Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA)
Published in Paul M. Salmon, Neville A. Stanton, Guy H. Walker, Adam Hulme, Natassia Goode, Jason Thompson, Gemma J. M. Read, Handbook of Systems Thinking Methods, 2022
Paul M. Salmon, Neville A. Stanton, Guy H. Walker, Adam Hulme, Natassia Goode, Jason Thompson, Gemma J. M. Read
HTA has its roots in the scientific management movement of the early 20th century (Stanton, 2006). Scientific management methods were used to describe and analyse tasks in a way that supported the development of more efficient work processes. The focus was on how the work was performed physically, what was required to do the work, and how the work could be enhanced (Stanton, 2006). Whilst this approach endured until the mid-20th century, HTA was developed in the 1960s in response to the changing nature of work. Work tasks were becoming more cognitive in nature which in turn created the need for methods which could describe both the physical and cognitive aspects of work (Annett, 2004). At the time HTA provided a significant advancement over scientific management methods which largely focussed on the physical and observable aspects of behaviour.
Concept of Quality
Published in Sunil Luthra, Dixit Garg, Ashish Agarwal, Sachin K. Mangla, Total Quality Management (TQM), 2020
Sunil Luthra, Dixit Garg, Ashish Agarwal, Sachin K. Mangla
The fundamental principles that Taylor saw underlying the scientific approach to management may be summarised as follows: Replace the working methods of the golden rule with methods based on a scientific study of tasks.Select and train each of the workers scientifically instead of promoting passive training.Cooperation is required for ensuring the implementation of scientifically developed methods.Dividing the work among workers and managers such that the managers are able to use the principles of scientific management for planning of the work, while workers execute the assigned tasks.
Introduction
Published in Darina Lepadatu, Thomas Janoski, Framing and Managing Lean Organizations in the New Economy, 2020
Darina Lepadatu, Thomas Janoski
While Taylor’s proposed principles of standardization and specialization had a tremendous impact on industrial productivity throughout the entire 20th century, the basic premises of his managerial philosophy have been highly criticized from the beginning. In 1915, Robert Hoxie, the special investigator for the US Commission on Industrial Relations of the House of Representatives, reported on Taylor’s management practices to show that scientific management was undemocratic because it did not involve workers in the fundamental parts of the production process, such as the setting of task, the wage rate or the general conditions of employment (Hoxie 1966). But American owners and most managers could care less about workplace democracy. The other major complaints against scientific management allude to the fact that the obsession with efficiency overshadows the fundamental social aspect of work (Mintzberg 1989) while the increased specialization leads to workers’ deskilling, degradation of work, and alienation (Braverman 1974). Nevertheless, Taylorism marched on.
Why human factors science is demonstrably necessary: historical and evolutionary foundations
Published in Ergonomics, 2021
J. C. F. de Winter, P. A. Hancock
Frederick Taylor’s scientific management was an innovation that sought to analyse workflows to improve efficiency and productivity. Fordism (viz. Henry Ford) was a similar economic production system founded upon work division and task standardisation. Followers of scientific management and Fordism argued that productivity was enhanced through proceduralization and standardisation, allied to economic incentives. After trying various sizes and weights of coal shovels until an optimal shovelling rate was identified, Taylor proved that he could improve worker productivity by a factor of three. Another example of this is the bricklaying research by Frank and Lillian Gilbreth. In their ‘time and motion studies,’ the Gilbreths improved efficiency by removing demonstrably unnecessary actions (Gilbreth and Gilbreth 1917). Accordingly, the number of motions per brick was reduced from 18 to 5, while the bricklaying pace increased from 120 to 350 bricks per hour (Taylor 1911).
Discussion on “Doctors are not pilots and patients are not airplanes: Quality improvement in medicine”
Published in Quality Engineering, 2019
Frederick Taylor, considered the father of Management Engineering, is known for his 1895 publication on scientific management and standardization that led to time and motion studies that identified micro-steps in work and looked for ways to reduce the time it tool to accomplish a task. This work became a contributing factor to the development of evidenced based medicine. Taylor’s work paralleled that of French surgeon and scientist Alexis Carrel. During WWI (1914–17), Carrel, with English chemist Henry Drysdale Dakin, developed a standardized, evidenced-based antiseptic treatment for wounds (the Carrel-Dakin treatment). For this contribution, Carrel was awarded the Légion d'honneur (Whitfield 2015).
Making history: technologies of production and the estate of knowledge in East Asia
Published in History and Technology, 2022
Our special issue focuses on how workers, their work, and their skills became objects of technoscientific inquiry, particularly under the aegis of scientific management and Taylorism. Scientific management, which originated in relation to factories and other sites of modern industrial production, promised efficiency in operations and the minimization of waste by attending to how workers worked and subjecting this to systematic study. As Harry Braverman has notably argued, the engagement in such endeavours, in breaking down complex work into simple tasks, precipitated the degradation of skilled work and, ultimately, the disciplining or displacement of labour by management.43