As a result of mastering the material of Chapter 1, the student must: know

The history of the emergence and development of management, including production management in Russia and abroad;

be able to

Use in practice the information obtained as a result of studying various enterprise management systems;

own

Methods of comparative analysis of the best practices in management.

The history of the emergence of the science of organization and management of production

The issues of organization and management of production emerged as a separate field of knowledge at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. The impetus in this regard was the emergence of the steam engine, electrical engineering and other inventions that ensured a truly revolutionary development of industry. There was a need to develop and implement adequate, scientific methods of organizing and managing production.

The first to approach the organization of production from a scientific standpoint was the American engineer Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915). Taylor's books "Fundamentals of Scientific Enterprise Management", "Factory Management" and others laid the foundation for an extensive literature on the scientific organization of production.

Taylor's goal was to create a system of scientific organization of labor at the enterprise, ensuring the achievement of maximum results with the least expenditure of labor, material and financial resources. Taylor chose the rationalization of all elements of production as a way to achieve this goal: means of labor (machines, equipment, industrial buildings), objects of labor (raw materials, materials, fuel, energy) and living labor of workers and employees. According to Taylor, nothing can be done in a plant or factory “as God puts it on the soul”, according to routine, out of blind habit. Everything, even every little thing, must be scientifically investigated beforehand.

All forms, conditions and methods of work, supervision over it, management of it - everything must be foreseen in advance, expediently constructed and precisely established. The main elements of the Taylor concept and their characteristics are presented in Table. 1.1.

Table 1.1

Basic elements of F. W. Taylor's concept

	Characteristic
The division of the process of organizing the work of the enterprise into its constituent parts	Establishing the purpose of the activity of both the enterprise as a whole and the individual employee. The choice of means of activity (i.e. objects and means of labor). Preparation of means of activity for work. The use of means of activity in accordance with a predetermined plan. Monitoring the performance of the enterprise as a whole and individual employees
Rationalization	Rationalization of the use of equipment (each machine, tool, etc. must be adapted to a certain part of the work). Improving the care of production tools, production facilities, communications. Optimization of the movement of materials, semi-finished products and finished products around the plant
Creation of a planning and distribution bureau	Establishes how work should be organized in all departments of the enterprise. Develops appropriate instructions for all jobs and workers. Allocates representatives of the bureau in each division of the enterprise
Formation of the corps of masters of four categories	Foremen giving tasks to workers. Masters overseeing the work. Masters accepting finished products. Equipment repair technicians
Accounting for the progress of production	Graphs, charts, etc. are used. It is always known what is being done where. There are no irreplaceable people, everyone works according to the instructions

The end of the table. 1.1

The main goal of the Taylor system is to achieve an increase in labor productivity, first of all, by ensuring the interest of workers in meeting and overfulfilling established standards. He wrote: “The output rate must be increased so much that only a first-class worker can carry it out; The difference between a first-class worker and a bad worker is the same as between a good draft horse and a donkey.

The basis of Taylor's philosophical system was the concept of the so-called "economic man", whose only driving stimulus is his needs. Taylor believed that through an appropriate system of payment, maximum productivity could be achieved.

FW Taylor's compatriot Harrington Emerson (1853-1931) in 1912 formulated the "12 principles of productivity", representing the author's system of views on the organization of the production and economic activities of an industrial enterprise.

G. Emerson considered the elimination of losses in the broadest sense to be the main goal of implementing his principles. Like Taylor, Emerson prioritized productivity growth. However, unlike Taylor, he believed that this growth was determined not only by the increase in wages, but also by the "ideals" of the workers.

The French engineer Henri Fayol (1841-1925), who for a number of years headed a large metallurgical association, created his own enterprise organization system. He outlined his views in the book General and Industrial Management, which was published in 1916. Fayol divided all operations taking place at the enterprise into six groups:

• mechanical (production, processing);
• commercial (purchase, sale, exchange);

• financial (finding capital and managing it);
• protection of property and employees;
• accounting (calculation of costs, statistics, balances);
• administrative (foresight, organization, command, coordination, control).

A. Fayol concentrated his attention on administrative operations, which he deciphered as follows: establishing a program of action; monitoring the implementation of this program; providing unified, energetic and competent leadership; good selection of staff; clear definition of authority; coordination of efforts of all participants in production; clear formulation of decisions made; encouraging initiative and responsibility; prevention of errors and misunderstandings; observance of discipline; subordination of the individual interests of employees to the general interests of the enterprise.

A significant contribution to the theory and practice of organizing industrial production was made by Henry Ford (1863-1947), the founder of a well-known automobile corporation. Developing Taylor's ideas, G. Ford replaced manual labor with machine labor and ensured the creation of a mass assembly line. He formulated the following principles for the organization of production (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2

Principles of production organization G. Ford

"Vertical" structure of production	Inclusion in the corporation of links in the technological chain that precede the main production (in particular, the production of cars) and following this production (coal mines, mines, metallurgical plants, railways, ports, etc.)
Organization of mass production	Continuous release in significant volumes of the same standard size for a long time with strict repeatability of the production process in all departments of the enterprise
Maximum separation	Splitting the production process into the smallest monosyllabic operations so that they can be performed by the most unskilled worker (“from the plow”)
typing, unification equipment, items	Use of a limited number of types of specialized equipment, tools, types of raw materials, semi-finished products, materials, spare parts, etc.

