Organisation Theory – Assignment 1

Question:

“The Fordist system is incompatible with long-term innovation.” Discuss this assertion.

Answer:

Fordism is a part of the American System of Manufactures, its general concept and fundamental paradigm is pretty much similar with Taylorism, which is grouped together in the world of functionalist paradigm. Regarding their ability to innovate is not fully relevant in nature since their rigid hierarchical structures are not designed to do such a quick change in the first place.

The general concept of Fordism is based on the assumption idea of the “mass market” where large factories with high fixed costs achieve returns only by developing economies of scale that enable them to produce a large number of a limited range of standardized products. Ford and Taylor assumed that the market is homogeneous, doesn’t require much change, and they assessed their point of view mainly from the efficiency and profitability of production, without bearing the market demand.

However, many years later, people getting sick and bored with the Model T that Ford Motor offered. The colour was paint all black, with standardization of its model, spare parts, tires, and even the perks. It was a huge success in the early years of launch though, however, some people expect a customization and trying to be different from other people, which is something that Ford Motor doesn’t come up with. This was result in a short term benefits, however, on the subsequent year its market share dropped significantly due to lack of innovation.

For innovation to occur, something more than the generation of a creative idea or insight is required: the insight must be put into action to make a genuine difference, resulting for example in new or altered business processes within the organisation, or changes in the products and services provided.

Fordism’s assembly line work is unpleasant in a mass production environment. It is physically demanding, requires high levels of concentration, and can be excruciatingly boring. As a consequence. according to the somewhat stylized facts, Ford, believing “men work for only two reasons: one is for wages, and one is for fear of losing their jobs,” dealt with labor turnover by doubling pay to $5 a day; that other manufacturer’s emulated Ford’s wage policies along with his production methods; and that eventually all employers were forced to bring wages into line with those offered unskilled labor in manufacturing. In other words: premium pay for putting up with what Gramsci described as mass production’s “monotonous, degrading, and life draining work process.”

Another assumption on worker’s perspective; that workers’ own tacit knowledge (the knowledge which retrieved from working on the shop floor) is also ignored due to management’s perspective of worker having insufficient knowledge to understand the whole work process. It is true that the level of knowledge of production factory worker was pretty much low, but as workers gain their knowledge throughout time from various customer’s feedbacks and how they think they can help to improve the systems, it becomes very important input for innovation and enhancement of the product and the management itself.

Fordism was very much based on his assumption belief of “rabble hypothesis”; that every individual acts in a manner calculated to secure his self-interest; and only respond in terms of financial rewards. The system can be seen as a two way process. The workers saw that there is no driving force for them to tell their manager about an improvement in the workplace, a.k.a innovation; how to make things better since their management doesn’t reward them anything. Ford also banned workers from taking and whispering, as Ford believed that this distracted them from the job in hand and would result in a decrease in production speed. Its manager and worker relation was generally conflictual rather than co-operative.

In Fordism, Innovation is a very hard word to come out with. It involves huge investment and complete redesign of its entire workflow and existing technology since the degree of specialization, standardization and integration of production steps is enormously high and changes or modifications in certain parts requires an approval from top management, which of course will cost more time to process. Top down research and development took years to plan new products. Where markers were stable and all other participants acted in a similar way, this was unproblematic.

After the failure of the Fordism system, many believed that it reached its social, organizational and technological limits. There are three main driving forces behind the emergence of Post-Fordism are the rising of new technologies, internationalization and the paradigm shift from Fordism to post-Fordism. Believed that a new post-fordist form of society would emerge from the growing computer, media and communications technologies; In fact that recent day, changes and innovations are everywhere, our global economic world playing field, according to economist Thomas L Friedman, is being leveled, means that several technological and political forces have converged, and that has produced a global, Web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration without regard to geography or distance – or soon, even language.

Post-Fordism is based on the dominance of a flexible and permanently innovative pattern of accumulation. It is based on flexible production, rising incomes for polyvalent skilled workers and the service class and increased profits based on technological and other innovations. Post-Fordism is more demand than supply-driven. Competition will turn on non-price factors such as improved quality and performance for individual products and responsiveness to customers.

In the conclusion, the post-fordist system acknowledges consumer tastes by increasing its differentiation in the market, therefore initiates and addresses the very important issues of long term innovation. Post-fordism rests on the presumption that a competitive edge cannot be gained by treating workers like machines and that nobody in the manufacturing process, but the assembly worker, adds value, that the assembly worker can perform most functions better than specialists (lean manufacturing), and that every step of the fabrication process should be done perfectly (TQM), thus reducing the need for buffer stocks (JIT) and producing a higher quality end-product.

Read Full Post »

BBC Online revolution!

Forward the online revolution

We all have the power to shape the networked world, argues regular commentator Bill Thompson.

The Amazon warehouse illustrates how the networked economy works

Over the last 20 years the global economy has been shaped and reshaped by computers and the growing reach of the internet as a public communications network.

Businesses now rely on the net in the way they relied on the telephone back in the 1950s or the railway back in Victorian days, and new ways of doing business are constantly emerging based around the capabilities of the network.

This has happened at the same time as manufacturing technology and processes have undergone their own revolution.

