The objective need for the emergence of the science of organizing production is associated with the development of industrial production, the complication of technological processes, and the involvement of large masses of workers in production. It is quite natural that the scientific organization of labor and production originated primarily in industrial America. It happened at the end XIX- early XX centuries. Scientists from England, France, Germany, Russia (USSR) and other countries (their contribution will be noted below) basically only repeated and developed the provisions put forward by American specialists.
At the first stage, attention was drawn to the issues of labor organization. Later, they were supplemented by issues of organization of production and personnel management (management). Later, as knowledge was accumulated, they were divided as independent scientific directions.
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) is considered the founder of the scientific organization of labor and production. Having started his work as an apprentice in a mechanical workshop, F. Taylor went through all the stages from a junior employee to the chief engineer of a metallurgical plant. His major books "Fundamentals of Scientific Enterprise Management" and "Factory Management" are devoted to the organization manual labor... The main ideas of F. Taylor: effective organization of workers' labor is the most important task of the leader; each employee should be given a clear shift assignment; labor standards should be developed on the basis of time-keeping observations with the exclusion of all awkward and unnecessary movements and the development of correct labor methods; training of employees in correct (standard) working methods should be organized; payment should be made in conjunction with the fulfillment of the norm; control and accounting of the results of the work of each employee should be carried out by special master instructors.
Despite the scientific progressiveness of the ideas of Taylorism, in real application they were guided by the cruel exploitation of workers. The rationing was carried out on the example of the best specially trained workers who worked with maximum intensity. The rest were imposed the same pace of work, although not all of them were physically available. If the norm was not met, the employee was paid at a reduced rate. The worker was relegated to the position of a "living machine" by Taylor.
Frank Gilbreth laid the foundation for the study and rationalization of movements and micro-movements ("take an object", "set", "move", etc.).
Taylor and Gilbreth studied the work organization of the individual worker. Garrington Emerson (1853-1931) pioneered the study of work organization across the enterprise. In his book The Twelve Principles of Productivity (1912), he wrote: "A boss exists to make a subordinate's work productive." Emerson's principles of productivity include: clear definition of the goal of the work process, organizational competence, discipline, fair treatment of personnel, prompt, complete and accurate accounting, dispatch, rationing of operations, normalization of working conditions, standard instructions (in writing), employee remuneration for performance.
From the book general director large metallurgical plant in France Henri Fayol (1841-1925) "General and Industrial Management" (1916) began to develop scientific methods enterprise management. Fayol's principles provided for the division of management into specific functions (planning, coordination, accounting, analysis), the construction of a hierarchical management system, the unity of management, the sustainability of personnel, and support for initiative.
Henry Ford (1863-1947) laid the foundation for the development of a scientific organization in a mass production line. His methods provided for the division of the production process into the simplest operations (thanks to which, on the one hand, it became possible for extensive mechanization and automation, and on the other, it became possible to use the labor of low-skilled workers); conveyorization for moving objects of labor in production; the use of complete interchangeability of parts and parts of the product; standardization of all elements of the production process. Already at the initial stage of application, Ford's methods made it possible to reduce the duration of the car manufacturing cycle from 21 to 3 days, including the assembly time from 12 to 1.5 hours. The production of cars has increased tenfold.
In the first half of the 20th century, the organization of production at Ford's automobile enterprises became the standard for America and the whole world (including the USSR).
At first, production management was seen as a fusion of experience and common sense. Taylor, Fayol, Ford were practitioners. The works of Chevalier (France), Adametsky (Russia) revealed the scientific essence of this direction, its methods and patterns. Karol Adametsky (1866-1933), a metallurgical engineer who worked in the pre-revolutionary period at metallurgical plants in the south of Russia, investigated the influence of the coherence of production processes in rolling production on the cost of production. He theoretically solved the problem of displaying production processes in time (Adametsky's graphs).
Beginning in the 1920s, theories began to emerge in America (and later in other countries) " human relations"aimed at stimulating the productivity of workers by" enriching labor "due to its diversity and elimination of monotony, involving workers in the planning and regulation of operations performed, the use of the worker's intellectual resources, respect for the individual, democratization of management, etc. (These issues are studied in the courses of sociology and organization of labor and management).
A large role in the mathematical support of the organization of production as a science was played by the methods of researching operations and computers that appeared in the middle of the last century. They made it possible to solve the problems of optimizing production processes. Methods of network planning and management developed by M. Walker and D. Kelly were the largest contribution to the organization of one-off production and the management of target programs (large-scale scientific research, investment projects, etc.).
In the USSR, much attention was paid to the scientific organization of labor and production. Ministries (including ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy) had their own sectoral institutes and laboratories, corresponding departments were created at enterprises. In 1946, for the development of the theory of flow principles of work in serial production, the head of the department of the Moscow Higher Technical School B.Ya. Katsebogen was awarded the State Prize. For the development of scientific principles of group processing methods, Professor S.P. Mitrofanov was awarded the Lenin Prize.
At the same time, the real level of organization of labor and production at the enterprises of the USSR remained low. The reason for this can be explained by the general inefficiency of the applied centrally planned economy. Unfortunately, nothing has changed significantly in this area with the transition to private ownership of the means of production, since the economy created in Russia is pseudo-market in nature and, like the socialist one, does not have the necessary incentives for self-development. Currently, labor productivity at metallurgical enterprises in Russia is significantly lower than at similar enterprises in developed countries.
The scientific and technological revolution, which caused the complication of technological processes, a sharp acceleration of mechanical engineering, automation and computerization of production, put forward the organization of production as one of the most important areas of economic science. The more complex the production, the more relevant the application of the methods of its scientific organization. As the experience of developed countries (USA, Japan, England, Germany, etc.) shows, the effective organization of production in a market economy allows better use of the resources of enterprises, reduce costs, resist in a tough competitive struggle for promoting new products on the market.
