Open Library - открытая библиотека учебной информации

Открытая библиотека для школьников и студентов. Лекции, конспекты и учебные материалы по всем научным направлениям.


Высокие технологии HENRY L. GANTT, THE GILBRETHS
просмотров - 142

Scientific Task Setting

Scientific planning of a task is the technique of forecasting and view­ing ahead every step in a long series of separate operations. Each step has to be taken in the right place, of the right degree, and at the right time so that work can be done with maximum possible efficiency. The following steps are involved in scientific task planning.

(a) Routing: It implies laying down the route or path to be followed by each piece of raw material before its conversion into the finished product.

(b) Scheduling: It is a time table of operations is prepared to ensure completion of each piece of work at the right time. It determines the order of priority for each operation and the time to be taken for its completion.

(ii) Dispatching: It involves assembling of necessary resources assign­ment of jobs, supervision of work, enforcing discipline and coordi­nating activities of different individual.

(iii) Follow up: The last step in scientific task planning is checking of work and taking corrective steps to ensure that each piece of work is completed at the right time in the right amount and at the right cost.

Henry L. Gantt (1861-1919) worked with Taylor on several projects. But when he went out on his own as a consulting industrial engineer, Gantt began to reconsider Taylor's incentive system.

Abandoning the differential rate system as having too little motivational impact, Gantt came up with a new idea. Every worker who finished a day's assigned work load would win a 50-cent bonus. Then he added a second motivation. The supervisor would earn a bonus for each worker who reached the daily standard, plus an extra bonus if all the workers reached it.This, Gantt reasoned, would spur supervisors to train their workers to do a better job.

Every worker's progress was rated publicly and recorded on individual bar charts,--in black on days the worker made the standard, in red when he or she fell below it. Going beyond this, Gantt originated a charting system for production scheduling; the "Gantt chart" is still in use today. In fact, the Gantt Chart was translated into eight languages and used throughout the world. Starting in the 1920s, it was in use in Japan, Spain, and the Soviet Union. A Gantt chart is a type of bar chart that illustrates a project schedule. Gantt charts illustrate the start and finish dates of the terminal elements and summary elements of a project. Terminal elements and summary elements comprise the work breakdown structure of the project. Some Gantt charts also show the dependency (i.e., precedence network) relationships between activities. Gantt charts can be used to show current schedule status using percent-complete shadings and a vertical "TODAY" line as shown here.

Although now regarded as a common charting technique, Gantt charts were considered revolutionary when they were introduced. In recognition of Henry Gantt's contributions, the Henry Laurence Gantt Medal is awarded for distinguished achievement in management and in community service. This chart is used also in Information Technology to represent data that have been collected.


Frank B. and Lillian M. Gilbreth (1868-1924 and 1878-1972) made their contribution to the scientific management movement as a husband-and-wife team. Lillian and Frank collaborated on fatigue and motion studies and focused on ways of promoting the individual worker's welfare. To them, the ultimate aim of scientific management was to help workers reach their full potential as human beings.

In their conception, motion and fatigue were intertwined—every motion that was eliminated reduced fatigue. Using motion picture cameras, they tried to find the most economical motions for each task in order to upgrade performance and reduce fatigue. The Gilbreths argued that motion study would raise worker morale because of its obvious physical benefits and because it demonstrated management's concern for the worker.


By 1910, Taylor’s system of scientific management had become known and, in many instances, faithfully and fully practised. However, managers in many organizations chose to implement the new principles of scientific management selectively. This decision ultimately resulted in problems. For example, some managers using scientific management obtained increases in performance, but rather than sharing performance gains with workers through bonuses as Taylor had advocated, they simply increased the amount of work that each worker was expected to do. Many workers experiencing the reorganized work system found that as their performance increased, managers required them to do more work for the same pay. Workers also learned that increases in performance often meant fewer jobs and a greater threat of layoffs, because fewer workers were needed. In addition, the specialized, simplified jobs were often monotonous and repetitive, and many workers became dissatisfied with their jobs.

Scientific management brought many workers more hardship than gain, and left them with a distrust of managers who did not seem to care about their well-being.

Although Taylor's method led to dramatic increases in productivity and to higher pay in a number of instances, workers and unions began to oppose his approach because they feared that working harder or faster would exhaust whatever work was available, causing layoffs.

Moreover, Taylor's system clearly meant that time was of the essence. His critics objected to the "speed up" conditions that placed undue pressures on employees to perform at faster and faster levels. The emphasis on productivity—and, by extension, profitability—led some managers to exploit both workers and customers. As a result, more workers joined unions and thus reinforced a pattern of suspicion and mistrust that shaded labor-management relations for decades.

1. Managers frequently implemented only the increased output side of Taylor’s plan.

Workers did not share in the increased output.