Scientific Management - Revision history

Erikbajer99: /* Abstract */

2023-05-08T21:57:23Z

Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 8 May 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:

	== Abstract ==		== Abstract ==
	Scientific management is a management technique developed by Winslow Taylor during the later stages of the industrial period. Also called Taylorism, scientific management focuses on systematising the work processes and quantifying the results to maximise productivity. Taylorism is characterised by a transparent incentive structure which rewards workes that perform well with a direct monetary reward and penalises workers who underperform. Although Taylorism was borne in the old factories, its influence is still felt today in certain industries. This article will first explore the historical context of scientific management, as it is important for our understanding of modern implementation. Then some examples of Taylorism outside of the traditional American factory will be explored to show how Taylorism or aspects thereof can be applied in diverse contexts. Finally advice on how to implement Taylorism in a modern project will be outlined to help future project managers take the best from the theory.		Scientific management is a management technique developed by Winslow Taylor during the later stages of the industrial period. Also called Taylorism, scientific management focuses on systematising the work processes and quantifying the results to maximise productivity. Taylorism is characterised by a transparent incentive structure which rewards workes that perform well with a direct monetary reward and penalises workers who underperform. Although Taylorism was borne in the old factories, its influence is still felt today in certain industries. This article will first explore the historical context of scientific management, as it is important for our understanding of modern implementation. Then some examples of Taylorism outside of the traditional American factory will be explored to show how Taylorism or aspects thereof can be applied in diverse contexts. Finally advice on how to implement Taylorism in a modern project will be outlined to help future project managers take the best from the theory, and some general criticisms of the theory will be discussed.

	== Historical context ==		== Historical context ==

Erikbajer99: /* Practice */

2023-05-07T12:46:11Z

Practice

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 7 May 2023
Line 41:		Line 41:

	In spite of Lenin's vision, scientific management was never formally implemented into the soviet economy. It did, however, employ some of its principles in its industrial planning and management practices. For example, the Soviet Union used a centralized planning system, which involved breaking down production into specialized tasks, standardizing procedures, and setting targets for output. In this surveillance and management was essential. An integral part of this system was the Five Year Plan, which were a series of economic plans spanning 2-6 years. Russo-American Walter N. Polakov helped develop the Five Year Plan model by helping the Soviets implement the Gantt Chart, a planning technique developed by Henry Gantt who helped Taylor formalise scientific management.<ref name='' The Academy of Management Review, vol. 5, no. 1, 1980, pp. 1–11. JSTOR''> ''https://doi.org/10.2307/257800'' </ref> According to Van Atta Taylorism can not be said to have been implemented as there was no systematic sanctioning of workers not living up to their quotas.<ref name=''Van Atta, Don. “Why Is There No Taylorism in the Soviet Union?” Comparative Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, 1986, pp. 327–37. JSTOR''> ''https://doi.org/10.2307/421614'' </ref> Moreover, the Soviet economy was oriented towards maximisation of production rather than profit, as was the case in American factories.		In spite of Lenin's vision, scientific management was never formally implemented into the soviet economy. It did, however, employ some of its principles in its industrial planning and management practices. For example, the Soviet Union used a centralized planning system, which involved breaking down production into specialized tasks, standardizing procedures, and setting targets for output. In this surveillance and management was essential. An integral part of this system was the Five Year Plan, which were a series of economic plans spanning 2-6 years. Russo-American Walter N. Polakov helped develop the Five Year Plan model by helping the Soviets implement the Gantt Chart, a planning technique developed by Henry Gantt who helped Taylor formalise scientific management.<ref name='' The Academy of Management Review, vol. 5, no. 1, 1980, pp. 1–11. JSTOR''> ''https://doi.org/10.2307/257800'' </ref> According to Van Atta Taylorism can not be said to have been implemented as there was no systematic sanctioning of workers not living up to their quotas.<ref name=''Van Atta, Don. “Why Is There No Taylorism in the Soviet Union?” Comparative Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, 1986, pp. 327–37. JSTOR''> ''https://doi.org/10.2307/421614'' </ref> Moreover, the Soviet economy was oriented towards maximisation of production rather than profit, as was the case in American factories.