It remains to be hoped that, having studied the scientific foundations of organizing production at the enterprises of the industry, our future specialists-economists and managers will be able to change for the better the situation in this area and in Russia.
The boundaries of organization theory.
There are two fundamentally opposite approaches to describing the development of the theory of organization. The first characterizes the organization as a system and reflects the development of management thought from a mechanistic view of the organization (closed) to a holistic (open). The second approach characterizes the nature of the organization from the rational to the social.
Development of views on the organization as a system. Until about the 1960s, organizational problems were solved only in terms of closed systems. The issues of the business environment, competition, sales, etc., which go beyond the internal organization and determine the external environment for the enterprise, were not considered. With the development of the market, the prevailing ideas about the organization have changed. It became apparent that the internal dynamics of organizations is shaped by external events. The theory of organization begins to view the enterprise as an open system in the unity of all constituent parts and elements that perceive changes in the external environment and respond to them. In the 70s of the XX century. a methodological apparatus is being formed to study the impact external environment to the enterprise using systems theory. Direct inclusion in the analysis of the influence of environmental factors on the internal processes of the organization was the beginning of the era of "open systems".
Development of views on the nature of organization in the direction from the rational to the social.“Rational thinking” means that there is a clear perspective for the organization and its goals are clearly and unambiguously defined.
Let's say an engineering company aims to maximize profits from improving production efficiency and product quality. If we accept this goal as given, then the top management can only choose the means that will lead to its achievement. This position allows you to make rational decisions. The actions of the organization are thus programmed.
"Social thinking" means ambiguity in defining and choosing goals and making specific decisions to improve production efficiency in workshops, at the sites of a machine-building enterprise, etc.
From the standpoint of the above approaches, four stages are distinguished in the development of the theory of organization. Each stage is determined by a single combination of established signs (closed - open system, rational - social thinking) on
two-dimensional grid.
Stages of development of the theory of organization.
First step in organization theory, it covers the period from 1900 to 1930. It can be defined as the era of "closed systems and the rational individual." The main representatives of the theory of organization of this time were Max Weber, Henri Fayol and Frederic Taylor. The approach developed by them is focused on organizational and technical improvements of the system by increasing efficiency internal functions organizations.
Second phase(1930-1960) is the era of “closed systems and the social individual”. A group of theorists - Anthon Mayo, Douglas McGregor, Chester Barnard - developed management issues closed systems relying on internal relations and non-economic motivation of workers.
Third stage(1960-1975) - this is the period of "open systems and the rational individual." The theory of organization takes a step forward, considering the organization as an integral part of the system more high level, and at the same time - a step back, as it returns to mechanistic ideas about a person. The main contribution to the development of the theory of organization during this period was made by Alfred Chandler, Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsh.
And finally fourth stage, which began around 1975 can be defined as the period of "open systems and the social individual." At this stage, there is a return to "social thinking", but already within the framework of open systems. The leader of modern organization theory is James March.
Let's define the contribution to the development of the theory of organization of its most prominent representatives.
Fundamental ideas of the theory of organization.
F. Taylor and the scientific foundations of the theory of organization. The beginning of a series of fundamental works in the field of organization theory was laid by F. Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management, published in 1911.
Through his experiments and scientific works, F. Taylor strove to prove that the methods of scientific organization of labor developed by him and the principles of "scientific management" formulated on their basis will make a true revolution in modern production, replacing the outdated authoritarian methods scientific approaches to management.
From his research and experiments, F. Taylor deduced a number of general principles that formed the basis of the classical theory of organization. These include:
division of labor. This principle is not only carried out at the workshop or shop level, but also applies to management echelons. The manager should be assigned the planning function, and the employee should be assigned the execution function.
In addition to this division of labor in a broad sense, Taylor also recommended that specific production tasks be allocated so that each member of the staff (both worker and manager) was responsible for only one function;
functional guidance. Supervision of workers should be functional in nature and carried out at every phase of production. Taylor proposed moving from sole to functional leadership, replacing power
one master of functional administration (several managers-specialists, each of whom would give the worker instructions within his competence). In the specialized literature on the problems of organizing such
specialist managers and their subdivisions are called functional bodies (departments), and the organization is called functional;
Measurement labor. Taylor insisted on studying the processes of working time, seeing in this the most optimal way to implement production tasks. This principle assumes the measurement of working time using the so-called "units of time", representing discrete elements of labor processes;
prescription tasks. According to this principle, production tasks should not only be divided up by the minute, but also be accompanied by detailed description optimal methods for their implementation. The objectives of the enterprise are clearly planned and each worker is given written instructions regarding his specific tasks. Through the implementation of these measures, both the worker and the manager receive certain standards that contribute to the measurement of labor;
incentive programs. It should be clear to the worker that any element of labor has a price and that his pay depends on the set output. finished products, in the case of achieving greater productivity, the worker is paid a bonus;
labor as an individual activity. Group influence makes the worker less productive;
motivation. The essence of this principle is that self-interest is driving force for the majority of people;
the role of individual abilities. A distinction is made between the capabilities of workers and managers: workers work for remuneration in the present, and managers for future remuneration.
As you can see, F. Taylor did not neglect the human component of organizations, as many believe, but put emphasis, rather, on the individual rather than on the collective qualities of the employee. He believed that the application of the principles of scientific management would eliminate almost all causes of disputes and disagreements between business owners and employees.
The principles of organization A. Fayol. Some time after the publication of the results of his research in the USA by F. Taylor, the Frenchman A. Fayol formulated the general principles of organization.
Fayolle sought to develop organizational principles applicable to all levels of government. They can be briefly formulated as follows.
