Пойгина Л.Б., Туринова Л.А. - English for Masters. Management Part 1 (1175658), страница 8
Текст из файла (страница 8)
Инженеры по организациипроизводства и специалисты по организации труда стали пользоваться большимспросом после того, как школа научного управления способствовала резкому роступроизводительности путем систематического анализа и проектирования работы.6. Именно организационные процессы исторически привели к наиболее важнымдостижениям в развитии производительности. Концепция специализации и разделениятруда привела к такому повышению эффективности производства, которое изменилосаму природу нашего общества и мировой баланс сил.
Но американские менеджерыдолжны понять, что концепция специализации и разделения труда теперь уже не новаи ею владеют не только промышленно развитие страны.7. Менеджеры должны постоянно помнить, что не всегда более прогрессивнаятехнология ведет к росту производительности. Поскольку организация представляетсобой систему взаимосвязанных элементов, достоинства более эффективнойтехнологии иногда могут не дать положительных результатов из-за отрицательногоотношения рабочих. Чтобы быть уверенным, что технология действительно приведет кросту производительности, руководство должно сбалансировать требованиятехнологии с потребностями применяющих её людей.Text 51.
Pre-reading exerciseSkim through the text to find the following:a) the concept of value, quality and production;b) the concept of positive and negative outputs of an organization and the link between inputsand outputs.An integrated approach to productivityAt the start of our journey toward understanding organizations and managing, weillustrated productivity as a direct flow from inputs through a transformation process tooutputs.
This simple model could be interpreted to mean that increasing productivity is just amatter of finding a way to decrease the consumption of any key input while maintaining orincreasing output. Install a faster assembly machine or find a way to further specialize andsimplify labor— productivity goes up—is in fact the way managers in the United States havetended to approach productivity.American management's initial response to the productivity decline and loss of marketshare was to blame others. Japan competed unfairly because it had cheap labor andgovernment subsidies.
Excessive government regulation was crippling American industryLabor unions had too much power. Inflation. Rising energy costs. There was, as usual, somevalidity to all these arguments. However, when the problem was studied objectively in depth,some interesting facts emerged. For example, energy costs, regulation, and labor power were25 often less erroneous for U.S. companies than for their foreign counterparts.
Hardest toswallow were market-research studies showing that American consumers were buyingJapanese cars and electronics not because they were cheaper but because they were better.American management consultants flew to Tokyo in droves to unearth the Japanesesecret to productivity. They met Dr. Deming, an American quality control expert who hadbeen unable to find much work in Detroit. They found that many of the innovative Japanesetechniques were well-implemented adaptations of ideas taken from old Americanmanagement books. The technology of robotics was freely available to any Americancompany who wanted it, but the use of robots in industry was higher in Japan.Japanese industry was found, however, to have one major advantage over most U.S.businesses.
Japanese management approached productivity from a much broader perspective.In contrast to U.S. managers, they did not often seek quick "fixes" to production and profitshortfalls. They fully grasped that increasing raw output does not ensure higher productivity,that quality is equally important. Nor did Japanese managers develop productivityimprovements behind the closed doors of executive suites and then plop them on anunsuspecting work force. They implemented planned change carefully.The reason for Japan's productivity leadership and the key to improving U.S.productivity is no mysterious secret.
The effective manager knows that because of the highdegree of interaction between the parts of an organization and between the organization andits environment, few problems have simple, cut-and-dried solution. Like all importantorganizational problems, improving productivity over the long term requites an integratedapproach. A Systems View of Productivity. To begin, it is important to visualize productivityas more than a simple, direct conversion of inputs and outputs.
Though this does in factoccur, many factors influence productivity. The formula, productivity equals value of outputsdivided by value of inputs, is a ratio. From even a purely mathematical perspective, anythingthat affects either inputs or outputs will change productivity. This means that inputs, outputs,and environment factors that affect either one must be considered along with thetransformation process.Figure depicts productivity from a systems perspective. We see from it that numerousfactors in both the environment and the transformation process affect productivity. Becauseall of these factors affect one another, there are no clear, absolute paths to improvingproductivity. Many well-intentioned attempts to improve productivity have failed becausemanagers did not recognize this reality of organized endeavor.
More positively, as we shallelaborate on in this text, the model suggests ways of improving productivity that Americanmanagers have tended to overlook or at least underestimate. One of these is the relationshipbetween quality and productivity.InputsMaterialsLaborCapitalEnergyInformationCommunicationDecision makingLeadingPlanningOrganizingMotivatingControllingOutputsQuality goods and servicesEmploymentDefectsFinancial lossUnemploymentFig. 1. Productivity from a systems perspective26 Quality and Productivity. The concept of quality, one of the most important factors inoverall productivity, illustrates the necessity of an integrated, systems perspective.
The mostcommon mistake managers make in evaluating the productivity of their organization is tomeasure only the volume of output For example, one CEO experiencing productivityproblems checked the number of units his factory produced daily and daily exhorted hispeople to up the volume. After observing this ritual for a month, a consultant suggested hemight be better off asking some questions: How many perfect units were produced? Howlong did the units remain serviceable? How many units required premature service calls?How many units, by the most demanding standards, were absolutely first class? Does theproduct really meet the needs of customers as well as possible?The point is that we are often so obsessed with quantity that we ignore quality of thetwo factors affecting productivity, revenues and costs, we have tended to focus on revenuesmost and costs only in the direct sense.
Yet, the experience of the most successfulorganizations—which invariably are the most productive—shows again and again thatquality is a major element of the cost componentThe saying "Success breeds success" has considerable truth when applied toorganizational productivity. Consistent high quality has a snowball effect. High qualitydirectly lowers costs by improving the saleable output and minimizing returns of defects andguarantee work; this gives the company more money to spend on improvements that increaseits competitive advantage. It reinforces perception of quality for new products, which boostssales, which helps realize the advantages of economies of scale, which boosts profit margins.A striking example is the IBM personal computer's rise to number one with a market share ofover 30 percent in under two years. There is no question that several other microcomputersperformed as well or better, were just as reliable, and cost a lot less.
But for decades IBMhad, by consistent performance. driven into the consciousness of business buyers that thosethree letters stood for quality, reliability. and service when you needed it. In the tumultuous,confusing marketplace of the early 1980s, with even successful new companies like Osbornefailing, many buyers were willing to pay about a 30 percent premium for the security ofdealing with IBM. Thus, IBM not only sold more units than anyone else, it also doubtlesshad the highest percentage of profit per unit.
Comparisons with American business show thatJapanese managers tend to stress quality much more. Why this is important and has had sosignificant an effect on productivity goes beyond the obvious. To grasp the impact of qualityon productivity, let us describe it in systems terms, as illustrated in Figure 1.Quality has both an internal and an external component. Internal components ofquality are inherent characteristics of the output. For goods they might include durability,freedom from defects, performance level, workmanship, and design esthetics. For servicesquality characteristics include reliability, high standards of performance, speed, availability,and low cost for comparable benefits.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
