Reasoning Theorems of Success

The Make-Buy-Outsource question is in many aspects a very interesting one. First of all, there is an evolutional development around the topic. Under normal circumstances, companies will first experience the — make — decision, in a later stage — buy — and afterwards — outsource.
Make-buy-outsource is about acquiring a system that needs to fulfill a specific task in the organization. Outsourcing is broader in the way that not only a system is involved but a whole operation, including other (human) resources.

The MBO-topic is not limited to the larger companies. Any small business is more flexible when it can hand-over tasks to others. For sending out a mailing you can try to setup a template in outlook, but there are many parties on the market that provide more enhanced solutions. The advantage is that you are more flexible and that you do not have to worry about all those extra aspects. Like making backups and providing the right infrastructure. You do need to check out the service level agreement however.

One step further is to hand over all the tasks to a third party. The mailing process is again a good example. You hand over the list (or you can add this list management task to the agreement) and they can execute the job.

A disadvantage is that you are interfacing with a company outside your own. And it is at the level of the interfaces where the problems end:

• The Mail-partner executed the task but a few addresses bounced. You have the same kind of list stored in your own environment and you should update that list to keep them synchronic. This can happen at either side.
• The statistical reports you receive from the Mail-partner are sorted on their own key. Then you want not only a paper list but electronic versions to match them or import them into your own database (or data warehouse for larger organizations). Here the same matching occurs which is error prone. Even though solutions like XML have simplified these kinds off tasks, the vulnerability remains.
• Integration at the front end. A client is calling and you need to access to systems. How do you solve this, swapping screens, or do you integrate client functionality and the front-end?

Every company is to a certain extent unique, but each company faces similar kind of issues according to their main characteristics and according to the situation they are in.

If you are dealing with such a case, setting up the Service Level Agreement (SLA) is very important. A thorough study of all the required interfaces is a prerequisite in getting a sound SLA.

© 2006 Hans Bool

Hans Bool is the founder of Astor White a traditional management consulting company that offers online management advice. Astor Online solves issues in hours what normally would take days.
You can apply for a free demo account

It is not difficult to find examples of Scientific Management in the 21st Century; the car and computer manufacturing plants, the work environments we go to everyday, the hospitals we are treated in and even some of the restaurants we might eat in, - almost all of them function more efficiently due to the application of Scientific Management. In fact, these methods of working seem so commonplace and so logical to a citizen of the modern world that it is almost impossible to accept that they were revolutionary only 100 years ago.

Although Scientific Management does play an important role in the 21st century, it is necessary to note that this method of management contains weaknesses that limit its influence in current work environments, and consequently not all of its tenants are applicable to modern organizations. Scientific Management is perhaps best seen as an evolutionary stage in management ever developing history. This essay will attempt to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of Scientific Management in context of the 21st century through examination of its application in several modern organizations.

Scientific Management was developed in the first quarter of the 20th Century; its father is commonly accepted to be F.W. Taylor, although some variations of the theory have been developed by Gantt and Gilbreth. Taylor recognized labor productivity was largely inefficient due to a workforce that functioned by “rules of thumb,” and a mentality that equated increased productivity with a cutting down of the labor force. Against the backdrop of Bethlehem Steel plant, Taylor carried out studies to insure that factual scientific knowledge would replace the traditional “rules of thumb”. The backbone of this activity was his “Time And Motion Study”, as Dale explains, “Taylor employed a young man to analyze all the operations and the motions performed in each and to time the motions with a stopwatch. From knowing how long it took actually to perform each of the elements in each job, it would be possible…to determine a really “fair days work” (Dale 1963, p. 155.).

Through this study, Taylor could see that work was more efficient when broken down into its constituent parts, and the management, planning, and decision-making functions have been developed elsewhere. Taylor viewed the majority of workers as ill educated and unfit to make important decisions, this is illustrated in the following quotation, “One of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles […] the ox… Therefore the workman…is unable to understand the real science of doing this class of work” (Taylor 1998, p. 28).

Taylor’s implementation of scientific fact did not stop there; he had also studied the equipment workmen used appropriating the correct scientific design for the task at hand, these insured workers neither over-worked nor under-worked themselves. Furthermore, workers were scientifically selected resulting in workers performing tasks they were biologically able to cope with, and tasks that equaled their skill. Taylor (and later Gant) drove this system by incentivying workers with money.

