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).
4 comments:
You begin your paper with the personal example of integration between you and your computer in such a way that you each manage the processes of one another as a single unit. However, the rest of your paper applies to the business world and how computer can be used to monitor efficiency and effectively manage business. There is little connection carried through about how the computer is in effect being managed in this process other than the pilot behind the controls interpreting the data. It might be more appropriate for you to stick to the ideas which you form in the body of your paper by which computers are used to manage and scientifically refine the workplace rather than starting with the vague connection of computer and user integration. In short, your focus tends toward the use of computers to improve workplace efficiency in such a way that the workers aren’t exploited, but productivity is raised. Unfortunately, while I see this being your focus, it’s important to note that you do not provide any specific examples of such benefits of computer assisted management in the workplace. While you and I may know that computers can effectively crunch data and assist in the formulation of refined methods and work practices, you should provide concrete evidence in which this is actually beneficial. Additionally, I noticed a few sentences that read very much as a run-on, which you then follow up with a clarification. Rather than clarifying a point which may not have been worded very well, try to rethink what you’re trying to say and present it in a smooth readable manner in the first place so you don’t have to explain to your audience what you’re trying to say.
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. The integration of the two is a significant achievement of humanity: the personal computer. PC’s are effective because they are built for manipulation, they beg to be managed, they must be programmed in order to work and they will only do what has been programmed. It is scientific management. Machines that can efficiently and effectively increase productivity and don’t need to be paid, doesn’t need health care or insurance, doesn’t need sleep, doesn’t complain is a dream for profit and the epitome of what Taylor discussed.
The 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 to 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 of Joy or Davis, but this is beside the point. With such potential we should show some initiative and strive for efficiency, though admittedly bound to the world economy we’ve constructed and the business practices that succeed in such markets (and inherent in capitalism) are driven by profit.
This is a world that defies 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).
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. The integration of the two is a significant achievement of humanity: the personal computer. PC’s are effective because they are built for manipulation, they beg to be managed, they must be programmed in order to work and they will only do what has been programmed. It is scientific management. Machines that can efficiently and effectively increase productivity and don’t need to be paid, doesn’t need health care or insurance, doesn’t need sleep, doesn’t complain is a dream for profit and the epitome of what Taylor discussed.
The 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 to 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 of Joy or Davis, but this is beside the point. With such potential we should show some initiative and strive for efficiency, though admittedly bound to the world economy we’ve constructed and the business practices that succeed in such markets (and inherent in capitalism) are driven by profit.
This is a world that defies 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).
Chris - good response, with maybe a little too much emphasis on the beginning.
Bob- This is an interesting premise. One thing I like about it is that, without rooting yourself directly in Taylor, you're picking up on some of Taylor's strange utopianism, and coming at it from a different angle. I do see this as a paper which is analyzing the present not through Taylorism as a whole, but through a certain aspect of Taylorism.
That being said, I have two fundamental critiques.
1) You aren't terribly interested in what Taylor actually says here. I understand the appeal of writing about computers, because (among other things) they presumably lead to efficiency, and because they don't resist management - they never soldier. Nonetheless, you are ignoring nearly all of the guts of Taylorism, which is fundamentally concerned with motivating people through rewarding them substantially for submitting. To call labor without wages the pinnacle of scientific management is deeply problematic: Taylor is obsessed with workers' (increasing) compensation.
2) This is highly abstract, and totally disinterested in how computers are used in the real world. Certainly we can argue that computers have brought about great efficiencies; we can also argue that we have created an economy in which a substantial part of the population gets paid for emailing each other and having meetings all day. I would argue, as someone who has worked as a computer programmer, that it isn't always obvious what all of this software and computation is ultimately accomplishing...
The two critiques taken together add up to something larger. You have interesting ideas, but you aren't doing anything to test them, or prove them, or even illustrate them. You are asserting things - but on what basis? Faith? That's how it seems.
Post a Comment