|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PAPERWORK SIMPLIFICATION Permission is granted to post, print and distribute this document in its original PDF format. Paperwork
simplification is a broad, rather indefinite and perhaps anomalous subject. An
axiom, attributed to “Boss” Kettering of Dayton, “A problem well defined
is half solved” seems to be particularly applicable to such a subject. Perhaps
by breaking down our subject into parts, defining those parts, we can develop an
understanding of our problem, what to do about it and what we may expect in the
way of results. Simplifying paperwork
requires, first, an understanding of Paperwork and then the “what to do about
it” Work Simplification. It is not surprising that we find in breaking our
subject into two major components, that “work” is a part of the problem and
the solution. There is no short cut or easy road to success. Work always has
been and always will be the foundation of a successful business or an
ever-improving standard of living such as we have in our country. WHAT IS
PAPERWORK?
Paperwork might be defined
in many ways, but for our purposes I think it can be defined most effectively in
terms of the purposes or end results to be accomplished. Paperwork includes the
recording, transmission, analysis, distribution and storage of facts for two
major purposes. First, our various units of government tell us that if we want
to stay in business, we must file various reports such as income tax, social
security, unemployment insurance and others. To meet these requirements and stay
in business, we must have facts. Fortunately, the facts required for this
purpose also serve our second purpose as well, and may be measured in terms of
the second purpose. The second purpose of paperwork is to provide “people”
with facts which will help them do their job better. In the past, I have
described the second purpose as - to help Management manage better. However, I
have seen many workers continually exhorted to increase production, improve
quality and reduce costs, thoroughly confused because they had no guidepost or
measuring stick to go by. They did not have the facts as to their past
performance, their current performance or the goals to shoot at. Because of
this, it seems to me that providing this information to the people on the job
who, in reality, are the only ones who can control production, quality or cost,
is almost as important a function of paperwork as providing Management with the
facts which it needs 1n order to make sound decisions. While no report ever
increased production, improved quality or cut costs, the paperwork as the medium
for transmitting the right information to the people who can control these
functions directly, is vital to your function as controller. WHY SIMPLIFY?
Paperwork has never added
anything to the value of a product or service.
As a non-productive function of business, it has been considered in many
cases as a necessary evil. Until recent years, it has been a relatively small
part of the over-all operation. Unfortunately, it has been allowed to grow “like
Topsy” until countless duplications and inefficiencies of large proportions
have crept in. In many organizations, when difficulties arose in production or
in making decisions, a new report or procedure was added to meet the situation.
The situation was met, the individual satisfied, but little was done to
coordinate that procedure with others already in existence. The growth of paperwork is
illustrated by figures taken from Bureau of Census reports. These show that in
1900 there was one clerical worker to each 10 productive workers. In 1940 this
ratio had changed to 1 to 4. In other words, the number of clerical workers had
grown 2-1/2 times as fast as the number of productive workers. While the
production man will attempt to explain that change on the basis of improved
methods in the factory, and the office man on the basis of increased
Governmental reports requirements (both of whom are partially right), neither of
these explanations begins to account for the tremendous elements of waste found
in the paperwork of many organizations. If we will apply the
measuring rod provided by our definition of paperwork to existing paperwork, “does
the system or result help someone perform his job better, “ I believe we will
find that from 30% to 50% of the paperwork in the average organization will not
meet the requirements and, in all probability, should be eliminated. Much has been done by
office equipment companies in the development of machines to perform many of the
paperwork functions more rapidly and more accurately. However, too often,
machines have been used to mechanize old procedures without taking full
advantage of the mechanical abilities of the equipment by revising the procedure
to fit the equipment. An excellent illustration
of waste that can develop in our paperwork was presented during the question and
answer period following one of my recent talks. The program chairman who was
chief accountant and methods man for a large branch office organization asked
the question “How would you eliminate some of the non-essential, but
expensive, reports?” I suggested that withholding the report had demonstrated
in some cases the lack of value of the report. The program chairman replied that
he was glad I had answered the question in that way because -and then related
the following story. “Two
years ago I questioned an elaborate tabulated report which I distributed to 31
of our top executives all over the country. I called on each executive, asked
whether or not the report was essential, whether I could add to, take away from,