The end of the table. 1.2

Phase change sequence	Placement of equipment and workers in strict accordance with the sequence of the technological process
Rational preparation production	Timely supply of objects of labor, devices, tools directly to the workplace
Mechanization transport	Movement of goods only with the help of mechanisms (cranes, elevators, conveyors, conveyors)
threading production	Coordinated execution of all operations in time and movement of objects of labor using conveyors through workplaces in accordance with the given fast pace of the production process

The "vertical" structure of production made G. Ford independent of the market situation, allowing maximum synchronization of the work of all elements of the technological chain. The mass nature of production led to a reduction in the cost of a unit of production (in this case, a car), increased the possibilities of mechanization and automation of labor processes. The complete division of labor made it possible to save on the wages of low-skilled workers. The unification of equipment and objects of labor simplified their maintenance and use. The sequence of phase changes ensured the passage of the objects of labor in the process of production of the shortest path.

The principle of rational preparation of production G. Ford carried out in the most stubborn way. He said: “... an untrained worker spends more time searching for and delivering materials and tools than for the work itself. We began to deliver work to workers, and not vice versa. We follow two serious principles in all work: to force the worker, as far as possible, never to take more than one step, and never to allow him to bend forward or to the side when working.

The mechanization of transport according to G. Ford consisted in the fact that not the objects of labor move along the tracks, but the tracks move along with the objects of labor. As a result, there is no need to move each piece of workpiece separately. At Ford, no one carries loads down: trough-shaped tracks allow you to use the gratuitous force of gravity of the earth.

The most revolutionary of all Ford's principles - threading - made it possible, unlike Taylor, to abandon timekeeping, detailed instructions for workers, most of the masters (drivers and overseers). The rhythm of work at Ford sets the conveyor, and the worker cannot lag behind him.

• Taylor F. Administrative and technical organization of an industrial enterprise. 1916.

5.1. These Regulations are developed by the Organizing Committee and approved by the order of the Director of the Institute.

5.2. Changes and additions to the Regulations are made at the initiative of the Organizing Committee and approved by the Director of the Institute.

Development of the theory and practice of production organization.

The theoretical and practical roots of the organization of production go back to the 18th and 19th centuries. Scientists, engineers, sociologists, entrepreneurs from England, Germany, France, America, etc., dealt with the issues of organizing, planning and managing production. However, the issues of organizing production emerged as a separate field of knowledge only at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. The impetus in this regard was the emergence of the steam engine, electrical engineering and other inventions that ensured a truly revolutionary development of industry. There was a need to develop and implement adequate, scientific methods of organizing production.

The first to approach the organization of production from a scientific standpoint was the American engineer F. W. Taylor (1856-1915). In 1911 In the United States, the first society for the improvement of the organization of production was created, one of the initiators of which was Taylor. Following this society, other similar associations began to organize in the USA and Europe. A number of consulting firms have also arisen, working out specific problems of organizing production under contracts with enterprises.

Taylor's goal was to create a system of scientific organization of labor at the enterprise, ensuring the achievement of maximum results with the least expenditure of labor, material and financial resources. The way to achieve this goal is the rationalization of all elements of production:

• means of labor (machines, equipment, industrial buildings),
• objects of labor (raw materials, materials, fuel, energy),
• living labor of workers and employees.

The French engineer A. Fayol (1841-1925) created his own enterprise organization system. All operations taking place at the enterprise, A. Fayol divided into 6 groups:

• mechanical (production, processing),
• commercial (purchase, sale, exchange),
• financial (finding capital and managing it),
• accounting (determination of costs, statistics, bills),
• protection of property and employees,
• administrative (foresight, organization, command, coordination, control).

A significant contribution to the theory and practice of organizing industrial production was made by G. Ford (1863-1947), who dealt with issues of specialization and division of labor. He formulated the following principles for organizing production:

• "Vertical" structure of production (allowed to synchronize the work of all elements of the technological chain as much as possible),
• The mass nature of production (led to a reduction in the cost of a unit of production, increased the possibility of mechanization and automation of labor processes),
• Complete division of labor (allowed to save on the wages of low-skilled workers),
• Unification of equipment and objects of labor (simplified their maintenance and use),
• The flow of production (the rhythm of work sets the conveyor and the worker cannot lag behind him).

After the Second World War, a new stage in the development of the scientific organization of production began, associated with the emergence of operational research - the use of analytical methods of physical and mathematical sciences to solve problems of the organization of production. With the help of operational research, issues of rational planning of the enterprise, the choice of the most productive equipment, the establishment of standards for its productivity, the consumption of material resources, the rational organization of equipment repairs, etc., began to be developed.

The formation of the science of organizing production in Russia began at the end of the 19th century. In the 1870s at the Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman, a method for rationalizing labor processes was developed, which was awarded the “medal of achievement” at the World Trade Exhibition in Vienna in 1873. In 1911-1912. Professor of the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute I.A. Semenov lectured on the course "Factory Management". He also created a laboratory for the study of labor processes, developed methods of labor rationing.

