PLACE, where each can be," was only common sense.

In the filing system which she had inherited, there were a dozen places for each set of data. There was a file on "Industries" with sub-files for "Automobiles" and all the rest; a file for data on "Railroads," with two or three sub-files. The file clerk had to use judgment and discretion in selecting the heading under which each letter or piece of data was filed. And she wasn't hired for judgment and discretion. Sometimes, too, the editors erred in their descriptions of the material they wanted.

One file, arranged alphabetically—ONE PLACE TO LOOK, regardless of the thing looked for—was the logical conclusion, viewed from the standpoint of finding.

The managing editor was horrified. Mix "railroads" with "public service," and "manufacturing" with "agriculture"?

"Why," asked the file clerk, looking back at her analysis, "why care how things are kept so long as they can be found quickly? When you send me for Camels, do you care, so long as you get them quickly, whether they're kept next to Chesterfields, or right beside the chewing gum? When the chief asks for data on 'C.P.R.' does he care, if he gets it right away, whether it was filed next to data on 'Coal' or beside facts about other railroads?"

"All right," objected the managing editor, "suppose someone asks for all the data we have on railroads?"

Not a bad question. It was from a finding standpoint.

"Have a separate cross-index by classes," was the answer. "That is, under 'Railroads' have a card showing the name of every——"

"But look at the extra work."

Back to her ANALYSIS went the file clerk. "Why file at all, except to make it easy to find what we file? If we were to set up a system for easiest filing, we'd simply put everything in boxes just as it comes to us. Our main objective is to make information easy to find, and anything that increases the work of filing but lessens the work of finding, is profitable."

The result was a filing system that has made a great mass of data as accessible as the words in the dictionary. And it has taken the human equation out of the job. No longer does the file clerk have to stop and use her judgment as to where she shall file Mr. Stilb's letter. There is ONE PLACE AND JUST ONE PLACE.

And the basis of the plan was the simple process of ANALYZING—of starting with the final objective and WORKING BACKWARD—not forward from the work to be done.

In hundreds of business offices—in countless industrial plants—time, labor and money are being wasted today in outmoded methods which, like Topsy, "just grew." The manager who started them didn't stop to reason out first exactly what had to be done—or if he did, he failed to WORK BACKWARD from the final objective.

One way is as bad as the other.

In fact, it may even be better not to reason at all than fail to get to the very bottom and reason out the absolute right of what has to be done. At least it takes less time.

A sure way, incidentally, to avoid making mistakes in your analysis is to do it on paper. A professor of mathematics in one of the large universities always tells his students that no problem should be performed in the head that can be done on paper. "Make pencil and paper do as much as you can, for your brain has enough to do to supervise the work."

Until your mind is trained to the habit of QUICK, ACCURATE ANALYSIS, you'll find it helps to do the work on paper. Keep on hand a small supply of blank charts like the one on page 31, on which to sketch an analysis of new work or of important decisions. The constant performance of this detail will of itself train your mind to look at problems more analytically, and automatically to sift and classify them more logically.

Perhaps you can improve on the chart shown on page 31. Surely you can adapt it better to your own needs. But force yourself to some such method. It will help you to cultivate the instinct of SHREWD, RAPID ANALYSIS—and at the same time it cannot help giving you a KEENER, SURER INSIGHT into the particular problem, no matter how complex or how simple it may be.

Sometimes it is the apparently simple problems that need analysis most. For example——

Did you ever hear of a sales organization that didn't have a stenographic problem?

The New York office of a Western factory was no exception. The manager was broadminded—even liberal—with his salesmen. But when it came to stenographers, he was decidedly Scotch. Valuable men sat around the office mornings and evenings waiting for a chance to dictate to a staff of girls which was measured to fit the average load of the day, but not the rush load of the two hours a day when the salesmen were inside.

Dictating machines seemed to be the answer. The sales manager figured they would not only solve the dictation problem, but would further reduce stenographic costs.

They were installed. At the same time the stenographic force was cut to insure keeping all the girls busy all the day.

Good. The salesmen were able to dictate when they felt like it. But often the letters dictated were a day or two late in being transcribed.

Complaints increased. And the manager lost his temper: "What's the matter with this cursed letter-writing business?" he demanded. "Why the Sam Hill do we have typists and stenographers?"

Well, why? He calmed down a bit, seized a sheet of paper and mapped out his problem.

This is what he wrote:

1. Salesmen's letters are to save salesmen's time and to give prompt service to customers.

2. I don't begrudge half a day's time of a $20-a-day salesman to call on a customer. Then it's still profitable to waste half of the time of a $4-a-day stenographer in order to save a long trip for a salesman, or to get a quick answer to a question.

3. What we need is enough typists to transcribe every letter of every salesman promptly, even if part of them have to be idle half the day.

The increased use of sales letters, the greater freedom salesmen feel in their dictation, the number of selling details now promptly handled by mail without an expensive call—all are directly traceable to the manager's ANALYSIS which he made by using the final objective as a starting point.

He's a convert to the pencil and paper method. Sales problems are part of his daily exercise. He goes to the bottom of them instinctively. But any problems that arise concerning office work, he settles only after analyzing from front to back—on paper.

His method of charting his ANALYSIS differs in appearance from the chart on page 31, but it is identical in PRINCIPLE AND EFFECT. It works from final objective BACKWARD.

One more application of the same KNACK OF ANALYSIS—and we are done. It is that of an Ohio manufacturer who recently put up a new building.

Plans prepared by