Feel free to post
Thomas Astebro
Please post news releases or other interesting information for class on
this newsgroup. I invite you to discuss issues of interest. Jason has
opened up with a couple of good ones. Any takers??
Tom Astebro
Hiep Vuong
I have a few problems with the theory of technical complexity -
especially as it pertains to the textbook we are using in class.
Technical complexity (def.): A measure of the extent to which a
production process can be programmed so that it can be controlled and
made predictable.
Yet, Continuous-Process Technology is still classified as a High in
Technical Complexity. There are few discrepencies between this
classification and the definition of Technical Complexity. Namely:
"Thus an organic structure is the appropriate structure for managing
continous-process technology,because the potential for the unpredictable
events requires the capability to provide quick, flexible responses."
(p.367) and "He [Charles Perrow], believes nevertheless that the number
of unexpected events that can occur when technical complexity is very
high..." (p.367), which seems to point that the continuouse process
technology is actually low technical complexity (according to the Joan
Woodward definition) due to the unpredictablity of the jobs.
Actually, I have a lot of problems with the textbook's description of
the Continuous-Process Technology in general.
Another example, "The need to constantly monitor the operating system,
and to make sure that each employee conforms to accepted operating
procedures, is the reason why continuous process technology is
associated with the tallest hierarchy of authority (six levels)."
(p.367) Thus leading to the diamond shape structure.
This contradicts the very same book's statement in Chapter 3:
"Standardization reduces the need for managers and extra levels in the
hierarchy because rules and standard operating procedures substitute for
direct supervision - that is, rules replace face-to-face contact."
(p.108)
The use of standard operating procedures and having managers constantly
monitoring the employee activity seems to also contradict the Chapter 3,
"mechanistic structures are designed to induce people to behave in
predictable accountable ways. Decision-making authority is centralized,
subordinates are closely supervised ..."
Basically, do we follow this book blindly and accept (even though it
contradicts itself), or are we allowed a free will to say that
Continuous-Process Technology is clearly low nor high in Technical
Complexity, and that it uses a mechanistic structure that utilizes
decentralized decision making as necessary to deal with unpredicted
problems? - (or any other better description!)
There are other discrepencies throughout this book as well, but I chose
this one, because it seemed the most glaringly obvious.
I know personally I don't take this book on faith, but being as the
exams are multiple choice, the room for interpretation is rather narrow,
and the assignments are also marked predominantly based on use of the
definitions contained within this book.
Thomas Astebro
These questions requires some careful responses. Sorry I didn't get to
it until now.
Hiep Vuong wrote:
>
> I have a few problems with the theory of technical complexity -
> especially as it pertains to the textbook we are using in class.
>
> Technical complexity (def.): A measure of the extent to which a
> production process can be programmed so that it can be controlled and
> made predictable.
>
In class, I preferred to use the term programmability rather than
technical complexity.
> Yet, Continuous-Process Technology is still classified as a High in
> Technical Complexity. There are few discrepencies between this
> classification and the definition of Technical Complexity. Namely:
> "Thus an organic structure is the appropriate structure for managing
> continous-process technology,because the potential for the unpredictable
> events requires the capability to provide quick, flexible responses."
> (p.367) and "He [Charles Perrow], believes nevertheless that the number
> of unexpected events that can occur when technical complexity is very
> high..." (p.367), which seems to point that the continuouse process
> technology is actually low technical complexity (according to the Joan
> Woodward definition) due to the unpredictablity of the jobs.
>
Read the intro to continuous process technology, p. 364. Continuous
process technology, typically production of oil-based products and
chemicals, have processes where the production is almost completely
automated -- hence a high degree of programmability. In fact, computers,
electronic sensors and instruments are an integral part of the control
of the process, and when small deviations occur (e.g., temperature), the
process automatically adjusts itself.
Firms with these types of processes design their organization with two
things in mind: a) they need a lot of control over the normal day-to-day
events and for this standardization and standard operating procedures
are necessary; b) they need to be able to take care of (respond to)
**highly unlikely events** in the quickest and best fashion. Think of
the three mile island catastrophe. Operators must also be able to
almost instantaneoulsy react when a potentially disatrous problem occurs
-- there is no time to send a memo to your superior, as would be the
normal route in a highly mechanistic firm. An organic organization that
is overlayed on a foundation of mechanistic and computerized control is
therefore preferable.
> Actually, I have a lot of problems with the textbook's description of
> the Continuous-Process Technology in general.
>
> Another example, "The need to constantly monitor the operating system,
> and to make sure that each employee conforms to accepted operating
> procedures, is the reason why continuous process technology is
> associated with the tallest hierarchy of authority (six levels)."
> (p.367) Thus leading to the diamond shape structure.
>
This reflects a) in my above answer.
> This contradicts the very same book's statement in Chapter 3:
> "Standardization reduces the need for managers and extra levels in the
> hierarchy because rules and standard operating procedures substitute for
> direct supervision - that is, rules replace face-to-face contact."
> (p.108)
>
No.
> The use of standard operating procedures and having managers constantly
> monitoring the employee activity seems to also contradict the Chapter 3,
> "mechanistic structures are designed to induce people to behave in
> predictable accountable ways. Decision-making authority is centralized,
> subordinates are closely supervised ..."
>
Again, no.
> Basically, do we follow this book blindly and accept (even though it
> contradicts itself), or are we allowed a free will to say that
> Continuous-Process Technology is clearly low nor high in Technical
> Complexity, and that it uses a mechanistic structure that utilizes
> decentralized decision making as necessary to deal with unpredicted
> problems? - (or any other better description!)
>
The book is trying to convey the necessity of both having rules and
standard operating procedures for normal day-to-day operations, and the
necessity of being flexible in the case of a catastrophic event. It says
that programmability is high for these processes, but that you can never
make the process fail-safe. Because you can never make it fail-safe you
need to also design your organization for those failures.
> There are other discrepencies throughout this book as well, but I chose
> this one, because it seemed the most glaringly obvious.
>
> I know personally I don't take this book on faith, but being as the
> exams are multiple choice, the room for interpretation is rather narrow,
> and the assignments are also marked predominantly based on use of the
> definitions contained within this book.
I agree that the book sometimes contradicts itself, and that certain
(many) definitions are pretty stupid. If you have attended class you
will know my opinion on the text at various points and that will help
you on the final exam.
Regards,
Prof. Astebro