Among our compatriots, one can note P.M. Kerzhentsev (1881-1940), who developed the basic principles of production and the scientific organization of labor; V.I.Ioffe (1886-1947), who created a system of microelement time standards for the technical regulation of labor; OI Neporent (1886-1966), who developed the scientific theory of the organization of the production process in time; L.V. Kantorovich (1912-1986), who laid the foundations of linear programming and applied them in production planning; B.Ya.Katsenbogen (1897-1956), who developed the theory and methodology for using in-line production methods at serial plants; E.A. Satelya (1885-1968), who was the first to point out the need for a comprehensive solution of design, technological, organizational, operational and economic problems of modern production, etc.

For Russia of the twentieth century, the following stages of development of the organization of production can be distinguished:

Period	Brief description of the stage
1918-1928	development of new forms of organization of labor and production. For this purpose, in 1928, the Central Institute of Labor (CIT) was created.
1929-1937	the development of heavy industry, which required the development of methods for designing new factories and reconstructing old ones; establishment of technically justified norms. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the first scientific works on the organization of the production process in time appeared in Russia, monographs and textbooks on the organization and planning of machine-building production began to be published.
1938-1950	the pre-war period is associated with the solution of the problem of increasing the industrial and defense power of the country. The main direction in the development of the organization of production here was the creation of a uniform and rhythmic production. During the Great Patriotic War, the concentration of production increased; The mass production of military products led to the development and introduction of in-line methods of organizing production, which were further developed in the postwar years in relation to civilian products.
1951-1965	increasing labor productivity and product quality based on the achievements of scientific and technological progress. To solve this problem, issues of deepening the specialization of production, improving the production structure of enterprises and workshops, methods of planning and operational management with the help of EMM and EWT were developed. In the 50s, textbooks began to be published on the course "Organization and planning of enterprises in the engineering industry
1966-1980	studies are being conducted on the issues of further improvement of the organization of production, but these studies find little practical implementation.
1981-1990	this period is characterized by the complication of production: scientific and production complexes appear, the number of connections within enterprises and between them is growing, which requires the development of new methods and approaches to the organization of production.
2000s	study and practical application of the principles of lean manufacturing

The organization of production as a science is an integral part of economic theory that studies the production activity of a person in the process of creating and distributing material wealth.

The organization of production in the scientific and practical sense means the effective connection, proper coordination and rational use of labor force, objects of labor and means of production in the current production process.

The development of theoretical issues in the field of organization of production is based on the study, analysis and generalization of the experience of advanced foreign and domestic enterprises.

CHECKLACE #1 (in addition to lectures)

The boundaries of organization theory.

There are two fundamentally opposite approaches to describing the development of organization theory. The first characterizes the organization as a system and reflects the development of managerial thought from a mechanistic view of the organization (closed) to a holistic (open) one. The second approach characterizes the nature of the organization in the direction from the rational to the social.

Development of views on the organization as a system. Until about the 1960s, problems of organization were solved only in terms of closed systems. Issues of the business environment, competition, sales, etc., which go beyond the scope of 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 obvious that the internal dynamics of organizations is formed under the influence of external events. The theory of organization begins to consider the enterprise as an open system in the unity of all components 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 of the external environment on 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 the organization in the direction from the rational to the social."Rational thinking" means that there is a clear perspective of the organization, and its goals are clearly and unambiguously defined.

Suppose a machine-building enterprise aims to maximize profits from increasing production efficiency and product quality. If we accept this goal as given, then 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 thus become programmed.

“Social thinking” means ambiguity in defining and choosing goals and making specific decisions to improve production efficiency in workshops, at sections of a machine-building enterprise, etc.

From the standpoint of the noted approaches, four stages are distinguished in the development of organization theory. Each stage is determined by a single combination of established features (closed - open system, rational - social thinking) on
two-dimensional grid.

Stages of development of the theory of organization.

First stage in organization theory 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 organization theory of this time were Max Weber, Henri Fayol and Frederick Taylor. The approach they developed is focused on organizational and technical improvements of the system by increasing the efficiency of the internal functions of the organization.

Second phase(1930-1960) is the era of "closed systems and the social individual". A group of theorists - Anton Mayo, Douglas McGregor, Chester Barnard - developed the issues of managing closed systems, based on internal relations and non-economic motivation of workers.

Third stage(1960-1975) 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 a higher level system, and at the same time a step back, as it returns to mechanistic ideas about a person. The main contribution to the development of organization theory during this period was made by Alfred Chandler, Paul Lawrence, Jay Lorsch.

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 within the framework of open systems. The leader of modern organization theory is James March.

Let us determine the contribution to the development of the theory of organization of its most prominent representatives.

Fundamental ideas of organization theory.

F. Taylor and scientific foundations of organization theory. 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.

With his experiments and scientific works, F. Taylor sought to prove that the methods of scientific organization of labor developed by him and the principles of “scientific management” formulated on their basis would make a real revolution in modern production, replacing outdated authoritarian methods with scientific approaches to management.