To be effective, an organization must have:
Clear goals;
One center of subordination (unity of control);
One department of management (unity of control);
Clear lines of authority along which orders go (scalar chain of command from the upper echelons of the hierarchy to its lower levels);
Equality of rights and responsibilities;
Rational division of labor and logical grouping of tasks by divisions, departments and top-level administrative sectors;
A clear definition of responsibility for the results of activities and such established official relations so that everyone in the organization knows his role and position in the team;
Opportunities for initiative
A. Fayol attached particular importance to the formal structure of the organization. The use of the scalar chain principle, according to A. Fayol, makes it possible to create a system of responsibility of various links and ensures the unity of management with the consistent transmission of instructions and information.
However, he warns against excessive formalism of the organization, showing what obstacles are created by the organizational structure in the path of communication flow.
Fayol illustrates the problem of limited formal organizational structure using the following typical example:
A
E "Bridge" by Fayol E
Example. Suppose it is required to transmit a message from individual D to individual O, who are at the same level of the hierarchy, but in different departments. In accordance with the shown hierarchical structure, formal contact between them can be carried out only through the levels of the hierarchy of power (up and down). However, it is obvious that it is wiser and much faster for D and O to make direct contact, bypassing seven higher leaders. Fayol argued that any organization should allow such direct horizontal communication, at least in crisis situations where speed of action is important. This social communication channel is called Fayol's Bridge.
Bureaucracy M. Weber. German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) developed the principles of building an ideal type of organization structure, which is called bureaucratic. The term "bureaucracy" was used by M. Weber in its exact meaning - "the government of civil servants." In his opinion, bureaucracy is distinguished by precision, strict discipline, stability and responsibility. The principles of building a bureaucratic organization are as follows:
All activities based on the division of labor are divided into elements, which makes it possible to determine the tasks and responsibilities of each official;
The organization is built on the principles of hierarchy, a strict system of subordination and responsibility, a system of power and authority;
The activities of the organization are regulated on the basis of instructions, standards, rules that determine the responsibility of each employee and his duties;
Organization management is carried out on the basis of formal impersonality, i.e. excludes personal motives and emotions;
Selection, appointment and promotion are based on merit and merit, not tradition and whim.
M. Weber believed that the system of principles proposed by him would ensure the satisfactory performance of many monotonous organizational tasks, and hierarchy, power and bureaucracy lie at the basis of all social organizations.
E. Mayo and the Hawthorne Experiment. Elton Mayo (1880-1949), an Australian consultant, sociologist, and professor at Harvard Business School, led a series of experiments carried out at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant (1924-1927). The results of these experiments significantly changed the understanding of the motives of the employee's behavior in the organization during that period and served as the beginning of the second stage in the development of the theory of organization.
Research at the Hawthorne plant began with a series of experiments to improve lighting in workplaces to find ways to increase productivity. The experimental results did not allow to deduce such a relationship. However, it was possible to establish that labor productivity is associated with the fact that workers felt special attention to themselves as participants in the experiment. This phenomenon is called the Hawthorne effect.
Hawthorne effect means the tendency of people to behave abnormally when they realize that they are the object of an experiment and feel special attention to themselves. This kind of "special" appeal to the test subjects led to the emergence of a new scientific school in management, which was called the "school of human relations".
The research carried out allowed E. Mayo to draw a number of significant conclusions that contradict the concept of "rational worker". The main ones are the following:
Clear division and regulation of labor do not always lead to increased productivity;
People are more responsive to the social influence of a peer group than to incentives and controls from leadership;
The manager must be well trained professionally to be a real leader. He must understand the needs of individuals and groups, listen to the problems of both, be able to give the necessary advice and convince
employee to accept change.
The influence of E. Mayo's ideas is evident even today. Management improvement programs in many large organizations emphasize the need and importance of specialized training for managers in interviewing, identifying interpersonal relationships, understanding the group and developing other social skills in the manager. All these problems are relevant and directly or indirectly follow from the works of E. Mayo.
In conclusion, it can be noted that Mayo has formulated a number of guiding principles that can be useful and used in the management of any organization:
1. Individuals have unique needs, goals, and motives. Positive motivation requires workers to be treated as individuals.
2. Human problems cannot be simple.
3. Personal or family problems of a worker can adversely affect productivity.
C. Barnard and Purposeful Organizations. Combining the ideas of Taylor, Fayol and Weber with the results of the Hawthorne Experiment led to the conclusion that an organization is "a system of deliberately coordinated actions of a group of people." Its main elements are technology and people, and focusing on only one of these elements does not lead to system optimization. This provision was first put forward by Charles Barnard.
C. Barnard gave a definition of a formal (purposeful) organization and its constituent elements, purpose, identified the subjective and objective aspects of the power of leaders. The theory of perception developed by him, which explains in a new way the relationship between managers and employees, received special recognition. The essence of Charles Barnard's ideas can be expressed in the following provisions:
The physical and biological limitations inherent in individuals force them to cooperate, work in groups, since cooperation is the most effective way to overcome these limitations;
Collaboration leads to the emergence of coherent systems. The successful functioning of such systems depends on the effectiveness and their inherent efficiency: performance characterizes the achievement of corporate goals, efficiency is a consequence of individual performance and means the achievement of goals with minimal cost for its participants;
Individuals have personal motives for cooperation, but there is a certain limit to which they continue to contribute to efforts to achieve corporate goals. Therefore, the success of an organization also depends on the degree of satisfaction of its members;
Organizations can be divided into two types: "formal", i.e. those that combine the efforts of several persons and coordinate their actions to achieve common goals, and "informal", which means a set of personal contacts and interactions, as well as associated groups of people who do not have a common or consciously coordinated goal;
The informal organization acts as a kind of self-defense of individuals against the expansion of formal organizations. Its main functions include communication, maintaining cohesion, enhancing a sense of personal dignity, self-esteem and independence of choice. Formal organization arises when there are individuals who are able to communicate with each other, agree to contribute to group actions and have common goal;
Each formal organization includes the following elements: a) general purpose (purpose); b) a system of incentives that will encourage people to contribute to the achievement of the goal; c) a system of power that induces group members to agree with the decisions of the administrators; d) communication;
Power is an information link (team), thanks to which information is perceived by members of the organization as a tool for managing their activities. The leader is empowered by people who want to be controlled. Therefore, the real bearer of power is not the manager, but the personnel themselves, since it is he who decides whether or not to carry out orders from above. Subjective
the element of power is its perception by employees, and the objective is the nature of the team or information communication;
The functions of an administrator in a formal organization are maintaining information communication through the organizational structure, ensuring the activities of the most important areas by the forces of the individuals included in the organization, formalizing the goal (planning).
