
Transcription
The office furniture industry:patterns in productivityProduct proliferation and short production runslimited the use of laborsaving equipmentin office furniture establishments; as a result,productivity grew only moderately during 1958-80J. EDWIN HENNEBERGERProductivity growth (as measured by output per employee hour) in the office furniture industry' has beenlow, in large part because of relatively short productionruns engendered by product proliferation . Between 1958and 1980, the industry posted an average annual productivity gain of 1 .8 percent, substantially below the 2.8percent rate for all manufacturing industries . The gainresulted from growth in output of 5.5 percent, annually,and employee hours of 3.6 percent.In many industries, declines or small gains in outputare associated with reduced or even negative growth inproductivity . This seems to be true of the office furniture industry as a whole. (See table 1.) Thus, in the 9years in which output either declined or grew at a lessthan average rate, productivity either fell or grew at aless than average rate in 5 of these years.The trend in productivity for the overall office furniture industry must be viewed in light of the underlyingtrend movements of the two component industrieswood office furniture and metal office furniture. Metalfurniture is the dominant industry in the office furnituregroup, employing about two-thirds of the 53,000 workers and accounting for roughly the same percent ofshipments. Although both industries exhibited nearlythe same growth in productivity between 1958 and 1980(1 .7 percent for wood furniture and 1 .8 percent for metal furniture), the growth in output and employee hourswas more diverse, with both output and hours grow-J. Edwin Henneberger is an economist in the Division of IndustryProductivity Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics .ing at much higher rates in the wood component (7 .2percent and 5.5 percent) than in metal (4.6 percent and2.8 percent) .The metal office furniture industry, which experiencedfive output downturns between 1958 and 1980, was,nevertheless, able to maintain productivity growth in allbut 2 of these years . This suggests that the industry'swork force is flexible and can be rapidly reduced if industry sales are declining. However, the wood office furniture industry was never able to maintain positiveproductivity during the six declines in output from 1958to 1980 . The more highly skilled work force, utilizingcraftworkers, in the wood segment may be more difficult to periodically layoff and rehire .Productivity trends have variedThe industry's long-term productivity growth can bedivided into three periods (table 1) . From 1958 to 1966,productivity grew at a rate of 3.6 percent annually .Slowing dramatically, productivity growth advanced byonly 0.1 percent per year during the middle time span-1966 to 1975 . However, from 1975 to 1980, the rateof advance increased to 5.1 percent per year .Recession-induced falloffs were particularly acutefrom 1966 to 1975 . During the 1970 recession, industryoutput dropped 17 percent while employee hours werereduced by 6.6 percent. Consequently, productivity in1970 fell by more than 11 percent. During the 1974-75recession, output declined 5.3 percent in 1974 and 17 .7percent in 1975 while productivity posted its largestfalloff in 1974 ( - 8 .3 percent) . More recently, productivity exhibited positive growth during the short reces33
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1982 . Office Furniture Industry ProductivityTable 1 . Productivity and related Indexes for the officefurniture Industry, 1958-80[1977 100]output parallemployeehouroutputfreehours1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64.069.870.433.137.539.451 .753.756.051 .852.954 .71961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72.538 .453.051 .81963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75.982 .184.245 .650 .857 .560.161 .966.358.760.064.9Yea1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1966196719681969. . . . . . . . .74.442 .1Employees56.655.8.86 .786 .585 .288 .067 .969 .770 .981 .478.380.683.292.574.778.278.788.91971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 .991 .890 .664 .882 .787 .577.290.196.674.987.394.41975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .568 .279 .881 .81970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 .267 .683 .186.482 .989 .782.799.875 .898.984.585.61977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100.0100.0100.0100.01979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 .3108 .9121 .1125 .9112.9115.6110.9118.41978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100.1108.1108.0107.8average annual rates of change18580 . . . . . . . . . . . .1958.6 . . . . . . . . . . . .1966-75 . . . . . . . . . . . .1975-80 . . . . . . . . . . . .1 .83.60.15 .1I5 .58.41 .4I13 .93.64.61 .48.3(3.84.12.08.0sion in 1980. However, this gain in productivity (1 .5percent) was somewhat less than the industry's