From his research and experiments, F. Taylor derived 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 extends to the 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 distributed 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 and carried out at every phase of production. Taylor proposed moving from sole to functional leadership, replacing power
one master of functional administration (several specialist managers, each of whom would give instructions to the worker within the limits of his competence). In the specialized literature on the problems of organizing such
professional managers and their divisions are called functional bodies (departments), and the organization is called functional;

Measurement labor. Taylor insisted on studying the processes of working time, seeing this as the most optimal way to implement production tasks. This principle involves the measurement of working time using the so-called "time units", representing the discrete elements of labor processes;

prescription tasks. According to this principle, production tasks should not only be broken down every minute, but also accompanied by a detailed description of the best methods for their implementation. The goals 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 obtain certain standards that contribute to the measurement of work;

incentive programs. It should be clear to the worker that any element of labor has its price and its payment depends on the established output of finished products, while in case of achieving greater productivity, the worker is paid a bonus;

work as an individual activity. Group influence makes the worker less productive;

motivation. The essence of this principle is that self-interest is the driving force for most people;

the role of individual abilities. A distinction is made between the abilities of workers and managers: workers work for remuneration in the present, while managers work for remuneration in the future.

As you can see, F. Taylor did not neglect the human component of organizations, as many people believe, but rather focused on the individual, and not 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.

Principles of organization A. Fayol. Some time after the publication of the results of his research by F. Taylor in the USA, the Frenchman A. Fayol formulated the general principles of organization.

Fayol sought to develop principles of organization applicable to all levels of government. Briefly, they can be formulated as follows.

To operate effectively, an organization must have:

clear goals;

One center of subordination (unity of control);

One management department (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 obligations;

Rational division of labor and logical grouping of tasks by divisions, departments and administrative sectors of the highest level;

A clear definition of responsibility for the results of activities and such established official relations so that everyone in the organization knows their role and position in the team;

Opportunities for taking the initiative
A. Fayol attached particular importance to the formal structure of the organization. Using the principle of a scalar chain, according to A. Fayol, allows you 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 the excessive formalism of the organization, showing what obstacles are created by the organizational structure in the way of the communication flow.

Fayol illustrated the problem of the limitedness of the formal organizational structure using the following typical example:

BUT

E Fayol's "Bridge" E

Example. Suppose you want to send 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 steps of the hierarchy of power (up and down). However, it is clear that it is wiser and much faster for D&E to make direct contact, bypassing the seven senior leaders. Fayol argued that such direct horizontal communication should be allowed in any organization, at least in crisis situations where speed of action is important. This social communication channel was called "Fayol's bridge".

Bureaucracy M. Weber. The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) developed the principles for constructing an ideal type of organizational structure, which was called bureaucratic. The term "bureaucracy" M. Weber used in its exact meaning - "the board of civil servants". In his opinion, the bureaucracy is distinguished by accuracy, strict discipline, stability and responsibility. The principles of building a bureaucratic organization are as follows:

All activities on the basis of 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, and not on tradition and whims.

M. Weber believed that the system of principles he proposed would ensure the satisfactory fulfillment of many monotonous organizational tasks, and hierarchy, power and bureaucracy underlie all social organizations.

E. Mayo and the Hawthorne experiment. Australian consultant, sociologist, professor at the Harvard Business School Elton Mayo (1880-1949) led a series of experiments carried out at the Western Electric plant in Hawthorne (1924-1927). The results of these experiments significantly changed at that time the ideas about the motives of the employee's behavior in the organization and served as the beginning of the second stage in the development of the theory of organization.

Research at the Hawthorne Works began with a series of experiments to improve the lighting of workplaces in order to find ways to increase labor productivity. The results of the experiments did not allow us to derive such a dependence. However, it was possible to establish that labor productivity is related to the fact that workers felt special attention to themselves as participants in the experiment. This phenomenon is called the Hawthorne effect.

hawthorne effect refers to the propensity of people to deviate from the norm when they understand that they are the object of the 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 the management, called the “school of human relations”.

The conducted research allowed E. Mayo to make a number of significant conclusions that contradict the concept of a "rational worker". The main ones are the following:

A clear division and rationing of labor does not always lead to increased productivity;

People are more responsive to the social influence of a group of peers than to incentives and controls from management;

A manager must be well trained professionally to be a true 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 accept change.

The influence of the ideas of E. Mayo is obvious today. Management improvement programs in many large organizations emphasize the need and importance of special training for managers in conversation, interpersonal relationships, group understanding, and developing other managerial social skills. All these problems are relevant and directly or indirectly follow from the works of E. Mayo.

In conclusion, 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. A worker's personal or family problems may adversely affect work performance.

Ch. Barnard and purposeful organizations. The combination of the ideas of Taylor, Fayol and Weber with the results of the Hawthorne experiment led to the conclusion that the organization is "a system of consciously 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 C. Barnard.

Ch. Barnard gave a definition of a formal (purposeful) organization and its constituent elements, appointments, singled out the subjective and objective aspects of the power of leaders. He developed a theory of perception, which in a new way explains the relationship between managers and workers, received particular recognition. The essence of Ch. Barnard's ideas can be expressed in the following terms:

The physical and biological limitations inherent in individuals force them to cooperate, to work in groups, since cooperation is the most effective way to overcome these limitations;

Collaboration leads to the emergence of coordinated systems. The successful functioning of such systems depends on the effectiveness and inherent efficiency: effectiveness characterizes the achievement of corporate goals, efficiency is a consequence of individual performance and means achieving goals with minimal costs for its participants;

Individuals have personal motives for cooperation, but there is a 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 people 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. Among its main functions are communication, maintaining cohesion, strengthening a sense of personal dignity, self-respect and independence of choice. Formal organization occurs when there are individuals who are able to communicate with each other, agree to contribute to group activities and have a 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 power system that induces group members to agree with the decisions of administrators; d) communications;

Power is an information connection (team), thanks to which information is perceived by members of the organization as a tool for managing their activities. Leaders are empowered by people who want to be led. Therefore, the true bearer of power is not the manager, but the staff itself, 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 element is the nature of the team or information connection;

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 individuals included in the organization, formalized goal definition (planning).