			=== Western big-tech ===
			Big tech is highly influenced by certain aspects of Taylorism, namely the managerial supervision. According to the American Management Association, 80% of US corporations surveil their employees regularly.<ref name=''The Nation, "Big Brother’s Corporate Cousin" (2001) by Christian Parenti''> ''https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/big-brothers-corporate-cousin/'' </ref> The surveillance might come in the form of productivity scores which rank the productivity of employees and foster constant, shifting competition. This stresses employees and fosters resentment and inter-personnel rivalries. Such software is called a Customer Relationship Management system and is developed by Aspect, and is mainly used by call-centres, and allows managers to measure nearly every aspect of any customer interaction from the management office, without interacting directly with employees. While such software allows the call-centre to continually increase its competitiveness and productivity it comes at the cost of employee freedom and an increase in stress by cutting away all time waste.<ref name=''The Nation, "Big Brother’s Corporate Cousin" (2001) by Christian Parenti''

	=== Modern industries ===		=== Modern industries ===
	Certain industries may be better suited for Taylorism than others. Any business that is constantly changing or has a fluid structure should look for other management models. Although modern day factories are quite different from those of the 1920s, in which manual labour was a big part of the work load, the underlying characteristics of factory work have not changed much. Factory work is still largely menial and repetitive and it is easy to track performance with a few KPIs. For example, number of units produced per hour. For this reason, Taylorism can in theory easily be incorporated into fast-food chains, which work similarly to the assembly lines of a factory. Here workers generally specialise in a few simple tasks which can be optimised and analysed without difficulty. The customer service and especially call centre industries have already implemented many aspects of Taylorism. For example, it is common for call-centres to give their employees personality tests, which allow managers to see what customer group an employee is best at persuading. Employees at call-centres are generally given bonuses based on the number of sales they give, and these bonuses often constitute a large part of an employee´s salary. Although, low performance employees are not given literal penalties to their salary, the low-base salary in practice functions as a penalty. In theory Taylorism could be implemented for retail workers, however, monitoring performance is more difficult than the above examples. As shall be explained below, there are more challenges to implementing Taylorism in the Western World.		Certain industries may be better suited for Taylorism than others. Any business that is constantly changing or has a fluid structure should look for other management models. Although modern day factories are quite different from those of the 1920s, in which manual labour was a big part of the work load, the underlying characteristics of factory work have not changed much. Factory work is still largely menial and repetitive and it is easy to track performance with a few KPIs. For example, number of units produced per hour. For this reason, Taylorism can in theory easily be incorporated into fast-food chains, which work similarly to the assembly lines of a factory. Here workers generally specialise in a few simple tasks which can be optimised and analysed without difficulty. The customer service and especially call centre industries have already implemented many aspects of Taylorism. For example, it is common for call-centres to give their employees personality tests, which allow managers to see what customer group an employee is best at persuading. Employees at call-centres are generally given bonuses based on the number of sales they give, and these bonuses often constitute a large part of an employee´s salary. Although, low performance employees are not given literal penalties to their salary, the low-base salary in practice functions as a penalty. In theory Taylorism could be implemented for retail workers, however, monitoring performance is more difficult than the above examples. As shall be explained below, there are more challenges to implementing Taylorism in the Western World.
			American restaurants are increasingly implementing time-saving devices that allow waiters to send orders to the kitchen through radio waves. This is essentially a modern rebirth of Taylorism, which seeks to maximise productivity regardless of the social and mental cost to employees, as it increases the social isolation and stress of workers by not allowing them to 'waste' time by flirting, arguing, and small talk with other staff or customers.<ref name=''The Nation, "Big Brother’s Corporate Cousin" (2001) by Christian Parenti''

	== In project, program, and portfolio management ==		== In project, program, and portfolio management ==

Erikbajer99: /* Criticism */

2023-05-07T12:15:38Z

Criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:15, 7 May 2023
Line 68:		Line 68:
	===Criticism===		===Criticism===
	Taylorism has been criticised by unions for limiting the creativity of workers by making their jobs too rigid <ref name=''European Journal of the.History of Economic Thought, "Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management"(2007)''>''https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24079895_Alfred_Marshall's_critical_analysis_of_scientific_management/'' </ref>		Taylorism has been criticised by unions for limiting the creativity of workers by making their jobs too rigid <ref name=''European Journal of the.History of Economic Thought, "Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management"(2007)''>''https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24079895_Alfred_Marshall's_critical_analysis_of_scientific_management/'' </ref>
	As we have seen, this was true in the factories of the second industrial revolution where workers worked long days on repetitive tasks, but the criticism is not necessarily valid for project management, although the pressure from the overseeing managers can be oppressive, as in the Chinese tech industry discussed earlier. Another criticism of scientific management, is that Taylorism reduces human motivation by explaining motivation in terms of monetary reward rather than deeper psychological needs. In this way Taylorism is a departure from the human relations approach to explaining motivation.<ref name=''Joe Postings, The Psychologist (The British Psycological Society, "The return of 'Taylorism'?"(2023)''>''https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/return-taylorism/'' </ref>		As we have seen, this was true in the factories of the second industrial revolution where workers worked long days on repetitive tasks, but the criticism is not necessarily valid for project management, although the pressure from the overseeing managers can be oppressive, as in the Chinese tech industry discussed earlier. Another criticism of scientific management, is that Taylorism reduces human motivation by explaining motivation in terms of monetary reward rather than deeper psychological needs. In this way Taylorism is a departure from the human relations approach to explaining motivation.<ref name=''Joe Postings, The Psychologist (The British Psycological Society, "The return of 'Taylorism'?"(2023)''>''https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/return-taylorism/'' </ref> By boiling down the worker's motivation to one that is primarily monetary, the worker is seen as an interchangeable economic unit and his well-being becomes de-prioritised, and other factors that lower employee-turnover, such as social relations, the feeling of having a say, and task flexibility become less important to the manager. As illustrated in the above example on Taylorism in modern day China, employees may feel uncomfortable with the constant supervision and intervention by their managers, and the invasion of privacy that digital supervision constitutes can feel stressful and inhuman.


