Industrial management - the branch of engineering that deals with the creation and management of systems that integrate

people and materials and energy in productive ways. Industrial management, term applied to highly organized modern methods of carrying on industrial, especially manufacturing, operations.

Industrial management, in its most comprehensive meaning, refers to the systematic management of all aspects of the factory, and more specifically, to early studies of production efficiency known as scientific management. The term came into use in the United States around the turn of the twentieth century, when the Industrial Revolution dramatically shifted methods of generating output from craftsmanship to mass production and automation. Massive centralized production facilities, like those of the Ford Motor Company, Bethlehem Steel, and Western Electric, brought with them the unprecedented need to understand work that had become increasingly complex. To bring some measure of control and discipline to the industrial behemoths, such luminaries as Frederick Taylor, Henry Ford, and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth developed "scientific" methods of observation in factories. The term "scientific" brought a patina of respectability to a field of study, which by its very nature contained some measure of dehumanization with regards to work methods. Frederick Taylor sought the "one best way to manage" by systematically recording the time to perform work elements that comprised a laborer's repetitive movements, while the Gilbreths developed "time and motion" studies. Henry Ford is credited with institutionalizing division of labor in factories with his development of the assembly line, an innovation that dramatically reduced the time it took to produce an automobile. Little attention was paid to the motivational content of work until the accidental discovery of the importance of human relations by the Hawthorne studies from 1927 to 1932, research supervised by Elton Mayo. While conducting productivity studies at Western Electric, Mayo demonstrated that workers' efficiency depended on a wide range of relations within groups as well as on compensation. This finding led to an eventual split in the study of industrial management, with one branch emphasizing an understanding of organization theory and behavior and the other emphasizing the mechanics of production, also known as operations. While science continued to provide the basis for academic studies of both branches, the practice of management was increasingly recognized as a complex set of knowledge and skills. Later, increased specialization of management talents led to the dissipation of comprehensive studies in industrial management, with more attention paid to specialties like financial management, human resources management, and operations management. Following World War II, many of the dehumanizing aspects of factory life were a leading concern of both union movements and studies to improve quality of work life. Work design and sociotechnical approaches to work became the focus of industrial management. By the 1960s, however, the U.S. economy had shifted to a service economy, with more than half of the labor in the country employed in services. This shift was to be followed by the information revolution and extraordinarily high rates of global competitiveness, changes that had dramatic impacts on work content. The term "industrial management" became increasingly irrelevant as the nature and content of work shifted to computerization and other spheres of the economy.

In the early twenty-first century, the segment of management that seeks improvements in efficiency and productivity is known as service and operations management. Its most recent developments include integrated methods of management that contain elements of programmable technology, quality improvement, just-in-time delivery, lean production, and supply chain management.

Modern management is the collaboration of people and machines to create value. In the early days of industrialization the innovators of machines and the innovators of organization and management were engineers. Engineers, after all, were the ones closest to the machines, and this fact placed them at the interaction of workers and machines. This certainly helps explain Frederick Taylor and his invention of "Scientific Management". Taylor began his career as the first management theorist, consultant, and "guru" as an apprentice foreman and common laborer, positions from which he quickly advanced to chief engineer. Taylor's early resume, however, belies the fact that he was born into an affluent Philadelphia family. His direct observations of men at work led him to develop what we would call "motivation" theory, although this is a psychology term that would not be imported into the management vocabulary until later. Taylor's own point of view, although benign towards workers, saw human labor very much analogous to machine work--- something to be "engineered" to achieve efficiency. His theories on management would be promoted worldwide (and maybe took stronger root in Japan than in the U.S. or Europe) and would be controversial at home. If greater economic development through efficient and productive work was Taylor's own view of his work, the growing Labor Movement would see "Taylorism" as exploitive. Organized labor's antagonism to the American popularity of Taylor's work would eventually lead to Congressional hearings and, pretty much, the demise of "Scientific Management". Taylor developed his management theories in his book Shop Management published in 1903, making it arguably the first scholarly work on management. Although there were books and published pieces on what could be termed "management" these were more of a "guide to" or trade publication on best practices. Shop Management approached the role of manager as a general role with specific functions with respect to collaborative work. The problem, as Taylor saw it, was that workers were inefficient because: (1) Workers tended to ration their work load or work less than they could, because working faster and harder would mean that there would be less or no work to do in the future. (2) Management failed to structure work effectively and to provide appropriate incentives. It should be pointed out that Taylor is writing before the establishment of a "minimum wage" (the minimum wage became federal law in 1938), so the notion of what is "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay" was arbitrary. A day-rate or hourly-rate was a common practice at the turn of the century. Taylor viewed these wage practices as rewarding for attendance, not performance. While another common practice was the "piece-rate" system that paid workers on the basis of output, this generally failed because standards were poorly set, employers cut rates when workers earned "too much", and workers would conceal their real capacity for production to keep standards low.

