During the period 1952 to 1965, there were strenuous world-wide efforts to produce an automated cotton spinning mill. These attempts, which involved the use of concepts developed outside the textile machinery industry (i.e. automatic transfer systems), were motivated by the need to reduce the very great amount of manual handling of packages between successive operations in the yarn manufacturing process. The case is unusual in that, while many of the developments were ‘technically successful’ in that installations were made which functioned satisfactorily in the mill), they were, without exception, commercially unsuccessful from the point of view of the machinery manufacturer and mill operator. This paper describes the economic forces which led to the attempts at automation, and explains why, after an expenditure in excess of £ 25 mill/on worldwide, commercial success was not achieved. The prime reason for failure lay in minor and major developments of existing individual machines, which had continued independently of automation research, and which had, to a great extent, obviated the economic need for automation. The surprising thing (in retrospect at least), is that, as production rates were increased step by step, development engineers working to produce automated systems saw, in the increasing speeds, only a challenge to their ingenuity — not a disappearance of the need for automatic transfer devices. A secondary reason for failure in the particular case of the Shirley Institute's automated card room sequence lay in the fact that the research was directed by a committee whose terms of reference were limited to pursuance of a defined goal — the development of an automated card room. The committee had no mandate to question the soundness of its objectives, and the work continued until a technically successful system was finally produced.
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 1990
I I Matyushev + 1