Taylor’s system insured the most efficient way would be used by all workers, therefore making the work process standard. Invariably managers found that maximal efficiency was achieved by a subdivision of labor. This subdivision entailed breaking the workers tasks into smaller and smaller parts; in short, “specifying not only what is to be done but how it is to be done and the exact time allowed for doing it” (Taylor 1998, p. 17). George Ritzer in his book “The McDonaldization of Society” notes a similar philosophy in a McDonalds staff manua, “It told operators… precise cooking times for all products and temperature settings for all equipment…It specified that French fries be cut at nine-thirty-seconds thick…Grill men…were instructed to put hamburgers down on the grill moving left to right, creating six rows of six patties each” (Ritzer 2000, p. 38).

In many ways McDonalds is the archetypical example of an organization employing Scientific Management in production. Within this restaurant chain, uniformity is complete; no matter what country you are in every branch of McDonalds is the same, as are the methods used to prepare food, clean floors, promote staff and lock up on closing. It is this ability to efficiently supply standard food and service throughout the world that has allowed McDonalds to become the biggest restaurant chain on the planet (Peters and Waterman 1982, p. 173-174).

A theory, whose roots are based on the scientific management model is Fordism. This theory refers to the application of Henry Ford’s faith in mass production (Marcouse, 1996). The theory combined the idea of the moving assembly line together with Taylor’s systems of division of labor and piece rate payment. With Fordism, jobs are automated or broken down into unskilled or semi-skilled tasks. The pace of the continuous flow assembly line dictates work. Although Ford pioneered production in the assembly of consumer goods, such as cars, his theory retained the faults of Taylor’s. Autocratic management ensures a high division of labor in order to effectively run mass production; this leads to little workplace democracy and alienation. Equally, with emphasis on the continuous flow of the assembly line, machinery is given more importance than workers. Nonetheless, a retained benefit of Taylor’s work is the piece rate payment system. Workers are driven by financial motivation; being given a consolation of high wages while employers maintain control over the workforce.

The antithesis of scientific management is the human relations movement established by Elton Mayo. The model is based on the research undertaken by Mayo at the Hawthorne electrical components factory between 1927 and 1932. Mayo followed Taylor’s methods and was attempting to measure the impact on productivity of improving the lighting conditions within the factory. He followed Taylor’s scientific principles by testing the changes against a control, a section of the factory with unchanged lighting (Kelly 1982).

The benefits of scientific management lie within its ability to coordinate a mutual relationship between employers and workers. The theory provides a company with the focus to organize its structure in order to meet the objectives of both the employer and employee. At the time of its inception, Taylor found that the firms who introduced scientific management as he prescribed it became the world’s most meticulously organized corporations (Nelson, 1980). Scientific management also provides a company with the means to achieve economies of scale. This phenomenon occurs because the theory stresses efficiency and the need to eliminate waste. Managers are given the duty to identify ways in which costs can be accounted for precisely, which leads to a division of labor and a specialization amongst staff, thus allowing each employee to become highly effective at carrying out their limited task. Consequently, firms will have in place efficient production methods and techniques. Another benefit of scientific management for a company adopting it is that it will obtain full control of its workforce. Management can dictate the desired minimum output to be produced and, with a piece rate payment system in place, can be guaranteed workers will produce the required amount.

Scientific Management, however, is an incomplete system. What is seen in both the Bethlehem Steel plant under Taylor’s management in 1911, and in every McDonalds restaurant in the World now is a “deskilling” of labor. As jobs are broken down into their constituent elements, and workers tasks are made easier, humans become little more than “machines” in the chain. Their cognitive input is not required and their motions do little to develop themselves; it is here that we touch upon the first problem Scientific Management faces in the 21st Century.

In today’s society the average intelligence of employees has sharply risen; people have been made aware of their value as human beings and any process by which this status is challenged is considered self-depreciating. People are no longer content to receive only fiscal reward for their tasks. Under Taylor’s Scientific Management system workers were viewed as working solely for economic reward. In current organizations, on the other hand, it has been recognized that productivity and success is not just obtained by controlling all factors in the work place, but by contributing to the social well-being and development of the individual employee.

The negative aspects of scientific management are apparent when evaluating the treatment of employees and with the problems that arise from the piece rate payment system. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Taylor’s methods for managing the workers were not completely adhered to. Thousands of plants introduced elements of scientific management, but few firms created formal planning departments or issued instruction cards to machine workers in fear of alienating the workforce (Nelson, 1980). The principals of scientific management are unquestionably authoritarian in that they assume decision-making is best kept at the top of the organization because there exists a lack of trust in the competence of the employees. Taylor believed productivity and efficiency would both rise if there were a division between workers and experts, and contended that almost every act of the workman should be preceded by one or more preparatory acts of the management. He also reasoned that each person must be taught daily by those who are over them (1998). This style of management can be the catalyst for causing anti-motivation and dissatisfaction amongst employees. If workers feel as though they are being treated without due respect, many may become disenchanted with the company and refuse to work to their maximum potential. Similarly, the piece rate payment system may cause the employer to encounter the problem of encouraging staff to concentrate on quantity at the expense of quality.