The solution, to Taylor, lay in discovering the appropriate work standard and fitting wages to the standard. Management should establish specific work targets, pay workers for the tasks and goals met, and provide regular feedback. The main elements of his theory were: 1. Management is a true science. The solution to the problem of determining fair work standards and practices could be discovered by experimentation and observation. From this, it follows, that there is "one right way" for work to be performed. 2. The selection of workers is a science. Taylor's "first class worker" was someone suitable for the job. It was management's role to determine the kind of work for which an employee was most suited, and to hire and assign workers accordingly. 3. Workers are to be developed and trained. It is management's task to not only engineer a job that can be performed efficiently, but management is responsible for training the worker as to how the work is to be performed and for updating practices as better ones are developed. This standardizes how the work is performed in the best way. 4. Scientific management is a collaboration of workers and managers. Managers are not responsible for execution of work, but they are responsible for how the work is done. Planning, scheduling, methods, and training are functions of the manager. The "scientific" approach towards work led Taylor to investigate work through "task allocation" which meant that a job would be studied by sub-dividing it into discrete tasks, each element of the job would be investigated to discern the optimal efficiency by which it could be accomplished. The elements of the job, properly designed, then, would be reconstructed as an efficient job. The criticism of this approach is that it omits the worker's own contribution to the design of work and, thereby, alienates the worker from the job. Still, what Taylor does is link national wealth and company profits to how effectively work is performed, and he defines a cooperative role between labor and management in wealth creation. Taylor's system was widely adopted in the United States and the world until its demise in the 1930's as organized labor pushed for a minimum wage based on hourly pay, as opposed to Taylor's contention that pay ought to be based on performance. In practice "Taylorism" too often fell short of a collaboration between labor and management and, frequently, was a mask for business exploitation of workers. The enduring and unquestionable contribution of Frederick Taylor is that management is firmly established as something done by trained, professional practitioners and is elevated as the subject of legitimate scholarship.

NDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT
term applied to highly organized modern methods of carrying on industrial, especially manufacturing, operations. The Rise of Factories

Before the Industrial Revolution people worked with hand tools, manufacturing articles in their own homes or in small shops. In the third quarter of the 18th cent. steam power was applied to machinery, and people and machines were brought together under one roof in factories, where the manufacturing process could be supervised. This was the beginning of shop management. In the next hundred years factories grew rapidly in size, in degree of mechanization, and in complexity of operation. The growth, however, was accompanied by much waste and inefficiency. In the United States many engineers, spurred by the increased competition of the postCivil War era, began to seek ways of improving plant efficiency. The Development of Industrial Management Studies of Worker Performance The first sustained effort in the direction of improved efficiency was made by Frederick Winslow Taylor, an assistant foreman in the Midvale Steel Company, who in the 1880s undertook a series of studies to determine whether workers used unnecessary motions and hence too much time in performing operations at a machine. Each operation required to turn out an article or part was analyzed and studied minutely, and superfluous motions were eliminated. Records were kept of the performance of workers and standards were adopted for each operation. The early studies resulted in a faster pace of work and the introduction of rest periods. Management of the Machine Industrial management also involves studying the performance of machines as well as people. Specialists are employed to keep machines in good working condition and to ensure the quality of their production. The flow of materials through the plant is supervised to ensure that neither workers nor machines are idle. Constant inspection is made to keep output up to standard. Charts are used for recording the accomplishment of both workers and machines and for comparing them with established standards. Careful accounts are kept of the cost of each operation. When a new article is to be manufactured it is given a design that will make it suitable for machine production, and each step in its manufacture is planned, including the machines and materials to be used. Other Aspects of Management The principles of scientific management have been gradually extended to every department of industry, including office work, financing, and marketing. Soon after 1910 American firms established the first personnel departments, and eventually some of the larger companies took the lead in creating environments conducive to worker efficiency. Safety devices, better sanitation, plant cafeterias, and facilities for rest and recreation were provided, thus adding to the welfare of employees and enhancing morale. Many such improvements were made at the insistence of employee groups, especially labor unions. Over the years, workers and their unions also sought and often won higher wages and increased benefits, including group health and life insurance and liberal retirement pensions. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, cutbacks and downsizing in many American businesses substantially

reduced many of these benefits. Some corporations permit employees to buy stock; others make provision for employee representation on the board of directors or on the shop grievance committee. Many corporations provide special opportunities for training and promotion for workers who desire advancement, and some have made efforts to solve such difficult problems as job security and a guaranteed annual wage. Modern Trends Modern technological devices, particularly in the areas of computers, electronics, thermodynamics, and mechanics, have made automatic and semiautomatic machines a reality. The development of such automation is bringing about a second industrial revolution and is causing vast changes in commerce as well as the way work is organized. Such technological changes and the need to improve productivity and quality of products in traditional factory systems also changed industrial management practices. In the 1960s Swedish automobile companies discovered that they could improve productivity with a system of group assembly. In a contrast to older manufacturing techniques where a worker was responsible for assembling only one part of the car, group assembly gave a group of workers the responsibility for assembling an entire car. The system was also applied in Japan, where managers developed a number of other innovative systems to lower costs and improve the quality of products. One Japanese innovation, known as quality circles, allowed workers to offer management suggestions on how to make production more efficient and to solve problems. Workers were also given the right to stop the assembly line if something went wrong, a sharp departure from U.S. factories. By carefully controlling the manufacturing process, Japanese managers were able to cut waste, improve productivity, and reduce inventory, thus significantly reducing costs and improving quality. By the early 1980s, Japanese companies, which had once been criticized for producing for producing low-quality goods, had established a reputation for efficiently producing high-quality, high-tech products. In the 1980s and early 90s many U.S. companies looked to increase their competitiveness by adapting Japanese methods for improving manufacturing quality.