D. McGregor and theoryX - the theory W. Douglas MacGregor (1906-1964) is one of the most famous theorists who made a significant contribution to the development of the theory of organization in the second stage. His works are devoted to the issues of practical management (leadership). His most significant work is 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 conducted research allowed McGregor to describe the management system from two opposite positions, each of which can be taken by the leader in relation to his subordinates. A simplified version of this system considers designated positions on opposite sides of the continuum. One of the extreme positions, reflecting the traditional view of management and control, is called Theory X, and the other is Theory Y.

In accordance with theoryX The leader most often expresses his attitude towards subordinates as follows:

Every man has a natural reluctance to work, so he tries to avoid the expenditure of labor wherever possible;

Due to the fact that people are not disposed to work, they should be coerced, controlled, directed 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 try to avoid direct responsibility and prefer to be led;

Most of all, people desire 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 strength at work is as natural as during play or rest, and under normal conditions a person does not refuse to perform certain duties;

The threat of punishment or external control is not the only means of stimulating the achievement of the organization's goals. People are endowed with the ability to self-manage and self-control in achieving goals,
to which they are committed;

Goal commitment 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 are completed;

Inventiveness and creativity are very common among the population, but in modern life, when technology is so highly developed, they often remain hidden.

According to McGregor, Theory X is command and control through the direct application of power. In this case, a person acts as an object of power influence. On the contrary, theory 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 energy to achieve 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 also changes accordingly. The need for strategic change is dictated by the demands of the external environment. Changing the operating conditions of the enterprise leads 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 the 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 end, 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 conducted by Harvard Business School teachers Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsh. The result of this collaboration was the book The Organization and Its Environment. Lawrence and Lorsch looked at organizational structures and management systems, comparing companies that perform best in a dynamic business (specialty plastics) with those that perform best in a stable, low-changing industry (container manufacturing). They found that the best firms in a stable business use a functional organization chart and simple control systems. On the contrary, leaders in dynamic production have a more decentralized form of organization and more complex management systems than their competitors. Through a 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 the organization as an open system. Theorists have put forward and substantiated the position that between the organization and the environment there are not only adaptation relations, but the external characteristics of the environment, on the one hand, and the internal structural and behavioral parameters, on the other, are inextricably linked by objective patterns and interdependencies (the environment, of course, is not is the only determinant of the organization, in addition, the independent variables of goals, technology, size, innovation, etc.) are important. By the beginning of the 70s of the XX century. this approach, called by P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch the “random” theory of organization, took shape as one of the directions of this science.

R. Cyert, J. March, G. Simon and the "wastebasket" model. The modern concept of the development of views on the organization emphasizes informality, individual enterprise 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 a firm operating under conditions of constant “quasi-resolution” of conflicts between departments in an organization, which, according to March, constitute “political coalitions”. However, they considered the sources of conflict to be the natural distribution of responsibility for achieving different goals in any organization and the "limited rationality" of managers in their desire to cope with management problems. Any organization, according to Cyert-March, has sufficiently strong social mechanisms to resolve conflicts (compromise agreement on goals and objectives, the formation of reserves in case of unforeseen complications, switching attention from considering one problem to another, etc.). By developing ideas such as satisfaction (achieving satisfactory rather than maximal results in decision-making), bounded rationality, and sequential search, Cyert, Simon, and March did much to establish the view that managers are not at all rational problem-solving devices or calculators. machines. Decision makers do not work in conditions of perfect knowledge, hence uncertainty arises, which is the normal state of affairs.

Subsequently, March and Simon put forward the concept of the organization as a "wastebasket", expressing their attitude to the conflict of goals and interests, the uncertainty of problems, the irrationality of decisions; that take place in intra-organizational relations.

The trash can model applies to a particular type of organizational structure known as organized anarchy. Examples of wastebaskets include universities, think tanks, research organizations, and perhaps some organizations in the healthcare system. In organizations of this kind, preferences are not clearly defined and in many cases inconsistent. The technology is unclear, participation is inflexible, with many examples of periodic employee turnover on a "leave-and-come" 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 its achievement. Thus, the trash can model can be seen as one of the models of irrational decision making that managers have to deal with.

Modern organization theory.

Modern organization theory is developing in three directions: situational approach to the consideration of problems of organization, ecological approach, approach of organizational learning.

situational approach is based on the recognition that there is no single right way in organizational activity. The organization must adapt to environmental conditions. It is impossible to ensure the creation of such structures, methods, types of organizational order that would be ideally adapted to any time, goals, values, situation. Each type of management situation, tasks to be solved, the external environment has its own optimal requirements for the state of the organization, strategy and structure.

Ecological approach argues that among organizations "survival of the fittest", 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 individual organizations, but 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 shaping the structure, strategy of the organization is recognized as absolute, it is believed that management does not have a significant impact on the ability of the organization 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 (1980-1990s), 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 provide structural changes in the organization.