longterm growth (1 .8 percent per year).Among the component industries, the same midtermpattern of productivity slowdown is evident. (See table2.) From 1958 to 1966, productivity advanced in bothindustries at about 3.6 percent per year . But from 1966to 1975, productivity fell at an annual rate of 1.1 percent in the wood component while advancing by only0.5 percent per year in the metal furniture industry .Rebounding from the recession-marked middle period,productivity advanced sharply from 1975 to 1980 in thewood and metal industries-7 .2 and 3.8 percent, respectively . Output in this recovery period was up sharply in both industries, paced by the nearly 22-percentaverage annual growth in wood furniture. Laggingsomewhat behind wood furniture, the output of metalfurniture increased by about 10 percent per year duringthis later period, as market share was lost to the morenatural look and feel of wood.Office furniture demand growingBetween 1958 and 1980, output of the office furnitureindustry grew at an average annual rate of 5.5 percentper year, substantially above the 3.8-percent averagerate for all manufacturing industries . A number of factors have shaped the demand for office furniture and the34industry's output growth . Some of these factors have included the amount of available office space, growth ofthe white-collar work force, replacement demand, andthe introduction of new products .The most important factor influencing the long-termgrowth of office furniture undoubtedly has been thegrowth of the white-collar or office work force. Between1958 and 1980, white-collar workers have grown fromabout 27 to nearly 53 million. Currently, officeworkersaccount for slightly more than one-half of the totalemployed work force.' This translates into a 2.9-percentaverage annual increase. Available office space also is adeterminant of office furniture demand . The amount ofpublic and private detached office space doubled between 1958 and 1980.'As the stock of existing office furniture grows, the demand for replacement of wornout or obsolete equipment grows also . The data suggest that in recent yearsroughly one-third of office furniture production hasbeen consumed by the replacement market ."The introduction of new products also stimulates increased demand for office furniture. In the past, officefurniture usually consisted of desks, chairs, tables, andstorage equipment, sold as individual pieces . Now,modular or systems furniture is sold as complete integrated packages that include movable partitions, storagecomponents, and service modules. Advantages claimedTable 2. Productivity indexes for the office furnitureand two component, 1958-80[1977 100]Yeaall oftefurnituretamiturefurniture1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 .069 .867.169.564.571 .619611962196319641965.72 .574 .475 .982 .184 .270.569.980.484.582.874 .777 .975.982.986.31966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 .785.988.31968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .288 .078.287.791 .983.986.288.578 .01960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wood70 .468.086 .588.1mew72.787.61971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 .981 .286.41973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 .683.185.578.583.080.597 .984 .588.91972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 .884.589.781 .9100.0100.0100.1107.3108.9100.7110.7109.296.794 .8100.099.9104 .8108.6average annual rates of change1958-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1958-i6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1966r75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1975-80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.83.60.15.1I1.73.5-1 .17 .21 .83 .60.53 .8
for systems furniture include design flexibility, more efficient use of floor space, low rearrangement costs, andbuilt-in electrical outlets. In recent years, systems furniture has outpaced the growth of conventional office furniture . Currently, systems furniture accounts for about20 percent of the total office furniture market . Computers and word processors, which require support furnishings, have also resulted in increased demand for officefurniture.Industry employment more than doublesThe number of employees in the office furniture industry increased from 23,000 in 1958 to about 53,000 in1980 . Sustained expansion of the work force during the1960's accounted for much of this growth .While the overall employment growth for the industry was 3.8 percent per year from 1958 to 1980, employment trends varied among the subindustries . Thework force in the wood office furniture industryexpanded at an average of 6.0 percent per year . Themetal furniture industry grew at less than half of that2.8 percent per year .Compared with other manufacturing industries, officefurniture production is relatively labor intensive . About10 percent more production worker hours are needed togenerate 1 of added value in office furniture than in allmanufacturing. Among the component