Scientific Management: Experiments and Findings - Essay Example

Scientific Management Experimentation and Findings Developed by Frederick W Taylor in the early 20th century, Scientific Management is a science based system of organizing the operational areas of the organization so as to ensure the existence of and implement the following elements: (Wrege, 1995) Placement of the right man at the right place, at the right time. A study of the motions and material handling practices within the organization, so as to find the fastest and easiest way of carrying out an activity. The implementation of cost accounting in all areas of operation activities. De centralization of responsibility and authority so as to place a group of men under the supervision of one man. To create room for four to eight functional foremen who will take care of various aspects of the overall task, so as to ensure that each sub task is carried out as regards minimum motion and cost per worker. (Taylor, 1947) These were the broad underlying principles upon which F W Taylor fashioned scientific management. This school of management thought followed experimentation and scientific rigor to demonstrate various findings. One of these, as will be tested below, adheres to the fact that through mediums like assembly line, it is possible for a group of people doing a few tasks, to out produce those doing all the tasks. Experiment Anukul Designs is a company that has been in the business of manufacturing exclusive patchwork linen, for the last 20 years. The assembly line followed in this company will be tested during this experiment. This experiment has been carried out to prove the following conclusion: "A team of people working together, each tending expertly to one or a few tasks, can out produce the same number of people each performing all of the tasks." The experiment will be carried out through the following phases: Recruitment Selection Placement Functionality Study In the Recruitment stage, the applications are invited for positions like tailors, cutting experts, tacking experts, finishing experts and finally, supervisors. There is a need for 24 tailors, 8 cutting experts, 12 tacking and quilting experts, 12 finishing experts, and 4 supervisors to oversee these four activities. In the Selection stage, there are interviews and practical tests to find which applicant is best suited for which job in the operational activities. Also, they are questioned regarding their leadership abilities so as to find four supervisors who also know enough about the job. In the Placement stage the following structure is defined along with role play of each person: The basic job of the supervisors in this assembly line is to do the following: Find the shortest time to do an activity and reduce movement between departments. Motivate each individual appropriately. Get maximum cost economy from each group. Restrict material handling quantum by dividing the amount of material to be handled among various individuals. Find ways to break monotony in repetitive activities. This brings us to the final phase known as Functional Study. By working in a group, the supervisors held meetings with each other at the end of the day. This brought about better communication and synchronization of activities. Also, they got a chance to discuss any strengths and weaknesses so as to garner second and third opinions on tacking and taking advantage of the same. This led to standardization of activities along the lines of a set formula. This formula involved the following: The work culture has to be one where there is constant reinvention and innovation. This can be brought about by allotting responsibility to a new man every day. Detailed reporting helps in the psychological molding of the men. This was an important area which the supervisors focused upon. The best use of men came from keeping them at the machines for the longest time. There was an increased use of ramps and pulleys for the transportation of material. Also, there was a consensus among the supervisors that the material handling capacity must be divided for better accountability. (Taylor, 1947) By implementing these rules, the following was the motion and time study at the end of the second month: Old Method New Method The number of yards workers covered per day was reduced 500 120 Average number of tons per man per day 34 68 Average earnings per man per day $2.20 $2.90 Average cost of handling a ton of 1500 lbs $0.055 $0.025 Togetherness V/s Individuality In the modern day organization, the group effort is everything. In the case of Anukul Designs that we have taken in the previous section, there were no departments or groups. The charge of cutting, joining and completing one bedspread/ linen accessory was given to one tailor alone. There was a group of 34 tailors working this way. Needless to say, the productivity level was low and accountability was also in the same state. The above experiment based on Anukul Designs will show that with a coordinated effort between the supervisors, in passing and handling material, there was a 38% decrease in the movements that were carried out between departments. This in turn led to more production on the part of the workers who were able to focus on the task at hand rather than movement between departments. The supervisors kept one person of each of their groups at half the distance between the departments to collect the material and deliver it. This cut movement by distance as well as time. Also, it helped imbibe a certain amount of freshness