To write about the influence of scientific management on my life would be to concede a side (manager or manage’) which I am not prepared to do, but I can speak of the integration of both in my personal computer. See, my computer is a machine over which I hold both a managerial possession as much as I do work on it. It works for me as much as I work for it. The PC, and I, seamlessly integrate into a single working unit, I provide input which it deciphers; it supplies me with outputs with I decipher, in turn in turn I derive more inputs. It is an effective manager in so much as I am as well managing. In other words it has the power to manage my ideas (as long as I have them) as well as to influence my ideas, and I (effectively its God) have the power over its managerial processed. In reference to Joy, if computers be our end, it was under human direction and supervision. In short, I manage the computer in order for it to properly guide and manage me in computation.
The computer must first be managed, as Taylor suggests, in an efficient/productive manner in order for the user/worker to be effective. The possibilities of structured systems that manage labor and productivity are virtually endless with the aid of computers in the workplace. Giving the ability to precisely monitor productivity on micro level, theoretically only two managers would be need, and would act only as a mediator between computer and laborer, and between each other as a sort of check and balance. They would need to monitor the change in productivity based on manipulation by the managers through time to asses the effectiveness of the managers, at which point appropriate measures must be taken to eliminate the soldierer. This position would probably be assumed by the network administrator, someone above the personnel managers, possibly even the owner/boss.
I foresee that proper integration of computer systems will tear down the complex bureaucracy of modern systems of organization, of which Taylor would surly find many soldierers. What is the function of bureaucracy but to organize labor and product in a system of laborers and producers. It adds additional means for laziness that could be eradicated. This principal of scientific management could be applied to any system of organization, whether it be governmental, economic, educational, ect.. We advanced passed out means of management around the time of the industrial revolution where-in humanity acquired the ability for laborers to produce far more than (as Hobbes would say) is rightfully his, far more than could be used without waste essentially. At this point in time, people required structured organization and control because of the menial repetitive nature of the job; this stemmed the evolution of the modern bureaucratic process.
The personal computer seems to be the pinnacle of scientific management. It would effectively eliminate soldiering, for the product of labor (or lack there of) would be individually monitored and managed. The job of the manager would become streamlined almost to the point of obsoletion with computer programs integrated into business and flexible enough to be functional in managerial tasks.
The introduction of the personal computer into society has exponentially increased human ability of obtain, organize, calculate, manipulate, create, communicate, store, and (I could go on) process data. With access to unfathomable amounts information our potential for knowledge and understanding has expanded, possibly, past our comprehension and, quite possibly, blown our minds so much as a population that we are still recovering, which could lead to such world views as Joy or Davis, but this is beside the point. With such potential we should show some initiative and strive for efficiency, though bound to the world economy we’ve constructed and the apparent business practices that succeed would tend to go in the face of Taylor, in the fact that efficiency is not so important, more productivity and profit (often obtained by making as much money of off as little labor, or moving the labor to a place with stronger work ethics and greater means for exploitation). What I’m trying to say is successful business today exploits as much as possible the laborer, and these malicious practices could easily be averted with a careful monitor of the processes of business who acts to insure efficiency and productivity in the best interest of both producer and consumer (which I think is more prudent than manager and managed as Taylor uses).