D. McGregor and theoryX - W. Douglas McGregor (1906-1964) is one of the most famous theorists who made significant contributions to the development of organization theory in the second stage. His works are devoted to the issues of practical management (leadership). The most significant work is the book "The Human Side of Entrepreneurship" (1960). Observing the relationship between management and staff, McGregor came to the conclusion that the manager builds his behavior towards subordinates in accordance with his personal ideas about employees and their abilities. The research carried out allowed McGregor to describe the management system from two opposite positions, each of which can be taken by a leader in relation to his subordinates. A simplified version of this system considers the designated positions for different sides continuum. One of the extreme positions, reflecting the traditional view of management and control, is called Theory X, and the other is called Theory of W.
In accordance with theoryX the leader most often expresses his attitude towards subordinates as follows:
Every person naturally has a reluctance to work, so he tries to avoid labor costs wherever possible;
Due to the fact that people are not disposed to work, they should be coerced, controlled, led or threatened with punishment if they do not make sufficient efforts to achieve the goals set by the organization;
Ambition is inherent in very few people, people try to avoid direct responsibility and prefer to be led;
Most of all, people want personal peace and need protection.
Theory Y describes the opposite idealized situation, in which subordination looks like a partnership and the formation of a team takes place in an ideal environment. It includes the following provisions:
The expenditure of physical and spiritual forces at work is just as natural as during play or rest, and under normal conditions a person does not refuse to perform certain duties;
Threats of punishment or external oversight are not the only means of incentivizing the organization to achieve its goals. People are endowed with abilities for self-management and self-control in achieving goals,
to which they are committed;
Commitment to goals is a function of reward, i.e. involvement in the activities of the organization implies that the reward for the activity will strictly correspond to how the tasks facing the team have been completed;
Ingenuity and creativity are very common among the population, but in conditions modern life when technology is so highly developed, it often remains hidden.
According to McGregor's views, Theory X is management and control through the direct application of power. In this case, a person acts as an object of imperious influence. On the contrary, the theory of Y is based on the principle of integration or the creation of such conditions in which the members of a given organization would best achieve their goals, directing their energies towards achieving the success of the enterprise.
A. Chandler, J. Thomson, P. Lawrence, J. Lorsch and the study of the influence of the external environment on the organization. The most significant contribution to the development of organization theory in the third stage was made by Alfred Chandler. The results of his research were reflected in the book "Strategy and Structure" (1962). A. Chandler found that with a change in the strategy of companies, their organizational structure changes accordingly. The need for strategic changes is dictated by the requirements of the external environment. Changes in the operating conditions of the enterprise lead to a change in strategy, and this has a direct impact on the organizational chart.
The theoretical substantiation of the relationship between the environment and the structure of the organization was carried out by J. Thomson in his book "Organizations in Action", showing the difference between closed and open organizations. According to Thomson, a closed organization strives for certainty and is focused on internal factors that are associated with the achievement of its goals. An open organization recognizes the interdependence of the organizational structure and its environment, tries to achieve stabilization in its relations with the requirements of the external environment. As J. Thomson stated, in the final analysis, organizations are closely connected with their environment: they acquire resources in exchange for manufactured products, their technologies are based on the realities of the surrounding world.
Following A. Chandler and J. Thomson, in 1967 a study of the influence of the external environment on the organization was carried out by the teachers of the Harvard Business School Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsh. The result of this collaboration was the book "The Organization and its Environment". Lawrence and Lorsch examined organizational structures and management systems, comparing companies with top scores in a dynamic business (production of special plastics), with the best companies in a stable, little-changing industry (production of containers). They found that the best firms in business, which is characterized by stability, they use a functional organization diagram and simple control systems. In contrast, leaders in dynamic manufacturing have a more decentralized form of organization and more complex management systems than their competitors. By sociometric survey P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch revealed a close correlation between the internal parameters of the organization and the characteristics of the external environment.
The obtained results and conclusions served as the basis for the formation of the concept of organization as open system... Theorists put forward and substantiated the proposition that between the organization and the environment, there is not only an adaptation relationship, but external characteristics environment, on the one hand, and internal structural and behavioral parameters, on the other, are inextricably linked by objective laws and interdependencies (the environment, of course, is not the only determinant of organization, in addition, essential have independent variables of goals, technology, dimensions, innovations, etc.). By the beginning of the 70s of the XX century. this approach, called by P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch "random" theory of organization, took shape as one of the directions of this science.
R. Cyert, J. March, G. Simon and the Waste Bin Model. The modern concept of the development of views on organization emphasizes informality, individual entrepreneurship and evolution. The most famous theorists of this stage are Richard Cyert, James March, Gelbert Simon.
