We must note particularly that the standard is a "unit of reference," that it is a "basis of comparison," and that it is "a model." These three phrases describe the standard in management, and are particularly emphasized by the use of the standard in Scientific Management. STANDARDS DERIVED FROM ACTUAL PRACTICE.--Management derives its standards not from theories as to best methods, but from scientific study of actual practice.[2] As already shown, the method of deriving a standard is-- 1. to analyze the best practice known into the smallest possible elements, 2. to measure these elements, 3. to adopt the least wasteful elements as standard elements, 4. to synthesize the necessary standard elements into the standard. THE STANDARD IS PROGRESSIVE.--A standard remains fixed only until a more perfect standard displaces it. The data from which the standard was derived may be reviewed because of some error, because a further subdivision of the elements studied may prove possible, or because improvements in some factor of the work, i.e., the worker, material, tools, equipment, etc., may make a new standard desirable. The fact that a standard is recognized as not being an ultimate standard in no wise detracts from its working value. As Captain Metcalfe has said: "Whatever be the standard of measurement, it suffices for comparison if it be generally accepted, if it be impartially applied, and if the results be fully recorded."[3] CHANGE IN THE STANDARD DEMANDS CHANGE IN THE TASK AND IN THE INCENTIVE.--Necessarily, with the change in the standard comes a change in the task and in the reward. All parts of Scientific Management are so closely related that it is impossible to make a successful progressive step in one branch without simultaneously making all the related progressions in other branches that go with it. For example,--if the material upon which a standard was based caused more care or effort, a smaller task must be set, and wages must be proportionately lowered. _Proportionately_, note, for determining that change would necessitate a review and a redistribution of the cost involved. In the same way, if an improvement in equipment necessitated a new method, as does the packet in laying brick, a new task would become imperative, and a reconsideration of the wage. The wage might remain the same, it might go down, it might go up. In actual practice, in the case of bricklayers, it has gone up. But the point is, it _must_ be restudied. This provides effectually against cutting the rate or increasing the task in any unjust manner.