or rearrange it in any way to improve it. All the executives insisted that the
report was perfect as it was and that they could not possibly get along without
it.” ”The next month I prepared the report, but filed all copies in my desk
and not a single question was asked. I continued to prepare the report and keep
all the copies for six months. When still no question had been asked, I
discontinued preparing the report. That was over two years ago and to date I
have not had a question about that report.” The amazing part of this
story is that this accountant could remind all 37 executives that they were
getting the report, withhold it the next month and still not have a question
asked. Obviously, that report must have been tremendously important to those top
executives in the conduct of their jobs! While this is only one
illustration of the type of work that does exist in the paperwork of the average
company, I am sure all of us would find this and other types of waste in our own
paperwork if we would examine it critically and impartially. While the waste in our
paperwork is substantial in the average organization, this is not nearly as
serious as the waste traceable indirectly to our paperwork. Inadequate or
inaccurate paperwork is directly accountable for tremendous waste in many
functions of business. An experience with one of our large tank factories
provides an excellent example of this type of waste. While manufacturing under
one of the contracts for tanks, this plant came close to having to shut down a
tremendously expensive assembly line for lack of parts. When they checked their
records, they found the parts had been ordered on time. Vendors insisted they
had been shipped. But the parts could not be found. Emergency shipments by truck
and by air, a very expensive procedure with tank parts, bridged the gap. At the
close of the contract, the Management of this plant decided to do something
about it. First, they took a
physical inventory of their entire lot covering some eight or nine hundred
acres. They brought together, in one place, all the parts they could find in any
of the hundred-odd buildings or sheds. When they finished, they had literally
acres of parts. During my work with them,
they pointed out to me one stack of 15,000 bogie whee1 rims which they found
stored in one of the remote sheds. A check disclosed that these had been
received on time, but because of the location of the storage had not been found
when they were needed for assembly. Alongside this pile was another pile of
5,000 rubber tank treads, a critical item, which, temporarily lost, had caused a
great deal of trouble. These, too, had been received on time but couldn’t be
found when needed. The right kind of
paperwork would have told them when they needed the information, not only that
the materials had been ordered and received, but where they were stored and
would have eliminated tremendously expensive rush deliveries. The situation was
corrected, while the volume of paperwork was reduced before the next contract
started. While this example was
taken from wartime experience, I can assure you that many similar illustrations,
although perhaps not quite as spectacular, can be taken from current operations
in connection with production, quality, costs, inventories, purchasing and
shipping. WHAT CAN WE DO
ABOUT THESE ELEMENTS OF WASTE?
Now that we have
paperwork, Our problems of eliminating the waste in our present paperwork and
the more far reaching waste in the other functions of business due to lack of
the proper kind of paperwork defined, what is the best approach to eliminate the
elements of waste? This brings us to the
second part of our title, Work Simplification, again emphasizing the importance
of “work”. It is defined in simple terms as “The organized application of
common sense to find better and easier ways of doing a job” or, as I prefer,
“The organized application of common sense to eliminate waste of any kind
-waste time, energy, space, material, equipment, etc.” “Eliminate waste” implies getting
results, not just talking about it. Results
come from better methods only when these methods are used enthusiastically by
the people concerned. For years, the “enthusiastic use by the people concerned”
was the reef on which the “better methods” foundered. About 15 years ago
several of the leaders in the field of scientific management, Allan Mogensen,
Professor Erwin H. Schell of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Lillian
Gilbreth and Professor David B. Porter of New York University, recognizing the
importance of enthusiastic cooperation, combined the simple fundamentals of the
technique of motion study with a way of thinking or philosophy of management and
called it Work Simplification. Having repeatedly developed and installed better
methods only to return a few months later and find the people on the job had
reverted to their old methods, these pioneers recognized the problem involved in
developing acceptance of the better methods. The problem involved the most
difficult and highest type of selling, the selling of an idea or an intangible.
People buy what they want rather than what is good for them or what they need. The first and most
important problem then is to convince the individual worker that he has a direct
personal stake in eliminating every possible element of waste. Too often the
expert mistakenly calls his activity “Work Simplification.” In many cases
anticipated results are not achieved because of the seeming lack of appreciation
of the importance of enthusiastic cooperation on the part of every individual. WHY DO PEOPLE
NOT ACCEPT BETTER METHODS?