R. Cyert and J. March attempted to construct a theory of the firm operating in conditions of constant "quasi-resolution" of conflicts between divisions in the organization, constituting, according to March, "political coalitions." However, they considered the natural distribution of responsibility for achieving different goals and the “limited rationality” of managers in their efforts to cope with management problems as sources of conflict. Any organization, according to Cyert-March, has sufficiently strong social mechanisms for resolving conflicts (compromise coordination of goals and objectives, formation of reserves in case of unforeseen complications, switching attention from considering some problems to others, etc.). Developing ideas such as satisfaction (achieving satisfactory rather than maximizing decision-making results), bounded rationality, and consistent search, Cyert, Simon, and March have largely contributed to the view that managers are not rational problem-solving devices or calculators. machines. Decision-makers do not work in conditions of perfect knowledge, hence the uncertainty that is the normal state of affairs.
Subsequently, March and Simon put forward the concept of organization as a "trash can", expressing by this their attitude to the conflict of goals and interests, uncertainty of problems, irrationality of decisions; which take place in intra-organizational relationships.
The trash can model applies to a special type of organizational structure known as organized anarchy. Examples of trash cans include universities, think tanks, research organizations, and possibly some organizations in the health care system. In organizations of this kind, preferences are not clearly defined and in many cases are inconsistent. The technology is unclear, the participation is inflexible, with lots of examples of periodic replacement of workers on a “go-in” basis, as well as continuous staff turnover as a result of staff turnover. Preferences or goals are determined in action rather than as if the manager starts by setting a pre-selected goal and pursues it. Thus, the “trash can” model can be viewed as one of the models of irrational decision-making that managers have to deal with.
Modern organization theory.
The modern theory of organization develops in three directions: a situational approach to considering the problems of organization, an ecological approach, an organizational learning approach.
Situational approach is based on the recognition that there is no single correct path in organizational activity. The organization must adapt to the conditions environment... It is impossible to ensure the creation of such structures, methods, types of organizational order, which would be ideally suited for any time, goals, values, situation. Each type of management situation, tasks to be solved, external environment has its own optimal requirements for the state of the organization, strategy and structure.
Ecological approach argues that among organizations "the fittest survives", there is a process of natural selection and replacement of organizations. In a simplified form, this approach to considering organizations can be described as follows:
1) the focus of researchers is not on individual organizations, but on groups, or populations, of organizations;
2) the effectiveness of the organization is determined by its ability to survive;
3) the role of the environment in the formation of the structure, strategy of the organization is recognized as absolute, it is believed that management does not have a significant impact on the organization's ability to survive;
4) since natural and social resources are limited, in the process of fierce competition, some organizations will survive, while others will cease to exist.
In modern models of organizational ecology (1980s-1990s), the main attention of researchers is paid to the problems of the structure of the external environment, its dynamics, as well as the mechanisms that ensure structural changes in the organization.
Organizational Learning Approach is based on the recognition of two types of organizational learning: the first order - in the "single loop" and the second order - in the "double loop". The difference between these types of training as applied to an organization is that single-loop training is a common mandatory training for any organization, it enhances the organization's ability to achieve its goals, and double-loop training is organized and consciously directed. the process of self-learning of the organization, which leads to a complete rethinking of the experience of the organization (reassessment of its organizational goals, values, beliefs) and its learning through this process.
The hallmarks of a “self-learning organization” are a flexible and maximally flat organizational structure, participatory and training approaches in developing an organizational strategy, flexibility of the reward system; availability and free exchange of information and experience between all members of the organization; orientation towards mastering the experience of other companies; coverage of the main activities of members of the organization with research functions; favorable climate for training and development of personnel.
Production research began to be actively carried out in the eighteenth century. and were associated with the formation and development of machine production. Large-scale machine production required the coordinated action of all production links, the establishment and strict observance of certain norms and proportions between all elements of production. Various tasks of production management appeared, ranging from technical preparation of production, design of products planned for production, design of technological processes, etc. This required ensuring consistency and coherence in the performance of various works. The organization of production (as a function of production management) has become an independent type of activity in the course of the division of labor.
It was the transition to the use of machines (systems of machines) and the significant complication of social production that created the prerequisites for the formation of the science of organizing production.
Let us analyze the stages of the formation and development of the science of organizing production on the basis of the initial premise that each stage (stage) of socio-economic social development has its own forms and methods of organizing production. In fig. 3 schematically shows the stages of development of social production in the "era of industrial development".
First step characterized by the transition to machine production. A characteristic feature of this stage is the desire of entrepreneurs to reduce production costs, the main trend in the economy is a decline in prices.
Second phase characterizes the qualitative changes in social production that have occurred as a result of the scientific and technological revolution (STR). A characteristic feature of this stage is an increase in production costs (due to the work force due to increased requirements for its quality); the main trend in the economy is the rise in prices.
The energy crisis of the mid-70s led to the need for qualitative changes in social production. The emergence of energy-saving technologies, structural changes in industrial production, and the increased role of science have ultimately led to a qualitatively new stage in social development - the emergence and development of information production, an increase in the importance of creativity, increasing the global integration of production (third stage).
In accordance with these stages of industrial development, we will analyze the development of the science of organizing production.
STAGE
The founder of the science of organizing production is Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915).
The main works of F.U. Taylor: "Factory Management" (1903), "Principles of Scientific Management" (1911).
Taylor's contribution to the science of organization of production - the formation of the basic principles (rules) of the scientific organization of labor and management:
Study and optimization of production processes based on their division into parts: operations, elements of operations, individual movements.
Workers need to be trained in the most rational ways of working.
The worker needs to establish a specific task (lesson).
The worker should only be a performer.
Full use of the working day is required.
The introduction of increased wages for the fulfillment of the established high standard (a system of differentiated wages).
Taylor's work organization system became widespread in the first three decades of the 20th century.
Spouses Gilbert(Frank Banquet Gilbert (1868-1924), Lillian Moller Gilbert (1878-1972)) carried out research in the conditions of mass flow production, in which the pace of work on the implementation of each technique depends on the established rhythm of the entire flow.
F. and L. Gilbert developed a technique for microanalysis of movements, which marked the beginning of the scientific organization of labor processes.