Organizational learning approach is based on the recognition of two types of organization learning: the first order - according to the "single loop" and the second order - according to the "double loop". The difference between these types of training in relation to the organization is that "single loop" training is a mandatory staff training that is usual for any organization, it increases the organization's ability to achieve its goals, and "double loop" training is organized and consciously managed 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 “learning organization” are a flexible and maximally flat organizational structure, participatory and learning approaches in developing an organizational strategy, flexibility of the reward system; availability and free exchange of information and experience among all members of the organization; focus on 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.

Course subject and content

The essence and objectives of the organization of production

Organization of production and enterprise management OPiUP (exam)

Subject, content and objectives of the course

1) The organization of production is a set of forms, methods and techniques of scientifically based connection of the labor force with the means of production, as well as the establishment of the relationship and interaction of the elements that form a specific production system in certain conditions of space and time, based on the given goals of the system and the unity of the functions of its elements.

The main goal of the organization of 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 the organization of production are:

Ensuring the release of competitive quality products;

Selection of the main production processes and their effective organization in space and time;

Reducing the time from launch to product release (reducing the duration of product release);

Reducing the material and energy consumption of products.

Because many production tasks 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 effective one according to the goals and conditions of production.

Problem solving 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 the study of the course provides for the optimization of the entire production system as a whole, and not its individual parts.

2) The OP&UP course 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. The production system consists of at least three blocks:

Resources pr-e production result

The production system has the ability to self-regulate.

The main principles of system analysis used in the systems approach:

The adoption of managerial decisions 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 incoming element and possible alternatives are identified;

The tasks of individual elements of the system should not conflict with the goals of the entire system.

3) Stages:

Stage 1 of emergence (until the 30s of the 20th century)

The father of the science of OP&UP is the American engineer Frederico Taylor (1856-1915), who began researching the problems of production rationalization in 1885. Through practical experience 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" in 1902, "Principles of scientific management (management)" in 1911. In them, he formulated the basic scientific principles of the organization of production:

Analysis - decomposition of the production process into operations with their subsequent study;

Measurement - quantitative determination of the parameters of the operation;

Design - the development of a technological process, the execution of operations and the binding of its implementation to jobs for the planned period;

Incentives - remuneration of performers for the level of implementation of the planned task.

The same period includes the work of American scientists Livia and Frank Gilbert, Henry Gandt. Henri Fayol (fr.) - the main merit - considered 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) - in 1913 he implemented the step-by-step detailing of the production process of manufacturing a car on the assembly line and, based on the in-line 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 the performance of labor operations, a movie camera and other devices were used, which made it possible to observe and analyze the progress of work and to find the most rational methods and methods of labor. There was a search for the most rational methods of management, the possibility of material rewards for the most intensive and productive work.

Stage 2 of formation (30-60 years of the 20th century)

After the deep and prolonged financial crisis of 1929-1933, the old scientific and classical approaches to production management were unable to ensure the growth of labor productivity. New ways of managing an enterprise were required, which would take into account the initiative of employees. A new direction "School of Human Relations" appeared. 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 the successful operation of 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 employees. "Theory X" was designed for performers who are inherently lazy, lack initiative and tend to avoid unnecessary work, work only under duress and desire to be controlled. "Theory Y" proceeded from the fact 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. An equally important factor is the strength of mutual understanding between people, their needs, which can only indirectly be satisfied with the help of money. The main step to an effective organization is the application of effective methods of managing human relations.

3 Stage of further development or a systematic approach (60s of the 20th century to the present)

At this stage, OP&UP became an object of modeling using modern means of communication and mathematical methods of information processing. Management thought is constantly evolving, more and more new ideas are being put forward on how effective management should be conducted. 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 to the democratization of management;

Strengthening the international character of management.

The mentality of each country occupies an important place in the system of modern management.

Stages of development of the theory of organization of production.

For the first time, R. Arkwright (1732 -1792), an English textile manufacturer, applied the “system” of organizing and managing an enterprise. He established a "factory code" for workers, requiring workers to work to a strict schedule.

The science of the organization of production originated in the second half of the 19th century.

One of the founders of this science, F.U. Taylor (1856-1915) - an American engineer, in his work "Principles of Scientific Management" wrote that the main task of enterprise management should be to ensure maximum profit for the entrepreneur. F. Taylor was the first to organize the elements of production within the enterprise:

Separated the preparation for the performance of production operations from their execution;

Differentiated the labor process, assigning to each worker, as a rule, one repetitive operation;

Introduced timekeeping as a means of eliminating unnecessary, awkward methods of work;

Developed accounting and control systems;

He proposed an apparatus of functional leaders - foremen and instructors, each of whom was in charge of one side of the worker's labor activity.

Using the principle of splitting work into operations and techniques, G. Ford Sr. (1863-1947), a well-known American automobile manufacturer, introduced a conveyor belt at his automobile plant in 1913, which made it possible to reduce the assembly cycle from one and a half days up to 93 min.

The system of G. Ford, as well as the system of F. Taylor, is of a dual nature, since it combines sophisticated methods of exploitation with a number of scientific provisions in the field of labor organization.