Higher levels of access to technology and information as well as increased competition present another difficulty to theory of Scientific Management being applied to organizations in the 21st Century. Modern organizations process huge amounts of input, and employees no longer work in isolated units cut off from the organization at large, but are quite literally connected to it. Satellite link-ups and the Internet provide organizations with thousands of bytes of information everyday, enabling companies to work on a global scale and within never shortening time frames. Delivery times, information gathering, data processing and manufacturing techniques are constantly becoming more technologically advanced and efficient.

Alongside this rapid technological growth organizations are finding it increasingly important to react quickly to developments that may affect their welfare. Managers recognize they are unable to control all aspects of employee’s functions, as the sheer layers of information factored into everyday decisions are so high that it is imperative employees use their own initiative. High competition between organizations also means that companies must react fast to maintain market positions. All of these forces modern companies to maintain high levels of flexibility.

In the era during whichScientific Management was developed each worker had a specific task that he or she had to perform with little or no real explanation of why, or what part it plays in the organization as a whole. In this day and age it is virtually impossible to find an employee in the developed world who is not aware of what his or her organization stands for, what their business strategy is, how they are faring, and what their job means to the company as a whole. Organizations actively encourage employees to know about their company and to work across departments, insuring that communication at all levels is mixed and (what is becoming even more popular today) informal. This phenomenon means that, for example, in companies such as EXXON scientists, marketers and manufacturers are all constantly aware of one another’s activities (Peters & Waterman 1982, p. 218).

Another weakness in Scientific Management theory is that it can lead to workers becoming too highly specialized therefore hindering their adaptability to new situations, in the 21st Century employers not only want workers to be efficient they must also exhibit flexibility.

However, it can be reasoned that scientific management is still a relevant concept for understanding contemporary work organizations. Scientific management has proved it has a place in a post-industrial economy and within work organizations, albeit in a hybrid form with the human relations model. This is because scientific management allows a company to control its workforce through a series of measures that guarantees them the desired levels of productivity and efficiency. In spite of this guarantee, the model, as Taylor prescribed it, also manages to alienate the workforce and cause dissatisfaction due to the authoritarian structure of the role of management. The human relations model adds a new dimension to scientific management as it allows management to work on the same principles as Taylor approved, such as time and motion studies, while also serving to fulfill employees’ social needs at the same time.

In conclusion, it can be seen that Scientific Management is still very much a part of any organization in the 21st Century. Its strengths in creating a divide between management functions and work functions have been employed widely at all levels and in all industries. In addition its strengths in making organizations efficient through replacement of “rules of thumb” with scientific fact has both insured its widespread application and ironically bred the conditions that make it less applicable to modern organizations. Now that all modern organizations work on a factual basis and all of them have managerial and employee structures competition is controlled by other factors outside the realms of Scientific Management. Modern organizations rank humanistic factors such as employee initiative, loyalty and adaptability alongside efficiency. For this reason, Taylor’s claim that workers are solely concerned with monetary reward and that every facet of work needs to be controlled from above seems outmoded, untrue, and impractical.

It is perhaps then better to accept that as a complete theory Scientific Management is not visible in modern organizations, however, elements of it are so relevant that they have become deeply ingrained in all modern organizations and are the very reasons why management has taken on new dimension in the 21st Century.

Bibliography

1. Dale, Ernest. (1973), Management, Theory & Practice. McGraw-Hill Publication.

2. Kelly, John. (1982), Scientific Management, Job Redesign, & Work Performance. Academic Press.

3. Marcouse, I. et al. (1996), The Complete A-Z Business Studies Handbook, Hodder & Stoughton.

4. Nelson, David. (1980), Frederick W Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management. The University of Wisconsin Press.

5. Peters, Tom & Waterman, Robert. (1988) In Search Of Excellence. Harper & Row Publications.

6. Ritzer, George. (2000) The McDonaldization Of Society. Sage Publications Inc.

7. Sheldrake, John. (2003), Management Theory. Second Edition. Thomson Publications.

8. Taylor, Frederic. (1998), The Principles of Scientific Management. Re-Published. Originally published in 1911. Dover Publications.

The purpose of having an analytical brain is to use it to think and make a plan before we act.

Acting spontaneously out of fear, revenge, spite, anger and a host of other emotions is a sure-fire way to set yourself up for failure.

