Написати анотацію (summary) англійською мовою, про що саме йдеться у тексті. Обсяг анотації – 7-9 речень. Scientific Management No one has had more influence on managers in the twentieth century than Frederick W. Taylor, an American engi­neer. He set a pattern for industrial work which many others have followed, and although his approach to management has been criticised, his ideas are still of prac­tical importance. Taylor founded the school of Scien­tific Management just before the 1914-18 war. He argued that work should be studied and analysed systematically. The operations required to perform a par­ticular job could be identified, then arranged in a logical sequence. After this was done, a worker's productivity would increase, and so would his/her wages. The new method was scientific. The way of doing a job would no longer be deter­mined by guesswork and rule-of-thumb practices. Instead, management would work out scientifically the method for producing the best results. If the worker followed the prescribed approach, his/her output would increase. When Taylor started work at the end of the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution was in full swing. Factories were being set up all over the USA. There was heavy investment in plant and machinery, and labour was plentiful. He worked for twenty years (1878-1898) with the Mid vale Steel Company, first as a labourer, then as a Shop Superintendent. After that, he was a consultant with the Bethle­hem Steel company in Pennsylvania. Throughout this time, he studied how to improve the efficiency of workers on the shop floor. He conducted many experiments to find out how to improve their productivity. His solutions to these problems were, therefore, based on his own experience. Later, he wrote about his experiments. These writings were collected and published in 1947, in a work entitled Scientific Management. When he was with Bethlehem Steel, Taylor criticized management and work­ers. He felt that managers were not using the right methods and that workers did not put much effort into their job. They were always "soldiering" - taking it easy. He wanted both groups to adopt a new approach to their work, which would change their thinking completely. The new way was as follows: 1. Each operation of a job was studied and analysed; 2. Using this information, management worked out the time and method for each job, and the type of equipment to be used; 3. Work was organised so that the worker's only responsibility was to do the job in the prescribed manner; 4. Men with the right physical skills were selected and trained for job. Observing; analysing; measuring; specifying the work method; organising and choosing the right person for the job - these were the tasks of management. Taylor's approach produced results! For example, at Bethlehem Steel, he did an experiment with shovels, the tool used for lifting and carrying materials. He studied the work of two first-class shovellers and then changed their working procedure. In the beginning, the men used their own shovels for all the types of the materials they handled, whether coal or iron ore. The average load was 38 pounds, and each lifted 25 tons of material a day. By experimenting, Taylor found out that the men used smaller shovels and carried 21 pounds per load, their daily output increased to 30 tons. As a result, at the beginning of each shift, workers were given different sized shovels, depending on the type of material they loaded, but the load was still 21 pounds. Other workers meeting the standards set by the two shovellers had their wages increased by 60%. Those who could not reach the standard were given special training in shovelling techniques. By introducing methods like these, Taylor and his colleagues greatly increased productivity at Bethlehem Steel. After a few years, the same amount of work was done by 140 workers instead 500. Handling costs of materials were halved, which led to annual savings of $80, 000.Taylor made a lasting contribution to management thinking. His main insight, that work can be systematically studied in order to improve working methods and productivity, was revolutionary. Also, he correctly emphasized that detailed plan­ning of jobs was necessary. The weakness of his approach was that it focused on the system of work rather than on the worker. With this system the worker becomes a tool in the hands of management. Another criticism is that it leads to de-skilling - reducing the skills of workers. Finally, some people think that it is wrong to separate doing from planning. The tasks can, and should, be done by the same person. A worker will be more productive if he/she is engaged in such activities as planning, deci­sion-making, controlling and organising.