Among other organizers of capitalist production who have made a significant contribution to the development of the theory and practice of its organization, we should name:

G. Emerson (1853-1931), who put forward 12 principles, the observance of which ensures an increase in labor productivity in any field of activity.

These principles include:

1. the accuracy of the formation of goals to be achieved by each leader and his subordinates at all levels of management;

2. a common sense approach to the analysis of each new process, taking into account long-term goals;

3. consultation competence - the need for special knowledge (a truly competent council can only be collegiate);

4. discipline;

5. fair treatment of personnel;

6. fast, reliable, complete, accurate and constant accounting, providing the manager with the necessary information;

7. dispatching;

8. norms and schedules;

9. normalization of conditions, providing such a combination of time, effort and cost at which the best results are achieved;

10. rationing of operations, i.e. establishing the time and sequence of each operation;

11. drawing up written standard instructions that provide a clear fixing of all rules for the performance of work;

12. remuneration for productivity, aimed at encouraging the work of each employee.

A. Faiol (1841-1925), the creator of the production management system, based on the allocation of six groups of functions - technical, commercial, financial, security, accounting, administrative;

K. Adamecki (1866-1933), who worked in Russia and Poland, was the creator of the theory of building production processes in time, who developed schedules for the movement of parts for operations and formulas for calculating the production cycle.

An interesting idea about the science of organization was put forward by the Russian scientist and encyclopedist Bogdanov (pseud.; real name Malinovsky) Alexander Alexandrovich, an economist, philosopher, politician, natural scientist, doctor.

Truth, according to Bogdanov, is an organizing form of collective experience.

Bogdanov put forward the idea of ​​creating a science of the general laws of organization - tectology, being one of the pioneers of a systematic approach in modern science.

An important role in the development of modern systems of organization, planning and management was played by the creation in the mid-50s of the XX century. network planning and management systems developed by American scientists M. Walker, D. Kelly and mathematician D. Malmcolm (CPM and PERT systems).

Of interest is the “Z theory”, put forward in the late 70s and early 80s of our century by prof. W. Ouchi (USA) on the possibility of transferring Japanese methods of organizing production to other countries.

Modern construction production also began to develop on the principles of flow in industry, i.e. continuity and uniformity.

The construction flow is an essential and indispensable element of industrialization, without which it is impossible to take full advantage of building from prefabricated elements made in factories.

The flow method is a scientific method of construction production, which ensures a high organization of the technological process of construction, the elimination of losses of time, labor and resources by eliminating its irregularity, discontinuity.

Experience has shown that the in-line method drastically reduces the irregularity of production and reduces the need for production capacity.

The in-line method creates favorable conditions for a significant (20 - 30%) increase in labor productivity due to the specialization of performers and the acquisition of skills by them in continuously repeating processes, as well as due to the high organization of labor, which eliminates downtime, emergency work and other accidents.

Contributing to saving labor, time and resources, the in-line method leads to a reduction in the cost of construction by up to 6-12%.

The beginning of the application of flow methods in the construction industry in our country dates back to the 30s of the XX century. Over seven decades, builders and scientists have developed the theory and practice of building flow.

The construction flow theory was developed in the works of professors A.V., Baranovsky, M.S. Budnikova, A.A. Tarmash, A.I. Nerovetsky, M.V. Vavilova, B.P. Gorbushina, V.V. Chikhacheva, V.I. Baturina, N.I. Pentkovsky and others.

In the development of flow construction methods in our country, four periods can be distinguished:

The first period (1930 - 1948) - the development of the initial foundations of flow in construction and the experimental use of flow in the construction of basically identical residential buildings;

The second period (1948 - 1961) - the formation of the modern flow theory and its experimental application in various types of construction;

The third period (1961 - 1967) - the transition from experimentation to the mass application of flow methods in construction, the transition to modern methods of designing the organization of construction, to the development of the foundations of network planning and management methods;

The fourth period (1967 - present, time) - the massive use of network modeling on a national scale, the introduction of computers in the design of the organization of in-line construction and the creation of a computer-aided design and construction system (CAD, ACS),

development of local economic and mathematical models of construction production, research of organizational and technological reliability of construction production, application of in-line construction in market conditions and competition.

Topic 2. Scheduling of construction production

The essence of scheduling, its role in construction

Calendar planning is an integral element of the organization of construction production at all its stages and levels. The normal course of construction is possible only when it is thought out in advance in what sequence the work will be carried out, how many workers, machines, mechanisms and other resources will be required for each work.

Underestimation of this entails inconsistency in the actions of performers, interruptions in their work, delays in terms and, of course, an increase in the cost of construction. To prevent such situations, a calendar plan is drawn up, which performs the function of a work schedule within the accepted duration of construction. Obviously, the changing situation at the construction site may require a significant adjustment of such a plan, however, in any situation, the construction manager must clearly understand what needs to be done in the coming days, weeks, months.

The duration of construction is assigned, as a rule, according to the norms (SNiP 1.04.03-85 "Standards for the duration of construction and groundwork in the construction of enterprises, buildings and structures", taking into account changes to them), depending on the size and complexity of the objects under construction. In some cases, the duration of construction may be planned different from the normative (most often in the direction of tightening the deadlines), if required by the needs of production, special conditions, environmental programs, etc. For objects built in difficult natural conditions, an increase in the duration of construction is acceptable, but this must always be properly justified.