If you plan your moves in advance your chances of success are increased. The most successful chess players do this.

By reacting to outside influences you will always be controlled by those influences.

By being pro-active you are dictating the terms. It doesn’t matter what field you are in - business, a personal relationship, sport, a hobby - planning ahead will always bring about better results. But how many people are prepared to devote time and effort to creating a plan and then execute that plan?

So many people drift through life without a plan. They go to work to pay the bills to go to work to pay the bills and so on. Their days are full of routine and they have to act in accordance to the demands of other people. Does that sound like anybody you know?

The happiest people are the ones who do not believe that they even have a job. Sure, they work. However, what they do is so important or entertaining to them that they would do it without being paid. Some people fall into this naturally. Others can plan their way into such a life.

If you are dis-satisfied with where you are or what you are doing then do something about it. Life is very short. Every day is precious. As you get older you will realize this. To be trapped in a situation that is painful to you will cause misery.

It is easy to plan your way into something, or out of something. All you have to do is take a sheet of paper and write at the bottom where you are now and at the top where you want to be. Writing where you want to be at the top of the page is important because it shows ascendancy. In other words, it is at the top of your ladder. To get from where you are you need to climb the ladder.

At various intervals between the bottom and top of that sheet of paper you will mark points that represent significant steps along the journey. It’s much the same as planning a journey to another city. You wouldn’t just get in your car and drive. No. You would get out a map then drive from your current position to the next town, then the next and so on until you eventually got to your destination.

Why should life planning be any different? Without a plan you are doomed to mediocrity or failure. You can plan whatever you want. But it must be on paper. Keeping things in your head will ensure that nothing gets done. On paper, where you can see it makes a plan real.

You can plan anything. Get the paper, get the pen. Think out the plan. Write the plan. Act on it and it will become reality. Millions of people have. Billions of people don’t bother. You can do it. Happy planning.

About the author: Gary Simpson is the author of eight books covering a diverse range of subjects such as self esteem, affirmations, self defense, finance and much more. His articles appear all over the web. Gary’s email address is budo@iinet.net.au. Click here to go to his Motivation & Self Esteem for Success website where you can receive his “Zenspirational Thoughts” plus an immediate FREE copy of his highly acclaimed, life-changing e-book “The Power of Choice.”

Every business talks of goals. No business can run without goals and no business can achieve anything without goals. The goals give direction to the business about where to head and what to achieve. Therefore for every business, goals are most important. Generally businesses set SMART Goals - specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-based. What about our personal goals in career and work? Are we to follow the goals of the organization and try to achieve them or set some more for ourselves that help us in our personal growth. What about having satisfying goals for ourselves? Let us discuss this further.

As a member of a business organization, all of us have to try and achieve the larger goals of the organization. That is true even for self run businesses. But can we reach the goals of business in a way that helps us achieve our own satisfying goals? We can. Let us see how? In the beginning, decide about what gives you satisfaction in your career. It can be - to learn something new every month, or to increase efficiency of ones work every month, or to work in a relaxed manner always, and so on. Each one of us will have his/her goal that satisfies ourself. So you will have to draw a list of goals that are desirable for your satisfaction and try to achieve them one after another.

For example, my first satisfying goal can be that I learn something new every month this year. I may be handling any work, but I want to learn something new about that work every month. That will make me feel personally satisfied. How do I do that? I can work on my given job, try and achieve my business goals and learn something new along with that. This new learning can also help me achieve business goals in time. Now if my organization makes and sells detergents, I will not only achieve the goals on quantity of sales but also about how as a sales person I learn one more sales method every month (This provided I am working as a sales person).

Setting my own satisfying goals and achieving them will not only make me happy and more confident but also make me move along faster in my career. Many of us are centered only on organization goals. Once we add our own satisfying goals to them we will be moving much faster in all the directions. Trying to achieve personal goals can also help remove lot of frustration and if a management can discuss satisfying goals for every employee and guide him/her about achieving them, the organization will have more of satisfied employees. The only care to be taken is that satisfying goals should help achieve business goals and not distract from them. So start defining your satisfying goals from today.

CD Mohatta writes text for business use. Please view some of these ecards for happy boss day. You can also view his text in Free Wallpapers here. You can take fun tests at- Fun Quiz cards.

I was thinking about my New Year’s resolution today. Out of curiosity I decided to do a little research to see just how many resolutions are actually kept.

I found that 50% of resolutions are broken within the first two weeks. I went on to discover that by the end of January a full 95% of resolutions are abandoned.

Only 5% of New Years resolutions are kept beyond January.