It is impossible in a few
minutes to cover all the reasons back of lack of acceptance of better methods. I
will touch on a few that I believe are particularly important. First,
I am convinced that a lack of understanding of the simple fundamentals of our
“Free Enterprise” system or the “American Way” is the cause of much of
our trouble. We in America have achieved our present standard of living, by far
the highest in the world from a material standpoint, only through a continual
expansion of our business and industry stimulated by the courage, ingenuity and
initiative of individuals working together. Only production and more production
can continue to maintain and improve this standard of living. In spite of
temporary, sometimes severe, setbacks due to contraction of production, our
National economy and the standard of living of each individual has continued to
improve over the years. In 1928 and 1929, a period
of supreme optimism, the National income was less than 90 billion dollars. Had
anyone at that time had the temerity to suggest that in 20 years our National
income would, even with a decreased or cheaper dollar, exceed 220 billion
dollars, he would have been ridiculed. However,
it “Did happen here,” and in spite of the cheaper dollar, more people
enjoy automobiles, radios, television sets, milk, eggs, meat and the other
things that contribute to better living. The increased production of better
products at a relatively lower cost has been the solution. Today’s Chevrolet
at about the same dollar price as the 1929 Buick is far superior in appearance,
comfort and performance. To maintain this trend
requires a continual increase in productivity to develop lower unit cost in
spite of high labor and material. The individual must be convinced that this is
so before he will tackle a job enthusiastically and exercise the direct control
over production costs and quality that only the man on the job is capable of. We
have just begun to realize the importance of a thorough understanding of these
facts in the development of enthusiastic teamwork. In the meantime, Union
leaders have been doing an excellent job of selling a point of view calculated
to maintain their position. We have a whale of a selling job to do to counteract
this and the growing trend toward surrendering initiative and freedom to
Government in exchange for hopeless promises. Another reason why better
methods have not always been accepted is, I believe, because many people in
Management have felt that the techniques of scientific management are pure
science, that they will produce the one right answer to the problem. By
scientific management techniques, I mean personnel selection, job evaluation,
method study, time study, wage incentives and others, even accounting and cost
accounting. While all of these techniques are excellent guides to better
judgment when intelligently used, none of them produce the one right infallible
answer. Accounting and cost
accounting, based largely on mathematics, shou1d come as close as any of the
techniques to producing the one right answer. However, if we will examine the
various theories for depreciating capital assets, valuing inventories or any of
the other controversial accounting subjects, we will find that by substituting
one extreme method for the other we can frequently change a highly profitable
operation to one that seems thoroughly bankrupt without altering the facts of
the picture at all. An excellent illustration
of the vulnerability of the position of the individual who maintains that his
technique is infallible is a story told of setting standards in a shoe factory.
The job involved gluing the bottom of a partly finished upper, affixing the Bole
and getting rid of the finished operation. The work place, equipment and method
had been studied thoroughly. An endless belt was set up to bring partly finished
uppers in front of all the operators. Each
operator had his glue pot, brush and stack of soles. Physical conditions limited the
possibilities for providing a mechanical means to get rid of the finished
operation. The best practical
solution was an over-head chain conveyor with hooks running in back of the
workers. The operation setup then
followed this pattern. The worker took the partly finished upper from the belt,
glued the bottom, attached the sole and turned around to hang it on the hook
behind him. All the operators were trained in the new method. When sufficient
skill had been acquired the job was time studied and standards were set. The
standards were installed on the basis that an average operator doing a good day’s
work would make about 120% of standard. Reports
the first day showed that all the operators had made about 120% except one
operator who made over 200%. This
continued for several days. The Standards Department
restudied this particular operator. When they analyzed their figures they found
they came out right on the nose and that day the operator earned 120%. However,
the following day his earnings jumped up to over 200%. After several days of better than 200%
earnings one of the time study men pulled a trick that has been known to be
pulled in the past. He hid behind a post and watched the operation. This
particular operator was picking up the upper, gluing the bottom, putting the
sole on and tossing it over his shoulder. And he never missed the hook! An investigation of this
operator’s background disclosed he was a circus juggler out of work. The
problem then resolved itself as to whether they should rate this as a circus
juggler’s job or a shoemaker’s job. None of these techniques
is perfect, but every one of them is an excellent guide to better judgment when
properly understood and intelligently used. Any representation that these
techniques are perfect is vulnerable and tends to destroy basic confidence. Another factor which
interferes with the enthusiastic acceptance of better methods is the lack of
appreciation as to what motivates people in their work, what makes them tick.