To study the movements of workers, the Gilbert spouses were the first to use a camera and a movie camera, they invented a microchronometer (a watch with a second hand capable of recording the time with an accuracy of 1/2000 minutes).
The main works of F. and L. Gilbert: "The study of movements, as a way to increase the productivity of any work", "System brickwork"," The ABC of the Scientific Organization of Labor "," Psychology of Management "(L. Gilbert).
The ideas of creating a system that unites the work of entire teams (firms, enterprises, organizations) are set out in the book Garrington Emerson (1853 - 1932) The Twelve Principles of Productivity.
G. Emerson was the first to put forward the idea of a broad rationalization of the enterprise, a scientific management system applicable in a wide variety of industries. The achievement of efficiency is understood by him as a result of the struggle against any losses in production and social life.
A significant contribution to the development of the science of organizing production was made by a French researcher Henri Fayol (1841 - 1925), who proposed a number of organizational principles necessary for the effective management of a company.
The concept of "management", according to A. Fayol, combines six main functions: technical (technological) activity; commercial activities(purchases, sales, exchange); financial activities (search for capital and its efficient use); protective activity (protection of property and personality); accounting (inventory, balance sheets, costs, statistics); administration (affecting only personnel and not directly affecting material and financial resources).
A. Fayol made an attempt to separate management into a special kind of activity.
The main works of A. Fayol: "General and Industrial Management" (1916), "The Doctrine of Management", "Scientific Organization of Labor", "Positive Management".
In 1913, the American automobile manufacturer Henry Ford (1863-1947) introduced in their factories new system organization of production - a method of continuous assembly of cars.
G. Ford is considered one of the founders of the in-line production method.
Elements of a continuous-flow production system ("Fordism"):
Preliminary detailed development of the technological process of manufacturing a product with synchronization of the production progress in all areas.
The introduction of automation and mechanization in production processes based on their division into the simplest operations.
Maximum division of labor and the use of low-skilled workers.
Complete standardization of production, used raw materials, materials, design developments, labor methods, etc.
Complete release production workshops from design functions and technical training.
Major works of G. Ford: "My life, my achievements", "Today and tomorrow."
The emergence of the concept of "human relations" is associated with the name of the Australian-American sociologist Elton Mayo (1880 - 1949). The main conclusion of many years of research by E. Mayo was that the decisive influence on the growth of the worker's labor productivity is exerted not by material, but by psychological and social factors.
Major works of E. Mayo: "Problems of man in an industrial society" (1933), "Social problems of an industrial society" (1945),
A notable contribution to the development of the theory and practice of organizing production was made by K. Adamecki (1866-1933), who formulated three laws: the law of division of labor, the law of concentration or integration, the law of harmony.
K. Adamecki is the creator of the theory of constructing production processes in time, he developed schedules for the movement of parts by operations and formulas for calculating the production cycle.
A significant contribution to the science of industrial organization was made by Alexander Alexandrovich Bogdanov (Malinovsky) (1873-1928) - the creator of the theory of organizational science "tectology", as well as the theory of systems, which anticipated cybernetics.
Developing tectology, Bogdanov proceeded from the idea of the identity of the organization of systems of different levels - from the microworld to biological and social systems... There is a struggle at all these levels organizational forms, and the more organized win.
He outlined the foundations of his doctrine in the work "General Organizational Science. Tectology" (1912).
They are widely known in the period 20-30s. works of Soviet scientists and specialists in the scientific organization of labor (NOT) and management. Among them are the names of A.K. Gastev, P.K. Kerzhentseva, O.A. Yermansky, O. I. Neporent, V.I. Ioffe, L.V. Kantorovich, E. F. Rozmirovich, B. Ya. Katzenbogen and others.
A.K. Gastev laid basis integrated approach to control theory, i.e. approach, which in modern management is considered as a systematic approach.
P.M. Kerzhentsev developed the basic principles of production and scientific organization of labor.
In works O.A. Yermansky Attempts were made to formulate general principles for rationalizing production management. He understood the improvement of production management broadly, but focused his main attention on the problems of enterprise management and work processes.
O.I. Neporent- developed a scientific theory of the organization of the production process in time, including the movement of a batch of parts in operations.
IN AND. Ioffe- created a system of microelement time standards for technical regulation of labor.
L.V. Kantorovich- laid the foundations of mathematical methods for optimal planning (late 1930s).
B. Ya. Katzenbogen- developed the theory and methodology for the application of continuous production methods at serial factories.
STAGE
G.B. Maynard developed a system of macroelement rationing of labor, the foundations of which were laid by F. and L. Gilbert.
M. Walker, D. Kelly, D. Malcolm(late 50s) created a network planning and management system for the development of new technology.
Douglas McGregor(1906 - 1964) formulated two dominant attitudes towards workers at the performing level - theories "X" and "Y".
Theory "X": a person is lazy, requires compulsion to work and constant monitoring.
Theory "Y": man - creative person, which is characterized by the desire to set new goals and by their efforts, work to achieve them without any coercion and control from the outside.
D. McGregor's views played an important role in the development of the theory of motivation and focused management's attention on the need for efforts to improve employee satisfaction with work.
William Ouchi put forward the idea of three ideal types of organizations: American (type A), which is rooted in the tradition of individualism of this country, Japanese (type Y), a characteristic feature of which is the socio-cultural heritage of harmony and collectivism, and type Z, which combines the best features of the two types named above ... In 1981, the idea of types evolved into the "Z" theory, which implies the transfer of Japanese assisted labor organization to other countries.
Soviet scientist E.A. Satel carried out research in the field of the complexity of the solution of structural, technological, operational, organizational, economic and other production problems.
A special place in the development of the science of organizing production is occupied by prof. S.P. Mitrofanov , who developed the scientific principles of group processing methods, for which he was awarded the Lenin Prize. These principles have spread throughout the world and have discovered ample opportunities both for the automation of production processes and for group production lines in serial and small-scale production.
