FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W222195164> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W222195164 abstract "With the continuing shift toward more decentralized, team-based work structures, efforts to improve are often linked to efforts to improve productivity. This ongoing restructuring of the workplace has important implications for technical education. Educators need to have an understanding of how and why organizations are pursuing these changes. A widely prevalent assumption in the literature is that both goals--quality and productivity--can be achieved by the same management strategy. In reality, although the changes initiated by process-oriented programs can reduce the amount of scrapped or reworked products and boost measures of productivity, such changes can also involve revisions in work processes that increase costs and lower measures of productivity. Evidence shows that employees can--on the whole--make more accurate decisions about issues of (and efficiency) than their managers, but there is no guarantee. The wave of the future is clearly a continuing decentralization of authority and more teamwork. An instructional model for technical education that provides training in the specific skills needed in today's team-based workplaces is cooperative learning. The challenge for technical educators is to gain an understanding of the basic ideas and techniques involved in cooperative learning. They need to consult with others who have used group techniques, develop applications appropriate for their own classrooms, take the plunge, and stay the course. (Contains 14 references.) (YLB) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made is from the original document. is *********************************************************************** Cr) 00 rn Cr) C-) THE CHALLENGE OF EDUCATING FOR QUALITY AND PRODUCTIVITY IN THE TECHNICAL WORKPLACE U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Off e of Educational Research and Improvement ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Introduction John Magney Dept. of Technical & Resource Management Southern Illinois University Presentation to Technical Education Division American Vocational Association Dallas, Texas December 11, 1994 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESO RCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). Thousands of employers have committed themselves to the achievement of higher levels of and productivity. This has been especially true in the private sector, but increasingly many government agencies are also giving priority to these goals. Historically, these concerns with productivity and grew out of quite different management research traditions and -for many years -they were dealt with in separate workplace programs. This has changed. Today, with the continuing shift toward more decentralized, team-based work structures, efforts to improve are often linked to efforts to improve productivity. Unlike the older hierarchical work structures, where employee behavior was closely regulated by formal controls, workers in today's teamwork structures are encouraged to give input on -and help resolve workplace problems. This ongoing restructuring of the U.S. workplace has important implications for technical education. Educators need to have an understanding of how and why organizations are pursuing these changes. This is essential if they are to give their students an adequate set of skills for coping with today's work.routines. In a moment, I will desribe an emerging pedagogy which I think has great relevance for technical educators. But before I get into that, let's take a look at the historical record on and productivity, at how they were treated in the traditional bureaucratic workplace, and at how they came to be linked together in today's teamwork structures. An Historical Record Notions of productivity have long dominated the thinking of modern management. How to get more units of product for the same (or fewer) units of worker-energy was the key question for Frederick Taylor's (1972) seminal musings on scientific 2 BEST COPY IAILABLE -2management a hundred years ago. Taylor felt that workers were naturally inclined to limit their productivity (through soldiering). The way to deal with this, he argued, was for managers to develop systems to measure, monitor and control -workplace behavior. A similar concern guided the development of Fordism and assembly-line technology in the auto industry in the 1920s. Industrial engineering went on to ref ineTaylor's measurment ideas into the methodology of time and motion studies. And programs to upgrade productivity became a standard feature of the industrial landscape. These programs were carried out through bureaucratic rules and regulations devised by management, usually with limited input from bottomline employees. Industrial unions, however, did begin to exercise some control over production issues after World War II (Gomberg, 1955). For many years, was determined through the final inspection of products; if an item passed inspection, it went on the market, if not, it was scrapped or reworked. A revisionist view on emerged in the 1930s in the work of Walter Shewhart (1931) and his colleagues. They developed a sophisticated statistical methodology to measure and control levelswithin production processes. But these techniques were poorly understood and not applied to any significant degree until World War II, with the buildup of the defense industry. But this was only a partial breakthrough, and after the war, little effort was made to maintain these statistical programs. Not unitl the .1970s, with the continuing Japanese success in U.S. markets, did U.S. manufacturers begin to seriously address the of American production. As moved up the corporate agenda, many companies decided to set up Japanese style quality circles -little groups of workers discussing their immediate job conditions and making suggestions for change (Lawler and Mohrman, 1985). Other companies opted for the broader vision encompassed in quality of working life programs. Here the focus was on the whole working environment, not just the immediate work site, and how to restructure this environment to promote higher levels of (Lawler, Mohrman & Ledford, 1992). Organizing employees into work teams with increased decision-making responsibilities seemed to get very good results. Companies with unions often encountered employee skepticism about the value of these programs. But, interestingly, research showed that these companies were more likely to develop effective employee-involvement programs than those with nonunionized workforces (Hoerr, 1991). Contemporary Workplace Challenges A widely prevalent assumption in the literature on modern programs is that what is good for is also good for productivity; both goals can be achieved by the same management strategy (Deming, 1982 and Juran & Gryna, 1993). In reality, the situation is not quite this simple. While it is true that changes initiated by processoriented programs can reduce the amount of scrap and rework (and thus boost measures of productivity), such changes can also involve revisions in work processes" @default.
• W222195164 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W222195164 creator A5037041581 @default.
• W222195164 date "1994-12-11" @default.
• W222195164 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W222195164 title "The Challenge of Educating for Quality and Productivity in the Technical Workplace." @default.
• W222195164 cites W1531814423 @default.
• W222195164 cites W1580155093 @default.
• W222195164 cites W2091311817 @default.
• W222195164 cites W231266019 @default.
• W222195164 cites W2420992250 @default.
• W222195164 cites W565455913 @default.
• W222195164 cites W582420810 @default.
• W222195164 hasPublicationYear "1994" @default.
• W222195164 type Work @default.
• W222195164 sameAs 222195164 @default.
• W222195164 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W222195164 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W222195164 hasAuthorship W222195164A5037041581 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C204983608 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C21547014 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W222195164 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C111472728 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C112930515 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C127413603 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C138885662 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C144133560 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C162324750 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C204983608 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C21547014 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C2779530757 @default.
• W222195164 hasConceptScore W222195164C50522688 @default.
• W222195164 hasLocation W2221951641 @default.
• W222195164 hasOpenAccess W222195164 @default.
• W222195164 hasPrimaryLocation W2221951641 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W114666142 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W1545071016 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W1960530058 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2013699782 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2054805010 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2063701523 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2075991403 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2134800420 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W214590487 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2155087162 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2166645133 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W21865142 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2611110215 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W284172433 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W309907062 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W3120904912 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W3136569707 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W60490513 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W611750935 @default.
• W222195164 hasRelatedWork W2563388880 @default.
• W222195164 isParatext "false" @default.
• W222195164 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W222195164 magId "222195164" @default.
• W222195164 workType "article" @default.