	~~Too rigid~~ and ~~arbitrary~~.
	~~Difficult to use outside~~ of ~~factories (i.e~~. ~~service)~~

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references />		<references />

Erikbajer99: /* Criticism */

2023-05-07T11:53:34Z

Criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 7 May 2023
Line 67:		Line 67:

	===Criticism===		===Criticism===
	Taylorism has been criticised by unions for limiting the creativity of workers by making their jobs too rigid <ref name=''European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, "Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management"(2007)''> ''https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24079895_Alfred_Marshall's_critical_analysis_of_scientific_management/~~citations~~/'' </ref>		Taylorism has been criticised by unions for limiting the creativity of workers by making their jobs too rigid <ref name=''European Journal of the.History of Economic Thought, "Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management"(2007)''>''https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24079895_Alfred_Marshall's_critical_analysis_of_scientific_management/'' </ref>
			As we have seen, this was true in the factories of the second industrial revolution where workers worked long days on repetitive tasks, but the criticism is not necessarily valid for project management, although the pressure from the overseeing managers can be oppressive, as in the Chinese tech industry discussed earlier. Another criticism of scientific management, is that Taylorism reduces human motivation by explaining motivation in terms of monetary reward rather than deeper psychological needs. In this way Taylorism is a departure from the human relations approach to explaining motivation.<ref name=''Joe Postings, The Psychologist (The British Psycological Society, "The return of 'Taylorism'?"(2023)''>''https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/return-taylorism/'' </ref>

Erikbajer99: /* In project, program, and portfolio management */

2023-05-07T11:39:02Z

In project, program, and portfolio management

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 7 May 2023
Line 66:		Line 66:
	(6) Managers should avoid being resented. In post-modern western society, jobs are more egalitarian than they were during the industrial revolution, and managers are not necessarily respected solely based on hierarchy alone. If the manager is seen as not contributing or his decisions around incentives, benchmarks, or measurements of productivity are seen as arbitrary, workers may come to recent him. This is ultimately to the detriment to the health of the project, program or portfolio.		(6) Managers should avoid being resented. In post-modern western society, jobs are more egalitarian than they were during the industrial revolution, and managers are not necessarily respected solely based on hierarchy alone. If the manager is seen as not contributing or his decisions around incentives, benchmarks, or measurements of productivity are seen as arbitrary, workers may come to recent him. This is ultimately to the detriment to the health of the project, program or portfolio.

			===Criticism===
			Taylorism has been criticised by unions for limiting the creativity of workers by making their jobs too rigid <ref name=''European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, "Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management"(2007)''> ''https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24079895_Alfred_Marshall's_critical_analysis_of_scientific_management/citations/'' </ref>

Erikbajer99: /* Advice on implementation and criticism */

2023-05-07T11:20:53Z

Advice on implementation and criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 7 May 2023
Line 49:		Line 49:
	<ref name=''Business .com "The Management Theory of Frederick Taylor"''> ''https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/'' </ref>		<ref name=''Business .com "The Management Theory of Frederick Taylor"''> ''https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/'' </ref>