This caught my attention. I looked a little harder for the reason so many resolutions fail within such a short amount of time. I found that the majority of resolutions fail due to:

1. Procrastination
2. Lack of discipline
3. No game plan
4. Doing it alone

In summary, I concluded that the majority of resolutions fail because only a small percentage of people with resolutions ever do something about it.

Don’t let this happen to you.

Whatever your goals are for the New Year, I urge you to put them into action. Don’t wait any more. Action creates results.

If you’re really serious about making some changes this year, here are some surefire ways to make them happen.

1. Schedule a Meeting to Map Your Way

Stay with me here. You wouldn’t drive anywhere without knowing the way, why would you feel any different for something as important as you. Ask yourself an important question like “Where do I want to be, one year from now.” And write down your response. This will give you a clear indication on the direction you need to go.

2. Have a Daily Planning System

We know from above it would be just plain wrong to drive somewhere without knowing the way. It’s just as important to know why you’re going there. Writing down your goals will effectively prove their worth to you, and give you the reason to start driving toward them.

3. Define Your Key Results

Key results provide an indication of your progress toward your goals. These will be milestones or signs that you’re heading in the right direction. It’s important to determine your key results and write them down, so you know you’re on track.

4. Take Action

Action creates results. Now is the time to take everything you know about your desired goals, and prioritize your activities to achieve results. You can do this by selecting the most productive actions to reach your key results.

The important thing is that you take the actions that will give you the best chance of reaching your objectives. Remember to write these down so you have a concise roadmap to succeed.

5. Give Yourself a Reward

If you’ve followed the above for any length of time you’re bound to be making accomplishments. Rewarding yourself will motivate you to further reach your goals. You can now appreciate the fact that you are one of the motivated 5% who made it! Pat yourself on the back - you deserve it.

Once you’ve experienced the power of this kind of goal-setting, it will be hard to do it any other way. But don’t delay; take the time right now to define your goals for 2006.

Create your plan and take action. You’ll be glad you did!

Kind regards
Matthew Sherborne

To learn more about Matthew Sherborne’s # 1 pick for 2006 visit his website. Learn how to trade e-currency at www.DXinGold.com

To achieve any goal, all you need to do is COMMIT yourself to achieving it.

Sounds simple… but what that really means is committing yourself to doing every single thing that’s necessary to achieve that goal.

And that’s where it can be challenging…

You may tell yourself that you’re “committed” to getting a new job… or to start a business… or to become wealthy… or to get a book published…

But have you really committed yourself to doing ALL the little — and big tasks — that are necessary to achieve that goal? Are you committed to making ALL the necessary sacrifices?

That’s what commitment to a goal is really about.

So… how do you commit yourself then?

You’ll hear people talk about visualization, affirmations, positive self-talk and other techniques designed to “re-program” your mind so that you’re COMPELLED to fulfill your commitment. You’ll also hear many people claim that these techniques don’t work!

Well, it doesn’t matter “what works” — what matters is “what works for YOU”.

And what works for you is… WHAT HAS WORKED FOR YOU BEFORE.

You see, you’ve already committed to achieving goals in the past… and you’ve achieved those goals.

So why not do what you did then in order to commit yourself now?

For example, if you’re starting a new hobby, you might recall that when you embraced other hobbies in the past you did specific things that helped you learn a lot about the hobby and develop key skills in a relatively short period of time. It might have been purchasing books and magazines related to the hobby, visiting relevant websites, and/or joining groups of like-minded people to discuss and take part in the hobby.

Not only are these activities enjoyable and valuable in themselves, but they also form your Commitment Ritual, which essentially enables you to fully commit to, and stick with, the new hobby.

Another example — when I decided to become a competitive runner a few years ago (as opposed to just running for fitness) I read a lot of books and magazines about running, I joined a running club, I kept a training diary, I joined an online running forum, I competed in races, and I visualized a lot, among other things.

That’s how I committed myself to running.

In fact, everything I did was part of a “COMMITMENT RITUAL” that got me hooked on running — and not just willing, but EAGER — to get up and train at 6am every morning — rain, hail or shine!

And, now, having had my kids, I’m going through the same ritual to get back into competitive running again.

Now you might have a different Commitment Ritual. In fact, you might have different Commitment Rituals for different kinds of goals. But the point is — you have at least one Commitment Ritual.

So… the question is:

Which tried and true Commitment Ritual can you use now to achieve your current goal?

Anna Johnson is the creator of the inspiring 1 minute movie, A Bit Of Inspiration. Enjoy the movie and get inspired! Then claim your free A Bit Of Inspiration screensaver - your daily reminder of the power you have within.