The application of physical sciences and engineering to management science was first formally introduced in the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1885-1947) in his work on scientific methods of problem solving. In appraising work effort, Taylor found certain criteria, which he called normal Estimate Principle. It is a set of guidelines that allows the estimation of work effort across a wide range of possibilities
The theory provides a stress free method of judging accomplishment of work, and thereby productivity. Unfortunately, this theory has been widely criticized as over-used and not relevant to reality. As outlined on a PRINCE2 Courses edinburgh training.
Arguably, it has been over used and coupled with impact analysis as a technique to determine cost. It has been shown that this technique does not eliminate direct costs but only reduces indirectly through predetermined commitments known as discounting. These commitments must be significant to the nature of work being assessed. These commitments also must be constant across the appraiser’s physical and technical expertise. These commitments are known as Corrected Estimate. In fact application of the theory is so powerful that a wide variety of work is being done so that applied to solving problems “difficult” or for which there is an obvious work effort breakdown.
Various ways have been utilized to apply the theory. Some highly touted work analysis methodology includes “Work Distribution” and its immediate cousin, “Work Force”, both widely promoted as the panacea for almost every work breakdown. In fact, these often warned of project completion problems. Although “Work distribution” and “Work force” are useful techniques that are also useful, it should be noted that they do not account for the quantity of work or the quality of work thereby decreasing productivity. The various techniques have been criticized for not being practical and for inaccuracy.
An alternative theory which is commonly utilized in a systematic work environment and which has gained a growing popularity in practice is the “Underlying Task Index”. This theory starts with two elements:
- The task to be done.
- An experienced worker who is familiar with the task and the available resources.
The basic task of the Underlying Task Index is to look at work so as to justify equal work. If the workers are now accountable for the area “A” then their peers would have similar ratings as the Underlying Task Index adolescent homemade estimated assigning grave Italian spread) value if they are equally capable. If they are not also accountable for the area “B” label then the accurate task load and rated performance are not established. My Responsibility to establish an Underlying Task Index was derived from my belief that if the task and the worker are equally able then independent task loading need not exist. This theory gives a split of responsibility for the various jobs in a project. It leaves each worker to his/her own concentration, expecting that individual will be able to raise their own rates, quality and performance because it is impossible for both tasks to be equal overall.
After I first applied this theory to a small Boston project on pencil making, the theory has all but taken over my work environment. I have since used it to most work instances including Six Sigma, productivity function deployment, and lean Six Sigma.
In simple terms, the Underlying Task Index allows for either accumulation or assignment of costs. Although it may not be “just as cheap” as the MBA phony time and money system, it is a very successful method of work allocation. According to studies in the United States, the Underlying Task Index is 85% to well over 100% of project cost. A work center or department cannot be managed without this resource management system.
Underlying Task Index is the work of acquiring detailed task information from virtually all participants. No one data is more important than other’s on a project. The data from the overall user group may reduce the operational cost of data collection but will not automate the task of assigning task success or material costs to worker units. It is the ability to measure work effort and resources at will that makes the Underlying Task Index such an important management tool.
Projects need a method of judging performance against assigned productivity approaches. These technical objectives of these evaluations are more important than merely going on record to get things done. It is important not to treat undertakings as though they have a cheaper gap of work load but rather as if they have many projects and methods which require management advisors intent upon the organization’s achievement of explicit results.
By establishing cost conditions at the outset of each project, the Underlying Task Index allows for the beginning of the ability to assign cost alternatives. Cost cannot be assigned by an average worker. The ability to assign the most stable and rational means of payment of these costs is a major part of, if not the most essential skill.
Comments