Thoughts and Theories

ofScientific

Management

Presented By:Sudhir Kabra (221077)Kirti Kaushal (221081)Mukul Mishra (221097)Abhishek Navander (221111)

2–2

Evolution of Modern Management

– Began with the industrial revolution in the late 19th century as:• Managers of organizations began seeking ways to

better satisfy customer needs.• Large-scale mechanized manufacturing began to

supplanting small-scale craft production in the ways in which goods were produced.• Social problems developed in the large groups of

workers employed under the factory system.• Managers began to focus on increasing the efficiency of

the worker-task mix.

2–3

The Evolution of Management Theory

2–4

Scientific Management Theory by F. W. Taylor

• Scientific Management – The systematic study of the relationships between

people and tasks for the purpose of redesigning the work process for higher efficiency.• Defined by Frederick Taylor in the late 1800’s to

replace informal rule of thumb knowledge.• Taylor sought to reduce the time a worker spent on

each task by optimizing the way the task was done.

2–5

Four Principles of Scientific Management

• Principles to increase efficiency:1. Study the ways jobs are performed now and

determine new ways to do them.• Gather detailed time and motion information.• Try different methods to see which is best.

2. Codify the new methods into rules.• Teach to all workers the new method.

3. Select workers whose skills match the rules.4. Establish fair levels of performance and pay a

premium for higher performance.• Workers should benefit from higher output

2–6

Problems with Scientific Management

• Managers frequently implemented only the increased output side of Taylor’s plan.– Workers did not share in the increased output.

• Specialized jobs became very boring, dull.– Workers ended up distrusting the Scientific Management

method.

• Workers could purposely “under-perform.”– Management responded with increased use of machines

and conveyors belts.

2–7

Henry L. Gantt

• Like Taylor, he emphasized the need for developing a mutuality of interest between management and labour - a “harmonious cooperation.”

• Emphasized on importance of time, as well as cost, in planning and controlling work.

• Stressed upon developing an understanding of systems on the part of both labour and management

2–8

Frank and Lillian Gilbreth

• Refined Taylor’s work and made many improvements to the methodologies of time and motion studies.– Time and motion studies• Breaking up each job action into its components.• Finding better ways to perform the action.• Reorganizing each job action to be more efficient.

• Also studied worker-related fatigue problems caused by lighting, heating, and the design of tools and machines.

Scientific Management in Industry

Between 1901 and 1915, the year Taylor died, his close associates introduced scientific management in at least 181 American factories.In summary it suggests:

• First-line supervisors lost much of their authority to higher-level managers and their staffs;

• The proportion of the work day devoted to production increased as delays were eliminated;

• Fewer decisions depended on personal judgments, biases, and subjective evaluations;

• Individual jobs were more carefully de-fined and some workers exercised less discretion;

• In most cases earnings rose, but there were enough exceptions to blur the effect;

• The level of skill required in production did not change, though the most highly skilled employees, like foremen, lost some of their de facto managerial functions;

• Some unskilled jobs disappeared as improved scheduling and accounting reduced the need for labourers.

Scientific Management in Industry

Legacy

• Scientific management was the first attempt to systematically treat management and process improvement as a scientific problem.

• With the advancement of statistical methods, the approach was improved and referred to– 1920s & 1930s : Quality Control – 1940s & 1950s : Operations Research and

management cybernetics– 1980s : Total Quality Management– 1990s : Reengineering– Today's : Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing

Conclusion

• Process of reorganizing the factory made scientific management a malleable symbol of the potential of modern organization for changing virtually every facet of contemporary life.

• Hallmarks of modern industry (1920s):– Self-Conscious Management– Systematic Planning– Specialization of Function– Highly structured, formal relationships between

Managers and Workers

Case Study: PATTERNS OF MANAGEMENT AT IBM

•Thomas J. Watson, an admired industrialist in 1920s and 1930s, moved IBM into punch card business.

•Watson, Jr., moved IBM into the computer field and provided the vision leading to its fundamental growth. •What made IBM so successful was not technical innovation but marketing and service.

Case Study: PATTERNS OF MANAGEMENT AT IBM

Watson attributes his success to:Selecting good people, Integrating them into teams, Providing financial incentives, medical coverage & other benefits,Being concerned about the people, Having open communication channels to them, Job security, Company offered stock options that made many of them rich,Elimination of piece-work

Case Study:Toyota, A Step Ahead Scientific Management

•Taylor and Gilbreth wanted “flow” manufacturing to take place but they did not want workers to stop and think.•Eliminated decision making processes from workers.•But in the process thousands of simple and small problems were neglected, quality suffered, worker’s dignity suffered, and the workplace was dehumanized. •Dr. Shigeo Shingo, an independent consultant, and Taiichi Ohno, vice-president of production at Toyota, restudied the work of Taylor, Ford and the Gilbreth’s and clearly understood the power of flow manufacturing.

Case Study:Toyota, A Step Ahead Scientific Management

•They discovered a powerful ‘missing ingredient’ the worker on the factory floor is really the expert on the job, rarely ever asked to be creatively involved in solving problems. To be internationally competitive this waste of human resources had to end. •As Lean was created at Toyota the worker was directly involved: Whenever a problem was detected the worker either pulled a chain or pushed a button to stop the line. The worker was asked to immediately detect the cause of the problem, solve it and also get to the root cause so that the problem would not occur again.

Case Study:Toyota, A Step Ahead Scientific Management

Toyota wanted the exact same “Flow” as Taylor and Gilbreth. They did not want the worker to think on the job except when a problem occurred. They realized that the worker on the floor has brains and that those brains were required to help solve problems. •Toyota noted for making junk in 1960 became the world’s highest quality producer, in fact, the richest automotive company in the world. Today, Toyota’s stock is worth more than General Motors, Ford and Chrysler/Benz combined.