into the monotony of repeating the same activity everyday. Further, there was interaction between workers from various departments which helped them gain a new quality in the operational sphere through the laying of strong informal lines of communication. The supervisors deployed a new person everyday. Further, there was decentralization within the group with the deployment of a group leader. (Clegg et al, 2005) These measures led to higher productivity and the workers were able to handle 50% more work load in terms of material conversion and material handling. This led to a 7% increase in the earning capacity of each worker. Further, there was new sense of competition and initiative within the workers in order to earn incentives and bonuses. With the help of all these measures, there was an overall decrease in the cost of material handling by close to 75%. This led to increased savings for the company. This experiment shows that working a group in close coordination, yields higher results than working individually. Once a person's niche area of expertise is known, he or she must be deployed in that particular area so as to maintain focus. This also helps in building team spirit as each department or person is interdependent on the other. The communication lines grow stronger and there is a greater feeling of responsibility and accountability. (Stinchcombe, 2001) The decentralization of accountability, authority and responsibility help in making better use of the human capital. It gives the workers the scope to bond with each other and know more about each other's strengths and weaknesses. In this way, there is a strong support system within them and this helps integrate the personal aspirations with the organizational goals in a more effective manner. Therefore, it is imperative for group activities and groupism to thrive along more formal lines in the organization so as to avoid the pitfalls of individuality where it becomes difficult for one person to undertake all tasks effectively. (Taylor, 1895) Factors that discourage improved productivity in group activities The following are the factors that can work against the fact that a group generally out produces individuals working on the same job: Lack of clear cut demarcation of job responsibilities. This can lead to the existence of confusion regarding one's actual job. Paucity of men and material. This a factor that can lead to over loading the workers with tasks. Also, in the absence of adequate material, there will be an overall wastage of time and money. Lack of motivation. If the employee or worker is not well motivated, he or she may not want to give his or her best to the activity or task at hand. This will greatly impede productivity. Lack of proper communication channels. The laying of communication channels - both formal and informal - is a major pre requisite for coordination. The lack of proper communication between people in the group will lead to disharmony. Lack of coordination. It is important for the people in the group to understand each other for the purpose of proper coordination of plans and the integration of personal goals with those of the organization. Monotony in activities. If a task is repetitive in nature, chances are that the workers may not take adequate amount of interest. Thus, they will fail to produce enough. Placement of the wrong man in the wrong job. This is a crucial factor. At the recruitment and selection stage itself, it is important for the organization to get a feel of the individual's skills. This will help in appropriate placement according to the skill sets of the individual, which in turn will help in proper production quantum, as well as non wastage of money, time and material. Lack of training and developmental activities. In today's organization, the role of training and development is an important one. This helps understand the individual and motivate him to multi task more than anything else. By learning something new, the individual gains the confidence to grow, which in turn will help the organization grow. (Clegg et al, 2005) Examples of Methods to encourage better productivity Assembly lines, as the experiment in this paper will depict, are a good way of organizing the resources of an organization to garner maximum productivity in terms of set lines of movement and material handling. Other examples of methods that can be used to improve productivity include human reason as well as job design. The first method, i.e., human reason is one that involves a logical thought process which will ultimately lead to complete understanding of every element in the operational process. This will help the worker better envision his or her role in the process. The second method, i.e., job design is one that deals with a focus on the job description and its elements so as to ensure that the worker realizes the importance of his or her role or job. Both methods help integrate the personal goals of the workers with those of the organization. (Stinchcombe, 2001) References 1. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. & Pitsis, T. (2005). Managing and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2. Stinchcombe, A. (2001). When Formality Works. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 3. Taylor, F. (1895). A Piece Rate System. NY: McGraw Hill. 4. Taylor, F. (1947). Scientific Management. NY: Harper & Row. (originally published 1911). 5. Wrege, D. (1995). "F.W. Taylor's Lecture on Management, 4th June 1907." Journal of Management History 1:1:4-7. Read More