industries, woodoffice furniture is the most labor intensive.Production workers accounted for 79 percent of totalindustry employment in 1980, down slightly from the 81percent reported in 1958 . About 25 percent of the industry's workers in 1980 were women, slightly less than the31 percent level for all manufacturing. Average hourlyearnings of production workers- 5 .92 in 1980-weresomewhat below that of the all manufacturing rate of 7 .27. Over the long term, employee turnover has beenslightly below that of the all manufacturing rate.Industry establishment size increasingAlthough office furniture production is geographicallydispersed throughout the United States, there is a largeconcentration of firms in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, with many plants clustered in andaround Grand Rapids, Mich . Until World War II, theGrand Rapids area had been a major center for household furniture. After the war, the household furnitureindustry dispersed, and commercial and office furnituremanufacturers moved in to fill the void .From 1958 to 1977, the number of establishments inthe industry has been growing. In the wood segment,the number of establishments more than doubled, whilein metal furniture, the number increased by only 25 percent . For the industry as a whole, average employmentsize per establishment increased by about 12 percent .During the same period, companies primarily manufac-turing office furniture increased from 289 in 1958 to 486in 1977-most of this growth occurring in the woodfurniture segment. At the same time, the proportion ofindustry shipments accounted for by the four largestcompanies in each industry increased modestly .Between 1975 and 1980, the average annual growthin capital expenditures per employee was lower for theoffice furniture industry than for all manufacturing . Forexample, from 1958 to 1975, capital expenditures peremployee grew at an annual rate of 6.3 percent in officefurniture, while the all manufacturing rate over thesame time period was 7.5 percent. Productivity growthover this period was also lower in the office furniture industry than in all manufacturing. From 1975 to 1980,however, capital expenditures per employee acceleratedto 29 .6 percent per year, compared with a rate of 11 .1percent for all manufacturing. Productivity from 1975to 1980 increased sharply also, growing at a rate of 5.1percent. The level of expenditures per employee, however, has been substantially less than all manufacturing.In 1980, the office furniture industry expended roughly 2,900 per employee for new capital equipment whilethe all manufacturing average was almost 3,700.Manufacturing innovations limitedTypically, production in the office furniture industrytakes place at mechanized work stations with workpiecetransfer accomplished by conveyor line, forklift truck,or handcart . The wood furniture industry employs general purpose woodworking machinery such as saws,planers, glue presses, and sanders. Basic operations inthe metal furniture industry include metal cutting,stamping, welding, and tubeforming. With minor differences, both industries have common operations such aspainting and upholstering. Obviously, many of the processes used for manufacturing wood furniture bear littleresemblance to those used for metal furniture. However,even within the component industries, variations inequipment and processes are evident. This is particularly true of wood furniture. Some of the finer grades areproduced almost entirely by hand, while the less expensive grades are produced in assembly line fashion.Product proliferation is a problem within the officefurniture industry, and this has hindered the introduction of special purpose and highly efficient machineryand equipment. While the household furniture industryfinds it relatively easy to drop product lines and styles,office furniture companies must maintain the capacity toproduce old as well as new product lines. This problemis particularly acute in the more expensive wood officefurniture lines . Reorders of wood furniture must matchstyle as well as wood grain pattern and color (whichmay not be the same as when the pieces were new) .Therefore, the potential number of product types,styles, and colors, coupled with the bulkiness of furni35
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW December 1982 . Office Furniture Industry Productivityture, discourage factories from accumulating large inventories of finished goods. Most office furniture, perhaps as much as 90 percent, is for order rather thaninventory. Office furniture dealers do not stock large inventories either ; rather, an accumulation of customerorders is periodically sent to the factory. This results inshort production runs of individual items.This diminished ability to control production runs maybe one of the reasons productivity growth in the officefurniture industry has been less than that of the household furniture industry .' The office furniture industrymust remain even more flexible in terms of productioncapabilities