“We Must Do More” and “Make Thousand More”: slogans with which unions and work councils protested in the 1970s and 80s against the extensive implementation of the MTM process. Many employees feared a clever form of measuring work. Others even believed MTM wanted to make machines out of people – or so claimed the German media for what was then the Daimler Benz company. “Physically weakened, made a nervous wreck, spiritually destroyed: An MTM robot on the way home“ was printed in one edition. Whoever at that time had any actual experience with the process gladly came to another conclusion. As early as in 1969, the worker representative at the time informed the Robert Bosch AG: “After years of experience, the work council has no particular concerns about the use of the MTM process”.

And further, “We have determined that in general the employees prefer to work at MTM stations than at the few remaining old stations”. The focus of the criticism at the time was the introduction of a new remuneration system. Instead of the usual settlement, a performance-driven wage system, based on the MTM standard output, was paid. This standard output was exactly that, however, which critics felt was too high – an accusation that is still heard at times. Here, basic principles of the MTM process were and are misunderstood. It is not in working more that productivity will increase, but in improving the way of working (method).

When MTM speaks of standard output, it also speaks of performing a task according to optimized work methods in an optimized work environment. For this reason, the MTM process places high value on ergonomic design of the work station: fatigue-free work, avoiding monotonous strain and overburdening, a work station adapted to the physical requirements of the employees – the MTM Organization was the first to make these principles widely known. From the beginning, the MTM Organization has sought contact with unions and management. Through the quality work achieved and the experiences that come from practice here, the negative stance of most employees toward MTM has disappeared. MTM has played a mediator role between employees and employers and eventually that has been recognized. Employee representatives have also recognized that it is exactly the objectivity of the MTM standard output that protects the employees from unrealistic demands, and that is, in cases of doubt, a powerful argument for an unbiased debate (don’t discuss the time but focus on the work content generating the demand of time).

One reason for the broad acceptance is without a doubt due to the fact that the right of worker participation has always been respected. The use of MTM standards in combination with incentive systems was and is only under a strict agreement with the work council. Above all, representatives of IG Metall have quickly recognized that proper use of the MTM process increases productivity, and, at the same time, can represent a fair measure of output. Thus, MTM is today integrated into around 200 operational agreements for standard time calculation. MTM constantly emphasizes the importance of employees for the success of the business. And those are more than just nice words: involving and training employees in optimization strategies early on, encouraging their motivation, acceptance and identification, and regularly making all measures transparent and understandable – this is the essence of the MTM philosophy.

Interview: Konrad Siegel, IG Metall

In the 1970s, many unions and work councils fought against the introduction of MTM. How do you see the whole thing today? It was clear to IG Metall that MTM was an instrument whose basic elements made possible the designing of work stations, work processes and output remuneration while observing the interests of the employees. That is why it did not block the introduction of MTM, but rather was involved in designing the basic conditions. The negative stance came about from concerns that the management would use MTM for intensifying the division of labor to more short-cycled and monotonous work and to set a faster work rate. These concerns were not entirely unfounded. MTM was seen by many as a customizing instrument.

The simultaneous carrying through of the second wage condition agreement in Nordwüttemberg Nordbaden shows that IG Metall took such concerns seriously, but did not want to construct a specific anti-MTM barrier. Have the attitudes of the employers toward MTM changed? Even today we regularly meet business directors for whom introducing MTM means to take an effective “rationalization whip“ in the hand. The message of the MTM Organization is clearly defined over several pages: MTM should be used to establish economically and ergonomically well-designed processes and lasting rationalization effects that primarily will not “break the backs“of the employees. This is a message that is not often, or not often enough, understood by management.

Such a view of rationalization leads to similar causes for uprisings as there were by earlier introductions of MTM. The MTM standard output is not popular with all employees. But it is integrated into more than 200 operational agreements. Why? Unions and the MTM Organization today share the view that the MTM standard output does not represent “standard output“ in the classic sense. First of all, it is a usable, semi-objective measure for comparison for human work output. This comparability of MTM standard times is advantageous for both sides. MTM standard output succeeds in implementing a sufficient degree of ergonomically good work design, in finding a level of output expectation of the employees under the beneficial conditions decided upon collectively and in arranging adequate forms of remuneration. Here the MTM standard output proves itself as a helpful, transparent frame of reference for everyone. What part does MTM have in human-oriented work design? Because the method largely sets the time, the MTM process per se is set for designing work methods. It helps eliminate design errors, but does not automatically lead to an ergonomic optimum.

It is exceptionally helpful that the MTM Organization in the last few years began an open dialogue with experts in industrial safety for questions about work and performance design with the cooperation of unions. We see the MTM Organization as big enough to ask itself critical questions and to be receptive to developments. Behind this stands the conviction of the MTM Organization that it is in the economic interest of its members and customers to design work processes and performance challenges in an enduring, long-term use of human work capacity. We give this our full support. How would you evaluate cooperation with the MTM Organization? For the unions, the founding of the MTM Organization as a pure work-measurement club was at first a provocation to equal occupation of management committees at the REFA Association. If you consider that initial negative attitude and compare it with the present constructive cooperation, you have to admit that we’ve come a long way. For this it was crucial that the people who were involved from both sides worked with mutual respect and with a long-term perspective. None was afraid to point out inconsistencies, but did not create conflict for the sake of conflict.

Is MTM of interest for the shareholder in long-term business planning? MTM distinguishes between “fashionable” and “modern.” An example with “KVP” (continuous improvement) can show this: A motto of MTM meetings in the 1990s was “On the right track from the start.“ Behind this, there was a criticism towards companies which demanded improvement ideas to their employees for designing processes without first asking whether the processes were even fundamentally sound. MTM gives management the task of designing processes that will also work in the future, and it saw the logic in KVP to actively involve the employees in process improvement. Such a renunciation of senseless modernism and concentration upon workable modernity would have been better for some shareholders and would have saved many jobs.