Management science is one of the interdisciplinary sciences that aim at creating the greatest efficiency in human capital. The current global market and its competitiveness call for businesses and their management teams to enhance production and productivity. Both employers and employees are involved in operations that entail production activities with specific objectives and hence maximize profit while decreasing the cost of production. As this paper shall analyze, management science entails activities carried out by human capital and which precipitate on gaining knowledge critical for creating quality products and services. Besides, as it shall explore, it lays importance on creating advantages for employees and managers in an organization.
One of the key aims of scientific management is the provision of trained minds for learners and managers in business. Importantly, among learners, knowledge of scientific management will be critical for attaining a higher degree. As Shumpei (2015) puts it, trained minds are critical for business development. Trained minds provide the needed expertise for the attainment of appropriate levels of production. In all branches of shop management, an understanding of scientific management brings excellence and this improves and creates a climate of mutual respect and cooperation between management and workers.
Taylor’s philosophy explains the important role of scientific management. In it, he claims that the aim of scientific management is to improve methods of carrying out business activities, working conditions and ensuring that an organization has the right materials, tools, and equipment for work. Agreeably, Holt and Zundel (2014) indicate that better working conditions enhance production. Basically, an acceptable improvement from scientific management is based on fundamental principles that cater to both management and employees.
One of the key elements of scientific management is to improve and revolutionize accounting, store-keeping, purchasing, nomenclature, and scheduling. Earlier on, the old management style of scientific management relied on the style of rule of thumb.
Employees’ duties were carried out without help from management. Besides, workers relied on initiatives and incentives. The aim of scientific management, therefore, brings forth necessary changes that improve management practices of scheduling, routine, and layout. Devinney (2013) asserts that an approach to scientific management should determine the best working methods for the employee. In agreement, Taylor’s philosophy points towards scientific management based on studying the best approach for improving performance was based on science.
Moreover, an understanding of scientific management replaces arbitrary exaction, guesswork, and customs. Foss, Lyngsie, and Zahra (2013) indicate that it defends employees in an organization from fatigue, overspeeding, sloth, and soldiering. Taylor’s scientific management has been regarded by scholars as highly rigid (Zhao & Anand, 2013). However, while it lacks a holistic view, it still aids in yielding high-performance results. The strong management that defends the needs of employees is strongly centralized. It is imperative to note that Taylorism is based on the Marxist model. Scientific management is critical in the current competitive business arena that demands high production and an experienced workforce.
The article by Peteraf, Di Stefano, and Verona (2013) note that neglect, accidents, and mistakes are limited by scientific management due to the correlation between agencies of control. Taylor’s philosophy in scientific management involves making decisions based on the centralization of ideas. While critics are of the view that it limits innovativeness, proponents of this aim argue that the ability to control protects from accidents and mistakes. Indeed it limits input by employees and this can prevent production.
Scientific management is prompt and as such is useful for providing prompt rewards, immediate goals constant guidance, and timely instructions ((Zhao & Anand, 2013). Many businesses today seek ways to ensure continued improvement. While central decision-making is critical in ensuring this is achieved, modern management practices call for the inclusion of new ways of conducting management operations. An understanding of management science, therefore, brings into play scientific management in order to accelerate and streamline processes such as invoice management and account payables among other things.
Importantly, modern management practice incorporates scientific management and this integrates information technology and management, encompasses tools, techniques, and schemes designed to analyze, manage and enact operational business processes that entail sources of information, documents, applications, organizations, and human capital. This according to Suddaby (2014) aligns the roles of employees with the aspects of a business thereby guaranteeing efficiency and effectiveness in business operations.
Besides, management science ensures high task standards are maintained in an organization. This ensures that educated workers are energized while all workers are sorted automatically to their levels of occupations. Standardization of production as management scholars point out has grown to become one of the most crucial aspects of the 20th century. In a workplace setting, management science enables standardization and thorough establishment of procedures where employees are involved in small line productions. This aids in improving their experience. Through scientific management, Devinney (2013) points out that it is possible to intensify production.