Among our compatriots, it should be noted L. Bartasheva , who owns the theory of technical preparation of production, P.A. Levitsky - solving operational planning issues, I. E. Nelidova - the creator of the theory of the "life cycle" of machines and many others.
STAGE
R. Akof(USA) - creation of the theory of operations research.
R. Young(USA) - systematic approaches to the organization of production.
Jay Forrester(1918) is the developer of the theory of systems dynamics, the author of fundamental monographs on the dynamics of society, " godfather"the ecological ideas of the Club of Rome.
J. Forrester developed a technique for computer modeling of real processes - a discipline called "system dynamics" (DS).
The main works of J. Forrester - "Foundations of enterprise cybernetics" (1961), "Urban dynamics" (1969), "World dynamics" (1971).
E. Drexler- one of the founders of the foundations of nanotechnology based on "manipulation of individual atoms".
Major works of E. Drexler: "Engines of Creation" (1986), "Unlimited Future. Nanotechnological Revolution" (1991).
conclusions
1 At the present stage of development of production and productive forces, the issues of improving the organization of production are a special branch of knowledge, a field of study for various research organizations, as well as individual subjects of economic activity. The range of issues to be solved is wide enough and covers various aspects of the organization of production (both technical and socio-psychological), which indicates the need to expand the arsenal of tools and methods aimed at improving production and its efficiency.
2 The transition to the use of machines (systems of machines) and the significant complication of social production created the prerequisites for the formation of the science of organizing production.
3 It is advisable to consider the history of the development of the science of the organization of production, correlating its main stages with the main stages of social - economic development... Three such stages of the "era of industrial development" can be distinguished.
At the first stage (the 17th century - the middle of the 20th century), the foundations of the science of organizing production were laid (F.W. Taylor, F. and L. Gilbert, A. Fayol, G. Ford, E. Mayo and many others). At the second stage (the middle of the XX century - the end of the 70s of the XX century), the main attention was paid to the formation of modern methods of managing people (the theory of motivation) (D. McGregor, W. Ouchi), at the third (the end of the 70s of the XX century - the present time) - the development of information production (J. Forrester, R. Young, M. Porat).
4 One of the ways of development of domestic enterprises is to ensure a rational combination of domestic and foreign experience in organizing, planning and managing production.
The development of the science of "Organization of production" begins in the 18th century. A. Smith (1776), in his book The Wealth of Nations, described the economic benefits of the division of labor. This phenomenon is also known as labor specialization.
Division of labor - the breakdown of the production process into a number of separate operations, so that each worker does only a small part of the total work.
In 1790. E. Whitney developed the concept of interchangeable parts. Interchangeable parts are parts of a product that are manufactured to such a degree of precision that they do not need to be manually adjusted. Whitney designed a musket assembly line with a tolerance system such that any part could fit any product.
In 1911, F. Taylor, in the books Principles of Scientific Management and Factory Management, outlined approaches to organizing production: he separated the preparation of production operations from their execution, differentiated the labor process, introduced timekeeping, developed a system of accounting and control, and developed a differentiated piece-rate system wages.
The spouses Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were engaged in the development of problems of improving work processes. They carried out the classification of micromotions, isolating 18 microelements, and called them terblig. The work of the Gilberts laid the foundation for the micronutrient rationing of labor.
G. Emerson in his book "The Twelve Principles of Labor Productivity" proved the possibility of rational organization of labor of the whole team, using the following principles:
Well-defined ideals or goals;
Common sense;
Competent consultation;
Discipline;
Fair treatment of staff;
Fast, reliable, complete, accurate and consistent accounting;
Dispatching;
Norms and schedules;
Normalization of conditions;
Operations regulation;
Standard instructions;
Performance rewards.
In 1913, G. Ford introduced in-line methods of organizing production at automobile factories, which were based on the following provisions:
Maximum division of labor;
Detailed development of technological processes;
Mechanization and automation of production processes;
Complete standardization of production.
K. Adamecki made a significant contribution to the development of the theory and practice of organizing production. He created the theory of constructing production processes in time, developed graphs of the movement of parts by operations and formulas for calculating the production cycle.
It should also be noted the works of E. Mayo, in which he made a conclusion about the primacy of psychological and social factors in labor productivity and the need for a deep study of "human relations".
Among our compatriots, A.K. Gastev (1882 - 1941). He published such well-known works as "Labor attitudes" and "How to work", which laid down the principles of programmed teaching of labor movements.
O.E. Yermansky (1866 - 1941) in his book "Theory and Practice of Rationalization" was the first to introduce the concept of physiological optimum in work.
O.I. Neporent (1886 - 1966) developed in the 30s the theory of the organization of the production process in time (types of movement of parts).
L.V. Kontorovich (1912 - 1986) developed the basics of linear programming and applied them in production planning.
B. Ya. Katzenbogen (1897 - 1956) developed the theory and methodology for using in-line production methods in batch production.
E.A. Satel (1885 - 1968) was the first to point out the need to comprehensively solve the structural, technological, organizational, operational and economic problems of modern production.
S.P. Mitrofanov developed the scientific principles of group methods for processing parts, which made it possible to introduce in-line production in serial and small-scale production.
A significant contribution to the development of the operational planning system was made by A.S. Childbirth. In 1963, he developed and implemented a system of continuous operational and production planning.
Modern tendencies development of the organization of production are as follows:
1) The globalization of the economy. Markets and companies are becoming more and more global in nature. Numerous manufacturing companies in the United States have factories in Europe or are planning to establish them. European and Asian companies locate their production in the USA. As a result, competition around the world is increasing significantly.
2) Total quality management, an approach when all employees of the enterprise, from the general director to the worker, are involved in a continuous process of improving the quality of goods and services.
