Prior to the early 1900s, there was no management theory as we think of it today. Work happened as it always had—those with the skills did the work in the way they thought best (usually the way it had always been done). The concept that work could be studied and the work process improved did not formally exist before the ideas of Frederick Winslow Taylor.
Well, while moving to the actual topic that is to be covered in this article, let’s take a look at the list of top 15 Task Management tools below. The main aim is that they all serve the same purpose i.e. Understanding the requirements, managing simple tasks list, help the teamwork and ultimately improve productivity. Add relationship-building tasks to your to-do list, such as sending birthday cards, calling your mom or having a date night with your husband. Go outside, to the library, or to a museum where you can just enjoy being with your family without the distraction of things that need to be done. People-oriented personalities.
Using project management software to organize a multitude of project tasks gives a mass of work a sense of order. But being an effective juggler—someone who can keep a lot of balls in the air, and also get things done—requires some important skills. Here are seven habits to acquire to be an effective, productive juggler. Many of these tools are free. Instashare 1 4 4. Several are designed from the system outlined in Getting Things Done by productivity guru David Allen. Others are focused on the collaborative needs of teamwork. Find one to fit your needs, and then get things done. 14 Online Task-Management Tools. A task management site with real-time collaboration tools.
The scientific management movement produced revolutionary ideas for the time—ideas such as employee training and implementing standardized best practices to improve productivity. Taylor’s theory was called scientific because to develop it, he employed techniques borrowed from botanists and chemists, such as analysis, observation, synthesis, rationality, and logic. You may decide as you read more about Taylor that by today’s criteria he was not the worker’s “friend.” However, Taylor must be given credit for creating the concept of an organization being run “as a business” or in a “businesslike manner,” meaning efficiently and productively.
Frederick Taylor (1856–1915) is called the Father of Scientific Management.
Before the Industrial Revolution, most businesses were small operations, averaging three or four people. Owners frequently labored next to employees, knew what they were capable of, and closely directed their work. The dynamics of the workplace changed dramatically in the United States with the Industrial Revolution. Factory owners and managers did not possess close relationships with their employees. The workers “on the floor” controlled the work process and generally worked only hard enough to make sure they would not be fired. There was little or no incentive to work harder than the next man (or woman).
Taylor was a mechanical engineer who was primarily interested in the type of work done in factories and mechanical shops. He observed that the owners and managers of the factories knew little about what actually took place in the workshops. Taylor believed that the system could be improved, and he looked around for an incentive. He settled on money. He believed a worker should get “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work”—no more, no less. If the worker couldn’t work to the target, then the person shouldn’t be working at all. Taylor also believed that management and labor should cooperate and work together to meet goals. He was the first to suggest that the primary functions of managers should be planning and training.
In 1909, Taylor published The Principles of Scientific Management. In this book, he suggested that productivity would increase if jobs were optimized and simplified. He also proposed matching a worker to a particular job that suited the person’s skill level and then training the worker to do that job in a specific way. Taylor first developed the idea of breaking down each job into component parts and timing each part to determine the most efficient method of working. Soon afterward, two management theorists, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, came up with the idea of filming workers to analyze their motions. Their ideas have since been combined into one process (called time and motion studies) for analyzing the most productive way to complete a task.
Scientific management has at its heart four core principles that also apply to organizations today. They include the following:
Taylor designed his approach for use in places where the work could be quantified, systemized, and standardized, such as in factories. In scientific management, there is one right way to do a task; workers were not encouraged (in fact, they were forbidden) to make decisions or evaluate actions that might produce a better result. Taylor was concerned about the output more than worker satisfaction or motivation. Taylor’s work introduced for the first time the idea of systematic training and selection, and it encouraged business owners to work with employees to increase productivity and efficiency. And he introduced a “first-class worker” concept to set the standard for what a worker should be able to produce in a set period of time. Scientific management grew in popularity among big businesses because productivity rose, proving that it worked.