Resistance to change is often cited as the normal and natural reaction of
individuals to something new and an important cause of failure to accept better
methods. The reactions of a dog to certain stimuli are commonly used to
illustrate this resistance to change. If you have a dog, when you find him
sitting in front of the fireplace, take hold of his collar, pull and watch the
reaction. You know just as well as I do that he will dig in and resist the
change. You may think you are using the wrong method, so go around behind him
and give him a push. Again he will resist. These reactions to both approaches
are used to establish that resistance to change is natural. However, if we are going
to solve problems, we must get at causes not effects. If we treat this so-called
resistance to change as a cause we are, in my opinion, no more treating the
cause than we would be if we put a bucket on the living room rug to keep it dry
when we had a leak upstairs in the bath-room. When you get through pushing and
pulling the dog and go over to sit down in your easy chair, the odds are a
thousand to one he will follow right behind you wagging his tail. He was not
resisting change at all. But, he was resisting being pushed and pulled around.
It is normal and natural to resist being bossed or pushed around. This is one of
the basic causes behind the so-called resistance to change. Another fundamental cause
is fear of the unknown, fear of things we do not understand which are involved
in changes, especially if the reasons for the change as well as the probable
consequences of the change are not thoroughly understood. Fear for the security
of the job or fear that through better methods and enthusiastic cooperation the
individual might work himself out of a job is a very real cause back of this
so-called resistance to change. Resentment of criticism
has been stated as another reason for people not accepting better methods. When
we expert the job we certainly are, at least indirectly, criticizing the person
who has used the old method. People do resent even an implied criticism. On the other hand you
probably play bridge. I do when I can’t get out of it. You may have been in
the situation that I have been in, playing bridge with my wife as my partner. We
bid a game, and I had to play it. I failed to take a finesse, went down one
trick, and when I finished remarked, “If I had only taken that finesse, I
would have made the game.” That is perfectly all right. I don’t mind one bit
how much I criticize me! However, a few hands later the same situation arose, we
bid the game and again I had to play it. I didn’t take the finesse, went down a trick, but before I
had an opportunity to open my mouth my wife said, “If you had only taken that
finesse we would have made the game.” What was my reaction then? I proved
emphatically that if I had taken the finesse and it had failed we would have
gone down two tricks instead of one. We will criticize ourselves until h---
freezes over, but we do thoroughly resent criticism from anyone else. So much for the negative
factors in developing acceptance of better methods. What positive approach can
be taken to counteract these and stimulate enthusiastic cooperation? We can substitute mutual
understanding and confidence for fear. One method used to achieve this by The
Standard Register Company, has been to lay the cards on the table -explain where
the money goes, the problems involved in the company’s operation, and the
opportunity far each individual to help meet these problems. When Mr. Spayd, our
president, explains to his co-workers in the factory and office that, in spite
of the fact that hourly wages are more than 2 ˝ times the rate of ten years ago
and material is over twice the cost in 1939, our sales price to the customer has
increased only by 1/3, they begin to understand and appreciate the importance of
eliminating waste of every kind in order to help the company continue to grow
and provide jobs. Another positive approach
to the problem is to provide satisfaction in the job for the strong desire of
the average American worker far self-expression, achievement and recognition.