In construction practice, simplified planning methods are often used, when, for example, only a list of works is compiled with the deadlines for their implementation without proper optimization.

However, such planning is permissible only when solving small current tasks during construction. When planning large objects of work for the entire period of construction, careful work is needed to select the most appropriate sequence of construction and installation works, their duration, the number of participants, it is necessary to take into account many factors mentioned above. For these reasons, various forms of scheduling are used in construction, allowing in their own way to optimize the planned course of work, the possibility of maneuvers, etc.

Line calendar charts

network charts

In addition, depending on the breadth of the tasks to be solved, the required degree of detail of solutions, there are various types of calendar plans that are used at different levels of planning.

When developing schedules in PIC and PPR, the best results are achieved when several options for the schedule are compiled, and the most effective one is selected.

2. Types of calendar plans (schedules)

There are four types of calendar schedules, depending on the breadth of the tasks to be solved and the type of documentation they are included in. All types of calendar schedules should be closely linked to each other.

The consolidated calendar plan (schedule) in the POS determines the order of construction of objects, i.e. the start and end dates of each object, the duration of the preparatory period and the entire construction as a whole. For the preparatory period, as a rule, a separate calendar schedule is drawn up. The existing norms (SNiP 3.01.01-85 * "Organization of construction production") provide for the preparation of calendar plans in the POS in monetary form, i.e. in thousand rubles with distribution by quarters or years (for the preparatory period - by months).

For complex facilities, especially water management and hydraulic engineering, additional summary graphs are compiled, oriented to physical volumes.

When drawing up calendar plans for the construction of hydraulic and water facilities, it is necessary, as already noted, to carefully coordinate the progress of construction work with the timing of water flow in the river, the timing of blocking the channel and filling the reservoir. All these terms should be clearly reflected in the calendar plan. During the reconstruction of such facilities, minimal interruptions in the operation of the hydroelectric complex or hydraulic structure should be ensured.

At the stage of development of the consolidated calendar plan, the issues of dividing construction into stages, launch complexes, and technological units are being resolved. The calendar plan is signed by the chief engineer of the project and the customer (as a coordinating authority).

The object calendar schedule in the PPR determines the sequence and timing of each type of work at a particular facility from the beginning of its construction to commissioning. Typically, such a plan is broken down by months or days, depending on the size and complexity of the object.

The object calendar plan (schedule) is developed by the compiler of the PPR, i.e. by the general contractor or a specialized design organization involved for this.

When developing calendar plans for the reconstruction or technical re-equipment of an industrial enterprise, it is necessary to coordinate all the terms with this enterprise.

Work schedules are usually compiled by the production and technical department of a construction organization, less often by line personnel during the construction and installation period. Such schedules are developed not for a week, a month, several months. Weekly charts are most widely used. Work schedules are an element of operational planning, which must be carried out continuously throughout the entire construction period.

The purpose of the work schedules, on the one hand, is to detail the object calendar plan and, on the other hand, to respond in a timely manner to all kinds of changes in the situation at the construction site. Work schedules are the most common type of scheduling. As a rule, they are compiled very quickly and often have a simplified form, i.e., as practice shows, they are not always properly optimized. Nevertheless, they usually take into account the actual situation at the construction site better than others, since they are compiled by persons directly involved in this construction. This is especially true for taking into account weather conditions, the specifics of the interaction of subcontractors, the implementation of various rationalization proposals, i.e. factors that are difficult to predict in advance.

Hourly (minute) charts in technological charts and labor process charts are compiled by the developers of these charts. Such schedules are usually carefully thought out, optimized, but they are focused only on typical (most likely) operating conditions. In specific situations, they may require significant adjustments. Hourly work schedules are drawn up mainly for the installation of prefabricated structures of buildings and structures; they determine the timing and sequence of installation in the design position of individual prefabricated elements. On the hourly charts, in accordance with the ENiR, the machine time is indicated; necessary for the installation of each element, as well as the composition of the assembly team.

Principles and sequence of designing schedules

The calendar plan for the construction of an object is developed on the basis of a comparison of its various options and the choice of the best, i.e. one in which the work is scheduled to be performed by advanced methods (maximum mechanization and the use of high-performance machines), within a specified time, with minimal costs of material resources and compliance with security requirements labor.

The duration of the construction of the facility should not exceed the directive standards provided for in SNiP 1.04.03-85 "Standards for the duration of construction and groundwork in the construction of enterprises, buildings and structures", taking into account changes to them.

The calendar plan for the production of work at the facility is developed in the following sequence:

1) a list of construction and installation works is established, according to which a calendar plan will be drawn up in the future;

2) the amount of work to be performed at the facility is calculated;

3) the required amount of basic materials, parts and structures is determined, indicating their dimensions, weights, brands and other data;

4) the method of production of the main construction and installation works is selected by comparing various options and accepting the best one;

5) the labor intensity of work and the number of machine shifts required to perform all construction and installation works are calculated according to the standards;

6) the technological sequence and duration of the construction and installation works and the installation of technological equipment are established, they are mutually coordinated in time and a schedule for the construction of the facility is drawn up;

7) schedules for the movement of workers by profession and a summary, schedules for the use of machines and vehicles, as well as schedules for the consumption and delivery of basic materials and prefabricated structures, are drawn up.