Today, an updated version of his original theory is used by such companies as FedEx and Amazon. Digital Taylorism is based on maximizing efficiency by standardizing the tools and techniques for completing each task involved with a given job. Every task is broken down to the smallest motion and translated into an exact procedure that must be followed to complete that task. Because everyone is operating in the same mechanistic way, it increases predictability and consistency while reducing errors. It is relatively easy for managers to replace workers and retain the same productivity. The criticism of this type of management approach is similar to that of Taylor’s original theory: It reduces worker creativity; it requires management to monitor all aspects of employee behavior; and it is unforgiving to workers who don’t meet the standard. Mach desktop 3 0 42.
Two more pioneers in the field of management theory were Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, who conducted research about the same time as Taylor. Like Taylor, the Gilbreths were interested in worker productivity, specifically how movement and motion affected efficiency.
Lillian Gilbreth. The book and film Cheaper By the Dozen were based on her and Frank’s experiences raising twelve children according to their theories of time and motion studies.
As stated above, the Gilbreths used films to analyze worker activity. They would break the tasks into discrete elements and movements and record the time it took to complete one element. In this way, they were able to predict the most efficient workflow for a particular job. The films the Gilbreths made were also useful for creating training videos to instruct employees in how to work productively.
Taylor and the Gilbreths belonged to the classical school of management, which emphasized increasing worker productivity by scientific analysis. They differed, however, on the importance of the worker. Taylor’s emphasis was on profitability and productivity; the Gilbreths were also focused on worker welfare and motivation. They believed that by reducing the amount of motions associated with a particular task, they could also increase the worker’s well-being. Their research, along with Taylor’s, provided many important principles later incorporated into quality assurance and quality control programs begun in the 1920s and 1930s. Eventually, their work led to the science of ergonomics and industrial psychology. (Ergonomics is the study of people in their operating environment, with the goal of increasing productivity and reducing risk of work-related injury.)
You can watch some of the Gilbreths’ films below to get an idea of how they documented their time and motion studies in an effort to increase efficiency and safety.
Henry Gantt (1861–1919) was also an associate of Taylor. He is probably best known for two key contributions to classical management theory: the Gantt chart and the task and bonus system.
The Gantt chart is a tool that provides a visual (graphic) representation of what occurs over the course of a project. The focus of the chart is the sequential performance of tasks that make up a project. It identifies key tasks, assigns an estimated time to complete the task, and determines a starting date for each element of a task. Gantt differentiated between a terminal element that must be completed as part of a larger task. The related terminal elements together created what he called the summary element.
The Gantt chart has multiple benefits for project management:
Let’s apply the Gantt chart principles to a simple project. Imagine that you want to paint a room. The summary element is the finished, painted room. The individual terminal tasks might include calculating the square footage of the room, preparing the walls, choosing the paint, purchasing the paint, putting down the drop cloth, taping the windows, applying the paint, and final cleanup. Some of these elements are independent, and some elements are dependent upon others. Purchasing the paint is dependent upon knowing the square footage and choosing the paint color. Before painting can start, the walls must be prepared and the paint must be purchased. But purchasing the paint is not dependent upon preparing the walls—these tasks could be started at the same time.
There are several distinct tasks involved in painting a room.
Gantt also promoted the task and bonus plan that modified Taylor’s “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work” premise. Gantt wanted to establish a standard (average) time for a piece of work or task. Then, if a worker took more that the standard time, his pay was docked. But if he took less time, he was paid for the additional pieces of work and a bonus of up to 20 percent more. Also known as the progressive rate system, this plan was preferred by workers who were willing to work harder for additional wages.
Although Gantt is not the best known of the classic management theorists, many of his ideas are still being used in project management.
Scientific management was the first widespread promotion of rational processes to improve efficiency. The goal was to develop a standard against which work performance could be measured. Training became an important part of the management process. By the 1930s, however, many unions and workers were suspicious of the intentions of scientific management.
Management tools, if they are used appropriately, can be powerful enablers of change and actions in companies. Toothfairy 2 6 download free. They can, for example, help define and execute the strategy, engage with customers and employees and monitor performance.
I am always interested to see which tools are most popular and how the popularity of the various management tools is shifting and changing. A great insight into this is provided by Bain's Management Tools and Trends Survey. This study conducted by Bain & Company gives us a global picture of the adoption and trends of management tools. It has been produced annually since 1993 and is now covering 12,371 respondents from North America, Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America.