This has been complicated by two developments over the past 50 years. In
industry, the development of mass production has resulted in deskilling many
jobs to the point where none of these desires can be satisfied on many of the
available jobs. This deskilling activity was greatly accelerated during the last
war. On the other hand our
educational system has been tremendously expanded, stimulating the interest and
initiative and ambition of our young people. The facts, from Bureau of Census
figures, reveal that in 1900 12% of our young people of high school age went to
high school. In 1940 this
percentage had increased 70%. In
1900 4% of our young people of college age went to college. In 1940 this was increased to 14%. Since 1940 our colleges have about
doubled in size, bringing this percentage to an estimated 25% to 30% of our
young people. The combination of the
growth of mass production, resulting in the change From interesting craftsmen’s
jobs to the deskilled routine jobs and the desire of our young people for an
opportunity for se1f-expression, achievement and recognition stimulated by more
education, has conspired to force many of our young people to look for outlets
for their interest and enthusiasm outside their jobs. Work
Simplification - An Answer
Work Simplification, when
properly used, has demonstrated its effective-ness as one of the best answers to
the problem. When started at the top, it will grow down through an organization
building confidence -to replace fear. It
eliminates the resentment of criticism and develops leadership as a substitute
for drivership. In growing down through the organization, it breaks down levels
of insulation which have developed in many places. When it reaches the worker
level, it releases the pent-up enthusiasm of the average individual by provid1ng
a challenge and the necessary job interest. Let’s look briefly at
the simple principles of Work Simplification. The first principle is: “Activities should be
Productive.” By “Activity” we
mean anything that goes on in business, including delays, storages, as well as
the various operations and moves in a procedure. Since paperwork is entirely a
non-productive function of business, it is necessary to stretch the meaning of
the word “productive” when we apply these principles to paperwork. However,
the end results of paperwork are essential to the best conduct of the business. If we define productivity as directly
accomplishing the end results, we can apply the term to paperwork. The typing of a 3-part
letter, an original and two copies, will illustrate the point. Assembling three
sheets of paper and two sheets of carbon, jogging them into alignment, inserting
them in the machine, positioning them in the machine, removing and separating
them after the typing operation, are all non-productive. The only productive
part of the operation is the actual typing when the information is put on the
paper. Long moves from desk to desk and delays on the desk are non-productive
elements in paperwork procedure. The first objective then is to reduce the
non-productive elements in our paperwork to an absolute minimum. The second principle is: “Activity should be
arranged to provide smooth flow From operation to operation in a process or a
balanced motion pattern for an operator at a work place.” Each of you knows
how discouraging an unduly heavy workload can be to the average worker. Worrying
about getting the work out distracts attention from the job at hand and blows up
the actual production tremendously. On
the other hand, the average person is much happier when busy than when looking
for work. This was illustrated very forcefully by an experience in the invoicing
department in a large corporation. Application
of Work Simplification, particularly the first principle, had cut the workload
in half in the Typing Department. The
typists, who should have been released by this reduction in work, were badly
needed in another department. However,
the supervisor, accustomed to being measured by an all too common standard of
how many people he supervised rather than by the effectiveness of his activity
measured in results produced and cost per unit, could only see his empire being
cut in half. Until he had been sold by his top management that he would be
measured on the basis of results and cost, he did nothing about releasing any of
his surplus typists. In the meantime, the typists, not knowing that there were
positions available on the same or a higher level, were afraid that some of
their group would be worked out of a job. They stretched out the work to appear
busy. Quality fell off, discord crept in, till the department was thoroughly
disorganized. When, finally, half the girls were transferred to other work,
production more than doubled, quality rose to its highest level, and all the
girls, honestly busy, were much happier in their work. Smooth flow or balance is
important especially in paperwork. The third principle is: “Activity should be as
simple as possible.” In examining countless paperwork systems in business and
industry, I have been re-minded of Rube Goldberg’s cartoons illustrating
extremely complex and involved ways of accomplishing very simple results. The study of a receiving
system in an industrial plant illustrates how paperwork simplification and the
application of our third principle not only eliminates waste from our paperwork,
improves production and quality, but facilitates the elimination of many
elements of waste in productive functions.