	=== Advice on implementation ~~and criticism~~===		=== Advice on implementation ===
	Based on the above information, concrete advice on the implementation of scientific management in a modern project. As a management technique the principles of Taylorism can be incorporated into project, program, and portfolio management. However, the more complex and unpredictable these are the less practical scientific management is, and for this reason scientific management should not be applied wholely to program nor portfolio management. Project managers, too, may want to use other management techniques, as Taylorism was not created for modern projects but repetitive factory work. In How Scientific Management can be Harmful to Project Management <ref name=''How Scientific Management can be Harmful to Project Management''> ''https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-scientific-management-can-harmful-project-silva-the-lucky-pm/'' </ref> Marisa Silva argues that four assumptions are driving an increased endorsement for scientific management (Taylorism). 1) That humans make rational decisions. 2) That the world, and as a result projects, are unpredictable. 3) That project lifecycles are stable. 4) That projects are similar and can be standardised.		Based on the above information, concrete advice on the implementation of scientific management in a modern project. As a management technique the principles of Taylorism can be incorporated into project, program, and portfolio management. However, the more complex and unpredictable these are the less practical scientific management is, and for this reason scientific management should not be applied wholely to program nor portfolio management. Project managers, too, may want to use other management techniques, as Taylorism was not created for modern projects but repetitive factory work. In How Scientific Management can be Harmful to Project Management <ref name=''How Scientific Management can be Harmful to Project Management''> ''https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-scientific-management-can-harmful-project-silva-the-lucky-pm/'' </ref> Marisa Silva argues that four assumptions are driving an increased endorsement for scientific management (Taylorism). 1) That humans make rational decisions. 2) That the world, and as a result projects, are unpredictable. 3) That project lifecycles are stable. 4) That projects are similar and can be standardised.

Line 62:		Line 62:
	(4) Employees need to see the sense and benefits of the implementation of Taylorism. It is important that employees see the incentive structure as beneficial to them and not just the bottom line of the CEO or the company: They need to be made to understand that the new management technique will bring them direct monetary benefits as long as they apply themselves and deliver on time.		(4) Employees need to see the sense and benefits of the implementation of Taylorism. It is important that employees see the incentive structure as beneficial to them and not just the bottom line of the CEO or the company: They need to be made to understand that the new management technique will bring them direct monetary benefits as long as they apply themselves and deliver on time.

	(5) Employees may be included and allowed to influence the implementation of Taylorism. Employees may feel that the task idea is too ambitious or have other criticisms about the management technique - in such cases, their feedback should be taken seriously.		(5) Employees may be included and allowed to influence the implementation of Taylorism. As in the original inception of Taylorism, employees need to be involved in planning and in formulating the task idea, so that any doubts or misunderstandings are avoided at the outset. Employees may feel that the task idea is too ambitious or have other criticisms about the management technique - in such cases, their feedback should be taken seriously.

	(6) Managers should avoid being resented. In post-modern western society, jobs are more egalitarian than they were during the industrial revolution, and managers are not necessarily respected solely based on hierarchy alone. If the manager is seen as not contributing or his decisions around incentives, benchmarks, or measurements of productivity are seen as arbitrary, workers may come to recent him. This is ultimately to the detriment to the health of the project, program or portfolio.		(6) Managers should avoid being resented. In post-modern western society, jobs are more egalitarian than they were during the industrial revolution, and managers are not necessarily respected solely based on hierarchy alone. If the manager is seen as not contributing or his decisions around incentives, benchmarks, or measurements of productivity are seen as arbitrary, workers may come to recent him. This is ultimately to the detriment to the health of the project, program or portfolio.
Line 71:		Line 71:
	Too rigid and arbitrary.		Too rigid and arbitrary.
	Difficult to use outside of factories (i.e. service)		Difficult to use outside of factories (i.e. service)


	~~Labour unions oppose it~~
	~~https://www.jstor.org/stable/1885989?seq=3~~




	== References ==		== References ==
	<references />		<references />

Erikbajer99: /* Principles */

2023-05-07T11:15:06Z

Principles

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 7 May 2023
Line 30:		Line 30:

	4) Managers and workers work scientifically in their respective field, so that there is a clear division of labour. <ref name=''The Principles of Scientific Management''> ''The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) by Frederick Winslow Taylor'' </ref>		4) Managers and workers work scientifically in their respective field, so that there is a clear division of labour. <ref name=''The Principles of Scientific Management''> ''The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) by Frederick Winslow Taylor'' </ref>




	== Practice ==		== Practice ==

Erikbajer99 at 11:14, 7 May 2023

2023-05-07T11:14:53Z

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 == In project, program, and portfolio management ==
@@ Line 65: / Line 80: @@
 == References ==
 <references />

Erikbajer99: /* In project, program, and portfolio management */

2023-05-07T11:13:59Z

In project, program, and portfolio management

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:13, 7 May 2023
Line 33:		Line 33:


