Systematic Management: Design for Organizational Recoupling in American Manufacturing Firms

Abstract

In developing techniques and guides for many of the regular or routine activities of managers, the Systematic Management movement of the late nineteenth century performed an important service for American business. The movement's response to breakdowns in the internal co-ordination of manufacturing firms was especially significant and forms the basis for Professor Litterer's analysis of the relevant literature.

Complementarity constraints and induced innovation: some evidence from the first IT regime

“…The necessary change in entrepreneurial strategy led to a new structure of firms (Chandler (1962), Chandler (1977)). Its operational implementation is discussed in Litterer (1963), Yates (1989), Levenstein (1998) and Hölzl and Reinstaller (2000). † We offer an interpretation of this process in accordance with the framework put forward in the preceding section.…”

“…The reaction to this failure was the Systemic Management movement that gained large support in US manufacturing in the late 1870s (Litterer (1963)). It "based its reassertion of control and co-ordination on record keeping and flows of written information up, down, and across the hierarchy" with the aim to "transcend reliance on the individual in favour of dependence on system" and to monitor and evaluate performance (Yates (1989): 10-11).…”

The Evolution of Standard Costing in the U.K. and U.S.: From Decision Making to Control

“…Some businesses responded to the crisis by merging with competitors, while others automated production, further subdivided labour tasks and generally sought to decrease labour costs. U.S. firms initially adopted more rational and systematic management procedures, including better shop planning and layout and specialization by product, technical operation and production process (Litterer, 1963). 11 Articles describing ways to improve first appeared in the mid-1880s in U.S. journals sponsored by engineering societies and 10 See Ezzamel et al (1990) and Hoskin and Macve (1988a, 1988b, 1994 for their differing interpretation of the nature of standard costing at the Springfield Armory in the early 1840s.…”

An Historical Perspective of Reward Systems: Lessons Learned from the Scientific Management Era

“…The most prevalent cooperative payment system during the scientific management era, as well as during the systematic management movement that preceded and greatly influenced this era, was profit sharing (Litterer, 1963). While profit sharing and gain sharing are both based on group incentives, gain sharing is based on cost savings as opposed to profit increases (Milkovich et al, 2011).…”