The effect of this will also aid in lowering the cost of production. A reduction in the cost of production as Devinney (2013) continues to suggest is essential in linking mass production to mass consumption. However, in the contemporary industrial setting, many scholars have pointed out that standardization of production limits the overall output per employee. They further point out that through standardized models, tangible products are the only components viewed in the output assessment only and this largely omits other contributions.
On the same note, an understanding of management science ensures high management standards of performance in an organization are adhered to. Harris, Johnson, and Souder (2013) indicate that this becomes an important tool for reducing price products, increasing profits, and raising workers’ wages. The ideology by Taylor on standardization and the training of workers is noble. However, it fails to give impetus for innovation among employees. Management science incorporates the idea of technology to enhance improvement. This innovative process should be practiced by employees as well as employers. Progressive changes from information technology have been critical in today’s massive business production.
For instance, at Dell, innovative thinking by employees led to the introduction of online marketing. This improved its sales and profits. Avery, Fournier, and Wittenbraker (2014) suggest in their article Unlock the mysteries of your customer relationships that there is a need to move away from standardized operations to realize maximum business output. Kurt Lewin’s theory of change management became an important element in understanding the importance of deviating from standardized operations and encouraging employees’ innovation. Even so, it nullifies existing models thereby complicating the whole process.
Management science maintains the goal of enhancing production through better human capital. Borrowing from economic thinking, an increase in production ensures business growth and better remuneration for employees. The article Integrating ambiculturalism and fusion theory: a world with open doors by Arndt and Ashkanasy (2015) points out enhancing production via incentives. He indicates that incentives for employees are critical for maximizing the overall production for an organization. The model by Taylor on management science also supports the application of incentives. In it, incentives are linked to the actual output that an employee is able to achieve.
Opponents of the argument are of the view that incentives focus on output only thereby ignoring means of production and a working environment. While many management practices have a strong orientation to standardization, focusing on incentives alone might fail to invoke optimum production as it does not factor in other commitments from employees.
The current demand for optimizing production in the global market arena has laid pressure on managers in organizations to seek to pre-identify constraints and mechanisms that block the maximization of output and to address them. An understanding of management science, therefore, forms the foundations of advocating for a replacement of restricted output with maximum output, individualism with cooperation, discord with harmony, and rule of thumb with science. The aim of management science, therefore, teaches on boosting output in production in an organization in terms of performance and products development. This calls for the introduction of a new culture that sees progress as a process and not a point or product.
From the earlier understanding of the aims of management science, it is clear that different organizations have various institutional arrangements. However, the only way to become productive is by setting out management processes that maximize output. This can be achieved through a management process that allows either success or failure to be seen with a positive focus. The effect of this is that it will enhance improvement at all levels. In summary, management science is, therefore, a critical discipline and component that boosts an organization’s performance and product output.
Arndt, F. F., & Ashkanasy, N. (2015). Integrating ambiculturalism and fusion theory: a world with open doors. Academy Of Management Review, 40(1), 144-147.
Avery, J., Fournier, S., & Wittenbraker, J. (2014). Unlock the mysteries of your customer relationships. Harvard Business Review, 92(7/8), 72-81.
Devinney, T. M. (2013). Is microfoundational thinking critical to management thought and practice? Academy Of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 81-84.
Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). The role of external knowledge sources and organizational design in the process of opportunity exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1453-1471.
Harris, J. D., Johnson, S. G., & Souder, D. (2013). Model-theoretic knowledge accumulation: the case of agency theory and incentive alignment. Academy Of Management Review, 38(3), 442-454.
Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2014). Understanding management, trade, and society through fiction: lessons from the wire. Academy Of Management Review, 39(4), 576-585.
Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., & Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Journal, 34(12), 1389-1410.
Shumpei, I. (2015). Organizational routine and coordinated imitation. Annals of Business Administrative Science, 14(5), 279-291.
Suddaby, R. (2014). Editor’s comments: why theory? Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 407-411.
Zhao, Z. J., & Anand, J. (2013). Beyond boundary spanners: The ‘collective bridge’ as an efficient interunit structure for transferring collective knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1513-1530.