of sink ; closet or china shelves to left of drain. As the next step in our standardization it is important that every bit of the main equip- ment, the sink, stove, cabinet top, and tables, are at the right height for the worker. Only at the right height can there be ease in working at their surfaces. The table found in chapter two will help any woman find the best height for herself; or she can by actual experiment of hold- ing a pan on a small table, which a second person lowers and raises, adjust the most comfortable place for her arms to hold the pan or bowl. [52] >- o o o 3TOVE (2) 2U @ ;^ ,->--. ■>->:^—' o I S i C-- I' . t*;^ C to cS ^-s. h o HeoliMu) food CoAMnAiiwu MlATt . ».». tt alT^Zl, // ■ "MEATS tTAKCHV \\ •-'-'-•—-• // STARCHY VECCTAaLZ* ._,.-_— «>>•-. ,.~—«K-t // , VEOETABLEt WATERY Hm— ,.>,-, ^.« // WATERY VtOITAIlXK.. —■ -\\ y^>.'.-r" // _..... VEOETABLES •ALAe»..,„.,„.i„^_.».„.»\\';::j.jrir //•■.•.-... .. salads DIRECT 10 T4S rM*Mi T^Om rOOO CONTAINS THia OAJLY I. rrra.-lto..l taa fMt *i ta^ Mi« *«i^« tMC> TotSAbr Appleeroh Efficiency Station. Greenlawn. Long Island. Mrs. Frederick's Salad Chart shows hundreds of delightful salad com- binations; salads to serve with meat, fish, as refreshments, or as a sub' stantial limch or dinner dish; directions for making the perfect salad and salad dressing; correct service of salads. Price, postpaid, $.25. Both Charts, postpaid, $.60. Special prices in quantities to clubs. Address: Applecroft Experiment Station, Greenlawn, Long Island. RD-1 6 6 c-t^^''^ /- r^ .^ ..^d^'. -^^^^^Z .'^|£^^. '^^^^^^ *N • ^^ v-s- v-^^ C, vP .^^ '^P^32084W;* qO UBRARV OF CONGRESS 0001524533S