The purpose or objective of the system was to provide facts regarding
thou-sands of items received, to aid in the control of the quantity and quality
of materials received, facilitate the storage and prompt availabi1ity of the
materials to the proper production department, relieve procurement of further
responsibi1ity, enable accounts receivable to pay for the materials and help the
cost and other departments to carry out their functions. The old system, which
had grown up over the years to meet varying requirements, included three
separate forms which had to be written for each shipment involving seven copies
all together, and a 10-copy summary of all shipments received which was used to
advise the interested parties. Because the information had to be written four
times, there were many errors in transcription and long delays before the final
10-part summary could be completed. The laboratory, which was supposed to
control the quality of many of the items received, frequently did not receive
its copy of the summary report until the items were already being used. In many cases, department heads had to
search through 30 or 40 items on the summary sheet to find whether or not the
one item in which they were interested had been received. In the various
accounting departments, the use of the summary report added substantially to
their work and severely handicapped their functioning. A simple eight-part form
completed immediately after the receipt of the shipment eliminated rewriting the
information three times with the three opportunities for transcription errors,
advised all interested parties promptly as to the receipt of each shipment,
enabled the laboratory to test required items for quality before they had been
used, and saved many hours of unnecessary work in purchasing, production and
accounting departments. As in this case, it is
almost invariably true that simplification through elimination of waste improves
not only production but quality as well. These three principles covering the
technique of work simplification are Simple enough to be
understood and used by the average person to measure the effectiveness of almost
any work activity. These principles, and the technique, are, as can be seen, a
simplified version of motion study. Contrary to many mistaken concepts, motion
study as conceived by the Gilbreths, is not limited to the activity of an
individual at a work place. One of the most important tools of motion study,
developed by Frank Gilbreth, is the Flow-Process chart, a simple device for
visualizing and measuring, chronologically, every detail in an over-all process
or procedure. It is, in reality, the “steam-shovel” approach to the
elimination of waste as compared with the “hand-shovel” or “teaspoon”
approach used in examining the individual operation. Each of the so-called laws, or methods,
of making motion study effective, may be classified under one of the three
principles. As usual, we have devoted
three principles to the mechanics and only one to the important part of Work
Simplification -the human side. The emphasis must be in the opposite ratio. The
human relation aspect is at least 75% of the job in Work Simplification. Our last and, by far, most
important principle is: “the individual produces most effectively in terms of
quantity, quality and cost only when personal satisfaction is derived from the
job.” Before “personal satisfaction” can play a part, fear must be
replaced by mutual understanding and confidence.
Understanding and confidence must permeate the organization from top to
bottom. When this situation exists,
participation in the elimination of waste will be carried on enthusiastically
and will provide the opportunity for self-expression, accomplishment and
recognition, provide job interest and develop enthusiastic cooperation. The
individual, equipped with the technique and tools to eliminate waste and make
improvements, has a tremendous satisfaction in initiating changes and developing
better methods. The change in attitude,
the effective teamwork resulting from participation is well expressed as, “The
difference between enthusiastic cooperation and dignified acquiescence.” Is Work
Simplification Effective?
Proof of the pudding is,
of course, in the eating. The best answer to the question, “Is work
simplification effective?” is to consider results achieved. One large company carried
work simplification training down through its various levels of supervision. Its
people were taught the use of the principles and the simple tools of work
simplification - the flow process chart, the flow diagram and the five-step
analysis pattern. The flow diagram is a scale layout of the work area with the
flow of work within the area shown by various line patterns. The five-step
pattern is a simple, logical approach to the analysis of any problem. The steps
are: 1. Select or pick a job.
Define the problem. 2. Get all the facts. Break
the job down. 3. Question each detai1 for
possib1e improvements. 4. Develop agreement as to
the best way as of right now. 5. Apply the improved
method and follow through to evaluate the results and make further improvements. Expressed in various
terms, this is a basic approach used in many fields. Its value lies in the fact
that it provides a basically sound, orderly approach. Work
simplification proved sufficiently effective with the supervision to encourage
the management of this company to carry the training down to the workers in one
division. At the close of a recent twelve-month period the score stood -about
five Proposals for Improvements per supervisor trained - more than four times as
many or 22 Proposals for Improvement per operator trained. When the workers had
an opportunity to express themselves, to say something about their work, create
new ideas and be recognized for them, they literally “ran away with the ball.” In our own plant where
participation has been stimulated for more than ten years through the practice
of multiple management, work simplification carried down to the operator level
is credited with a substantial contribution to a 20% increase in productive
capacity. For those interested in
detail regarding the technique and application of paperwork simplification, we
have available several booklets on the subject which may be obtained by a phone
call to the nearest Standard Register Company office or a letter to the Company
in Dayton, Ohio. Participation, based on
mutual understanding and confidence, stimulates an appreciation of personal
responsibility by providing the opportunity for self-expression, achievement and
recognition. Paperwork simplification
through participation adds interest and the satisfaction of motivating desires
to the job, is effective in eliminating waste in paperwork and the waste in
other functions of business resulting from in-adequate or inaccurate paperwork
and provides control of production, quality and cost at its source, the only
real point of control. The immediate result is a better product at a lower real
cost. The long-term result is the widespread growth of a feeling of “belonging,” of “being important”
to a sound, profitable, growing business which provides the only true, permanent
security without a sacrifice of freedom. |
|
||||