3) Manufacturing flexibility - the ability of an enterprise to quickly adapt to changes in the total volume of demand, in the range and in the design of products. V modern conditions this is the main factor in the competitiveness of the enterprise.
4) Computer technology. The development of new computer technologies has led to the emergence of new products and manufacturing processes. They have a huge impact on the organization of production. The scope of computer technology includes product design, processing technology, information processing, and communications. New technologies are of great importance for production systems, impact on competitiveness and quality.
5) Involvement of workers in solving production problems. Everything more companies lower the responsibility for solving production problems down to the lower levels of the organizational structure. The management of companies recognizes the competence of workers in matters of the production process and their ability to contribute to the improvement of the production system.
6) Special attention to environmental issues. Environmental laws and regulations are becoming more stringent and fines and penalties harsh. Pollution control and waste recycling are becoming the main problems of enterprises.
Course subject and content
The essence and objectives of the organization of production
Organization of production and enterprise management EPiUP (exam)
Subject, content and objectives of the course
1) The organization of production is a set of forms, methods and techniques of scientifically grounded combination of labor with the means of production, as well as the establishment of the relationship and interaction of elements that form a specific production system in certain conditions of space and time based on the specified goals of the system and the unity of the functions of its elements.
The main goal of organizing production is: coordination and optimization in time and space of both material and labor elements of the production process (PP) in order to obtain the most effective result at minimal cost.
The main tasks of organizing production are:
Ensuring the release of competitive quality products;
Selection of the main production processes and their efficient organization in space and time;
Reducing the time from launch to release of products (reducing the duration of production);
Decrease in material and energy consumption of products.
Because many production problems are solved by technology, it is important to distinguish between the functions of technology and the functions of the organization.
The functions of technology determine the methods and options for manufacturing products. The functions of the organization determine the specific values of the parameters of the production process and the choice of the most efficient one according to the goals and conditions of production.
Solving problems is possible only on the basis of a systematic approach, which involves a comprehensive study of the course object (industrial enterprise).
A systematic approach to studying the course provides for the optimization of the entire production system as a whole, and not its individual parts.
2) The course of OPiUP studies the production relations that develop between people in the production process. The subject of study is the study of methods and means of the most rational organization of production. The object is an industrial enterprise, which is considered as a production system. Production system consists of at least three blocks:
Resources pr-e production of products result
The production system is self-regulating.
The basic principles of systems analysis used in the systems approach:
Management decision-making should begin with a clear formulation of the ultimate goals and objectives of the enterprise;
The whole problem is considered as a single system and the influence of each input element and possible alternatives are identified;
The tasks of the individual elements of the system should not conflict with the goals of the entire system.
3) Stages:
1 Stage of occurrence (up to the 30s of the 20th century)
The father of O&M science is the American engineer Frederico Taylor (1856-1915) - he began researching the problems of rationalizing production in 1885. Through practical experiences and experiments at enterprises, he managed to solve a number of important management issues related to increasing productivity and labor intensity. His main publications: "Scientific management" 1902, "Principles of scientific management (management)" 1911. In them, he formulated the basic scientific principles of organizing production:
Analysis - the decomposition of the production process into operations with their subsequent study;
Measurement - quantification of the parameters of the operation;
Design - development of a technological process, performance of operations and linking its performance to workplaces for the planned period;
Incentives - remuneration of performers for the level of fulfillment of the planned task.
The same period includes the work of American scientists Libya and Frank Gilbert, Henry Gundt. Henri Fayol (FR.) - the main merit - viewed management as a continuous universal process, consisting of several interrelated activities: technical, commercial, financial, activities to protect property and people's lives, analysis of statistical data and administrative activities. Henry Ford (1863-1947) - the operational detailing of the production process of manufacturing a car in 1913 was implemented on a conveyor belt and, based on the flow-based form of labor organization, achieved a significant increase in productivity.
The rationalization of labor and management required technical means of measurement and control. A method was invented for timing the movement of a worker during labor operations, a movie camera and other devices were used, which made it possible to observe and analyze the progress of work and find the most rational methods and methods of labor. There was a search for the most rational methods management, the possibility of material remuneration for the most intensive and productive work.
2 Stage of formation (30-60 years of the 20th century)
After the deep and prolonged financial crisis of 1929-1933, the previous scientific and classical approaches to production management were unable to ensure the growth of labor productivity. New methods of enterprise management were required, which would take into account the initiative of the workers. A new direction, the School of Human Relations, has emerged. It was headed by Elton Mayo (1880-1949). He turned human thought in the direction of focusing on the person and the social aspects of the production process, as well as on the role of the entire team in successful work the entire enterprise.
Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) developed a theory known as the "Pyramid of Needs"
Douglas Maggregar (1906-1964) developed a theory of two types of human behavior at work, and in accordance with this two ways of managing workers. Theory X was designed for performers who are inherently lazy, lacking in initiative and eager to avoid unnecessary work, work only under duress, and want to be manipulated. Theory Y proceeded from the premise that it is necessary for creative-minded performers to provide sufficient freedom within the framework of their functions.
The main merit of this stage is the proof that well-designed operations and good wages do not always lead to high labor productivity. No less important factor is the power of mutual understanding between people, their needs, which can only indirectly be satisfied with the help of money. The main step to effective organization is to apply effective techniques management of human relations.
3 Stage of further development or a systematic approach (60s of the 20th century to the present)
At this stage, the PMPP became the object of modeling using modern means communication and mathematical methods of information processing. Management thought is constantly evolving, more and more new ideas are being put forward about how effective management should be carried out. Three trends prevail in modern management:
Awareness of the importance of the material and technical base of modern production and services;
Increased attention to organizational culture and democratization of management;
Strengthening the international character of governance.
The mentality of each country occupies an important place in the system of modern management.