	=== In project, program, and portfolio management ===		== In project, program, and portfolio management ==
	As regards project, program, and portfolio management the techniques of analysing work processes and building incentive structures can be incorporated into modern practices. As Taylorism builds on standardisation and stratification (i.e. workers and managers) it generally requires large teams to be implemented fully. A typical startup will not gain anything from incorporating Taylorism, since roles are constantly shifting and due to the lack of standard task that can be optimised and perfected over many repetitions. The first step to implementing Taylorism into a modern project, program, or portfolio is to have a clear distinction between managers and workers. Assignmments should be divided into subtasks that are easy to manage and have clear success criteria. Ideally it should be possible to define a 'standard task', i.e. a day's work or another standard quantity of work. Manager should pick workers who fit a certain task especially well, this may be done with the help of personality tests. After a worker has been picked for a task he should be trained to excell at that task specifically, and a penality/reward system should be set up. This could be a 5% bonus if he accomplishes his part of the daily project work or the same penality if he falls significantly behind. As with any large scale team work, communication is paramount. Managers need to be given a lot of information, as the scientific approach to work requires a constant sourse of feedback. This is especially true in the early stages of the work. While Taylorism focuses on the standardisation of tasks it is not by necessity static, and managers should be ready to implement changes or experiment to find the best formula, similarly to how a scientist works in the lab working with trial and error.		As regards project, program, and portfolio management the techniques of analysing work processes and building incentive structures can be incorporated into modern practices. As Taylorism builds on standardisation and stratification (i.e. workers and managers) it generally requires large teams to be implemented fully. A typical startup will not gain anything from incorporating Taylorism, since roles are constantly shifting and due to the lack of standard task that can be optimised and perfected over many repetitions. The first step to implementing Taylorism into a modern project, program, or portfolio is to have a clear distinction between managers and workers. Assignmments should be divided into subtasks that are easy to manage and have clear success criteria. Ideally it should be possible to define a 'standard task', i.e. a day's work or another standard quantity of work. Manager should pick workers who fit a certain task especially well, this may be done with the help of personality tests. After a worker has been picked for a task he should be trained to excell at that task specifically, and a penality/reward system should be set up. This could be a 5% bonus if he accomplishes his part of the daily project work or the same penality if he falls significantly behind. As with any large scale team work, communication is paramount. Managers need to be given a lot of information, as the scientific approach to work requires a constant sourse of feedback. This is especially true in the early stages of the work. While Taylorism focuses on the standardisation of tasks it is not by necessity static, and managers should be ready to implement changes or experiment to find the best formula, similarly to how a scientist works in the lab working with trial and error.
	<ref name=''Business .com "The Management Theory of Frederick Taylor"''> ''https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/'' </ref>		<ref name=''Business .com "The Management Theory of Frederick Taylor"''> ''https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/'' </ref>

Erikbajer99 at 11:13, 7 May 2023

2023-05-07T11:13:40Z

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ) Managers and workers work scientifically in their respective field, so that there is a clear division of labour. <ref name=''The Principles of Scientific Management''> ''The Principles of Scientific Management (1911) by Frederick Winslow Taylor'' </ref>
-== Practice ==
 === In project, program, and portfolio management ===
 As regards project, program, and portfolio management the techniques of analysing work processes and building incentive structures can be incorporated into modern practices. As Taylorism builds on standardisation and stratification (i.e. workers and managers) it generally requires large teams to be implemented fully. A typical startup will not gain anything from incorporating Taylorism, since roles are constantly shifting and due to the lack of standard task that can be optimised and perfected over many repetitions. The first step to implementing Taylorism into a modern project, program, or portfolio is to have a clear distinction between managers and workers. Assignmments should be divided into subtasks that are easy to manage and have clear success criteria. Ideally it should be possible to define a 'standard task', i.e. a day's work or another standard quantity of work. Manager should pick workers who fit a certain task especially well, this may be done with the help of personality tests. After a worker has been picked for a task he should be trained to excell at that task specifically, and a penality/reward system should be set up. This could be a 5% bonus if he accomplishes his part of the daily project work or the same penality if he falls significantly behind. As with any large scale team work, communication is paramount. Managers need to be given a lot of information, as the scientific approach to work requires a constant sourse of feedback. This is especially true in the early stages of the work. While Taylorism focuses on the standardisation of tasks it is not by necessity static, and managers should be ready to implement changes or experiment to find the best formula, similarly to how a scientist works in the lab working with trial and error.
 <ref name=''Business .com "The Management Theory of Frederick Taylor"''> ''https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/'' </ref>
 === Advice on implementation and criticism===
@@ Line 79: / Line 63: @@
 Labour unions oppose it
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1885989?seq=3
 == References ==
 <references />