The results of the recently revealed 2013 survey show that the world's top five management tools are:
To see strategic planning on the list is not really surprising. It has always been important but when the economic climate is tough then making sure all efforts are focused on the most important things is vital. In difficult times companies haven't got the luxury of wasting time and money on things that are not really important and don't contribute to their strategy. While the strategic planning is getting better in most companies, the strategy execution isn't. Research finds that only 10% of strategies, even of those that are well formulated, are well executed. I find that the communication of the strategy is often poor and most mission and vision statements exemplify that. (See e.g. What The Heck is Wrong With Mission and Vision Statements?)
If strategy execution is a problem then it is good to see the Balanced Scorecard in the list of top 5 tools. In fact, it ranks as the number one tool in Europe, Middle East and Africa. The Balanced Scorecard can take the output from strategic planning and turn it into something the companies can execute. The Balanced Scorecard helps companies to execute their strategy by (1) creating a simple one-page strategy map that outlines the most important strategic objectives, (2) monitoring the strategy execution with meaningful and relevant Key Performance Indicators, and (3) ensuring the correct action plans are in place to deliver the strategic priorities. You can argue that the Balanced Scorecard follows on from strategic planning to ensure the strategy is turned into practice. And again, in difficult economic climates companies need to ensure and monitor that they are doing the right things. (See my recent post: What The Heck is a. Balanced Scorecard?)
Benchmarking goes hand-in-hand with the Balanced Scorecard. Key Performance Indicators can only generate meaningful insights if they are compared with targets and benchmarks. Benchmarks can come from within the company by comparing departments and business units or can come from industry research or best practice studies. This is again a reflection of the current economic struggles many companies are facing. Companies need to make sure they stay ahead or close to the competition. Introducing some competitiveness into their systems with benchmarked performance goals and targets for everyone can boost productitivty. (See my recent post: What The Hell is a. KPI?)
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is increasingly being used by companies as they try to drive up customer loyalty and maximise cross-selling opportunities and customer profitability. Most companies know by now that it is cheaper to keep existing customers than it is to acquire new ones. The data and insights that come out of customer relationship management systems can then be used to identify cross-selling and up-selling opportunities. Many of my clients are now using CRM systems to better understand customer life-time values and predictive customer trends. This in turn is useful information that should feed into the customer perspective of the Balanced Scorecard. Digital minds screensavers collection ubserial download free.
Finally, we have Employee Engagement Surveys in the list of top 5 management tools. After all, employees are still our most valuable (and often most expensive) assets. The global war for top talent is still raging and every company wants to hold on to the talent it has acquired or developed. Similarly to customers, it usually costs a lot of money to recruit and train new employees. We also know engaged employee are not only more loyal but also more productive. And every inch of productivity is vital in today's competitive global economy. Similarly to the customer information, the data from employee engagement surveys feeds into the people perspective of the Balanced Scorecard.
In my job I spend a lot of time helping companies improve their performance and for me, these five make an eminently sensible list of tools to use for any organisation today, be it a global blue chip, a small or medium sized company or a government agency. They all need solid strategic plans, a tool to execute their plan and ways to monitor and evaluate progress. At the same time they all need to ensure they manage their customers and engage their employees. Ares commander 2016 1.
The Bain survey also finds that 4 out of the top 5 tools fall into the top quadrant for user satisfaction levels. The only one that lags a little behind is employee engagement surveys, which again is something I can verify from my own experience. In so many cases it is just a statutory process or a PR activity, rather than a true survey of staff engagement. Having said that, in practice I also see many problems with the other 4 tools, which are often implemented in a 'we should have this' and 'we have to follow this process' way. Instead, they are most effective when they are based on real buy-in and understanding and when they are customised to the specific needs of the company.
As always, please let me know what you think. Do you agree with this list and my interpretation of why they are in the top 5? Have you got any good or bad experiences with any of these? Any comments or lessons to share? Please do so.
------
Bernard Marr is an enterprise performance expert who helps companies with their strategic planning, balanced scorecards, KPIs and benchmarking as well as the development of customer and staff engagement analysis. Click 'Follow' if you would like to hear more from Bernard in the future.
You might also like to read some of his other recent posts:
0 
Star