than household furniture manufacturers,many of whom are also troubled by short, inefficientproduction runs and difficulty in incorporating highlyspecialized and efficient equipment . Nevertheless, somenotable advances in the technology of manufacturingoffice furniture have been introduced .In the wood office furniture industry, one of the mostpronounced trends in innovation has been increased useof particleboard. While the primary impetus for theexpanded usage of particleboard has been its lower costin relation to the cost of solid lumber, the industry hasfocused considerable attention on new technologies tohandle the material . A wide variety of surface laminatesand films and application techniques have eliminatedseveral time-consuming production and assembly operations. Groove-folding, a technique whereby V-shapedgrooves are cut in the particleboard substrate, but notthrough the flexible surface material, produces seamlessfurniture edges which are held in place by the continuous outer wrap .'Although somewhat hampered by increased petrochemical prices in recent years, the use of plasticmaterials has simplified construction and addedstrength to furniture components, and can also producemar-resistant surfaces . Reconstituted wood veneer, another advance in materials, has uniform thickness,grain, and quality and can be evenly stained. Its useeliminates the need for the labor intensive procedure ofmanually grading, selecting, and removing defects fromnatural veneers.In addition to new materials, notable advances haveoccurred in woodworking machinery . Abrasive planing,introduced in the early 1960's, combines heavy stock removal with direct dimensioning at the sanding machine.'Machines which glue and trim veneer strips to the edgesof particleboard can eliminate the complicated set ofclamps and pressure bands which formerly had to belocked in place until the glue dried.In the metal office furniture industry, machines haverecently been installed that automatically position andcut shapes into the large flat metal blanks that later willbe fashioned into desks, file cabinets, and so forth. Thisequipment is more efficient because it does not require36moving the workpiece to a separate machine for eachcut. Also, setup time is considerably reduced.Savings in the time needed to produce tubular shapeshave been accomplished by new tubeforming and cutting equipment. Tubemaking, which starts from flatcoiled steel, has been speeded up by the use of automatic welders which join the ends of the coils so that thetubeforming equipment need not be shut down whilecoils are being changed.Metallic inert gas (MIG) welding has largely supplanted most other forms of welding. Its advantage is thatthe parts being joined do not have to be as thoroughlycleaned as with brazing. Although robot welders arenot common, automatic welding is . Once travel and angle of the welding arm have been adjusted, a worker isrequired only to load and unload workpieces onto andfrom the equipment.Although not designed specifically for the metal officefurniture industry, automated parts inventory storageand retrieval systems are being used by several plants inthe industry . Operating under the control of a computerwhich "explodes" or breaks down orders for the required number of finished pieces of furniture into thenecessary parts demand, robot crawlers and unmannedforklift trucks retrieve and deliver the parts to variouspickup stations where they are transferred to the assembly line in the correct sequence for manufacture.Upholstering, an operation which is similar in bothwood and metal office furniture, is a particularly laborintensive operation and requires a skilled work force.Although still used in many plants, manual pattern layout and fabric cutting have in some cases been phasedout, superseded by diecutting of fabric. Computer-controlled cutting equipment, which combines high speedwith accuracy and eliminates manual pattern layout, isalso available.' Steam tables, installed at upholsterers'work stations, expand the cut fabric workpiece. Onceremoved from the steam and stapled around the foamrubber cushion, the fabric shrinks back to its normalsize and becomes taut . Airpowered plunger tables, usedto compress the fabric-covered foam shape, have madebutton insertion and tiedown operations easier .Electrostatic finishing, used widely by the metal furniture industry, can be used successfully on wooden furniture,' resulting in increased labor productivity in thefinishing area and a substantial reduction in materialand maintenance costs. Automatic electrostatic spraylines allow closer spacing of pieces to be painted and,thus, greater efficiency . With these automatic lines, color changeover is automatic and can be done in 30 seconds rather than the 2 minutes previously required onthe nonautomatic electrostatic lines. Electrodepositionlines, which are powdered coatings in a medium of either air or water, are particularly efficient with respectto labor, materials, and solvent emissions .
Likewise, both the metal and wood office furniture industries have shared the advances made in portable,handheld power fastening tools, resulting in addedworker efficiency through more power, greater capacity,and less weight and maintenance. Productivity has alsobeen enhanced by improved workflow layout, computerized recordkeeping, and new materials such as quicksetting glues and improved finishes .Recent trends may continueIf continued, the industry's capital spending surge ofthe last few years may provide the plant and equipmentnecessary to maintain the recent above average growth inproductivity . However, the current economic downturnmay have a negative effect on demand and productivity .Although the full consequences of the current economic downturn cannot be foreseen, it is worth notingthat previous recessions have had only limited ef-fects on the growth of the white-collar work force, oneof the key factors in the output growth of the office furniture industry . In fact, even though there have beenfour recessions since 1958, the total white-collar workforce has never declined . With the forecasted continuedexpansion in the white-collar work force,' demand forthe industry's products should continue to increase andmay, therefore, present the industry with opportunitiesto expand productivity . Also, the industry's outputshould be further bolstered if the growth of systems furniture continues.While the "paperless office" is not as yet a reality,"over the long term, the increasing sophistication of electronic office equipment may result in officeworkersbecoming more productive. This, in turn, can influenceoutput of the office furniture industry by dampeninggrowth in the white-collar work force and affecting demandand productivity in the office furniture industry . E]FOOTNOTES' The office furniture industry is classified as SIC 252 in the 1972Standard Industrial Classification Manual and its 1977 supplement, issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget . The subindustrieswithin the office furniture group include establishments that are primarily engaged in manufacturing furniture commonly used in officeswood (SIC 2521) and metal (SIC 2522).'Employment and Training Report of the President, 1981 Report(The White House, 1981), pp . 148-49; see also table 3, p. 73, of theApril 1982 issue of the Monthly Labor Review.'See P. W. Daniels, ed ., Spatial Patterns of Office Growth and Location (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1979), pp. 67-69.' "Equipment Purchases Planned by Readers in 1980," The Office,January 1980, p. 26 .'See J. Edwin Henneberger, "Productivity Growth Below Averagein the Household Furniture Industry," Monthly Labor Review, Nov-ember 1978, pp . 23-29 .Darrell Ward, "Groove Folding for Contract and Contemporary,"Woodworking and Furniture Digest, June 1981, pp . 42-45.'"Abrasive Planing Challenges Your Knife Cutting Techniques," Hitchcock's Wood Working Digest, November 1963, pp . 2932 .'Robert Michael, "New Techniques of Computerized Fabric Cutting," Furniture Methods and Materials, June 1971, pp . 12-15.Richard D. Rea, "Electrostatic Disks Win," Woodworking andFurniture Digest, April 1982, pp . 22-25.' Economic Projections to 1990, Bulletin 2121 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982), pp . 34-47." See Paul Lieber, "Office Automation : The Job Threat that NeverHappened," The Office, May 1980, p. 158.APPENDIX: Measurement techniques and limitationsIndexes of output per employee hour measure changesin the relation between the output of an industry andemployee hours expended on that output. An index ofoutput per employee hour is derived by dividing an index of output by an index of industry employee hours.The preferred output index for manufacturing industries would be obtained from data on quantities of thevarious goods produced by the industry, each weighted(multiplied) by the employee hours required to produceone unit of each good in some specified base period .Thus, those goods which require more labor for production are given more importance in the index.Because data on physical quantities are not reportedfor the entire office furniture industry, real output wasestimated by a deflated value technique. Changes inprice levels were removed from current-dollar values ofproduction by means of appropriate price indexes atvarious levels of subaggregation for the variety of products in the group. To combine segments of the outputindex into a total output measure, employee hourweights relating to the individual segments were used,resulting in a final output index that is conceptuallyclose to the preferred output measure.The indexes of output per employee hour relate totaloutput to one input-labor. The indexes do not measure the specific contribution of labor, capital, or anyother single factor . Rather, they reflect the joint effectsof factors such as changes in technology, capital investment, capacity utilization, plant design and layout, skilland efforts of the work force, managerial ability, and labor-management relations.The average annual rates of change presented in thetext are based on the linear least squares trend of thelogarithms of the index numbers . Extensions of the indexes appear annually in the BLS bulletin, Productivityin Selected Industries. A technical note describing themethods used to develop the indexes is available fromthe Division of Industry Productivity Studies .37
The introduction of new products also stimulates in-creased demand for office furniture. In the past, office furniture usually consisted of desks, chairs, tables, and storage equipment, sold as individual pieces. Now, modular or systems furniture is sold as complete inte