In The World is Flat economist Thomas Friedman describes how companies like Dell manage their supply lines and how the way products are designed and built has been transformed, a model that many other companies emulate.

Last week’s UK papers featured a dramatic panoramic photograph of the Amazon warehouse in Milton Keynes, with millions of parcels waiting to be dispatched for Christmas in a graphic illustration of how today’s networked economy works.

These changes to the economy matter, because the way business works and production is organised affect our daily lives in many different ways, but we rarely consider just how deep the impact goes.

New worlds

Over 150 years ago Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels outlined an economic theory which claimed that the economic base, or infrastructure, of a society shaped what the rest of society would be like.

They believed that politics, culture, family structure, the mass media and everything else – what they term the ‘superstructure’ – depended on the way the economy works, so that if the economic base changed then daily life would also change.

We still have the power to shape the networked world, as long as we realise we can. Bill Thompson

We don’t have to accept the whole political philosophy which Marx built around his economic model to realise that this is happening all around us, and daily life and cultural structures are changing as the underlying economy shifts.

The network, built and designed to permit fast exchange of information between companies, built to facilitate financial transactions both wholesale and retail, has become a conduit for individual self-expression.

As a result, at least in the developed West where access is becoming universal, political processes, media models and the assumptions of everyday life are being changed.

The shape of the US election was partly determined by the blogosphere, especially the election monitoring that is going on and the way it foregrounded political hypocrisy.

In the recent Dutch elections over half of voters consulted an online advice site which may have boosted support for minority parties by raising voter awareness of their positions. And in the UK political bloggers are launching online TV services and being courted by politicians.

We are inventing new forms of artistic and cultural expression, from machinima to mashups via video clips and blogs, and soon we will find ways to curate, present and sell them, as we do with every other form of artistic expression.

Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto

Participative media, citizen journalism, blogging and social networking mark the point at which the social structures of the second half of the 20th century finally break down and vanish and new relationships emerge.

Companies like Dell feel the fury of their former consumers and try to reinvent themselves in the image of the participative community, even if they sometimes stumble.

And every media outlet is turning to its former audience and trying to find ways to include and embrace people, hoping that they can turn participation into money when previously all they needed were passive viewers.

Some may succeed, though newspapers seem to have passed the point of no return, and many are rather like Macbeth: ‘in ink stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er’.

History doesn’t end, but eras do, and between 2000 and 2006 we have seen the end of the post-war era and the first flowering of the network world.

So how are we going to deal with the social, political and economic impact of the monster that we have unleashed since the two-way web came back into fashion?

Network laws

If we’re going to move forward and do so in a way that will give us a modicum of network and social justice we have to recognise two fundamental principles.

The first was expressed most clearly by Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig when he pointed out that “code is law”.

Networks permit fast exchange of information between companies

We write the code, the underlying software that creates the network and so, within the broad limits of physical and mathematical reality, we can do whatever we want with or to the network.

The second is even more fundamental.

In the big game of scissors, paper, stone that characterises the network’s evolution, politics trumps engineering.

The limits on our capabilities, and the breadth of our vision, depend on politics (which includes religious and social concerns) far more than engineering.

This means that technical bodies like the Internet Engineering Task Force will always lose to the political groups like ICANN, the body that the US Government has appointed to look after things like domain names and IP addresses.

It means that when the hard decisions have to be made then the political imperative will come first, even if that means compromising on engineering efficiency.

Yet all is not lost. The revolutionary period is not yet done, and there is still time to shape the technologies and politics to give outcomes which we progressive liberals would approve of, still time for social justice and freedom of expression to be built into the laws and the code.

Not all revolutions are violent or involve storming a nearby prison to release those held there. And not every revolution ends in disaster and the betrayal of the very causes that drove it forward.

We still have the power to shape the networked world, as long as we realise we can.

Read Full Post »

Paradigm shift… OT

Section B : Paradigm shift.

Paradigm: it is patterned way of seeing and making sense of this world. It leads to greater predictability and some control of how human behave. It is firstly introduced by Thomas Kuhn, who proposed a break from its dominant paradigm (known as functionalism).

Kuhn argued that a shift occurs when a sufficient number of anomalies are in conflict with existing scientific or metaphysical rules. The anomalies that occur apparently cannot be solved thoroughly using human relations schools, so it is essential to break through from the dominant paradigm so that we are able to further examine from a very different point of view.

Burrell and Morgan argued that in order to identify a theory, it is necessary to know the “assumptions on which it rests.” Scientific does make an assumption of a rational human behaviour, but according to B&M, there were other assumptions on which organization theory was based, and that these would lead to different perspective. One assumption is regarding the nature of social sciences, whether it is objective or subjective. Another one is to understand the nature of society itself, whether it is radical change or, on the other hand, regulation.

Combining the two dimensions will ultimately result in a matrix type of combination comprising four different paradigms. The first one is objective and regulation paradigm (known as functionalist paradigm), which primarily characterized by its goal of pursuing efficiency, productivity, control over power, and its regulation. Preferably suitable for stable environment, status quo, social order, consensus, actuality and bureaucracy does play an important administrative role in this matter. (Taylorism, Fordism, Sloanism, Structural contingency theory). It assumes rational human action and believes one can understand organizational behaviour through hypothesis testing.

The second paradigm is a combination of subjectivity and regulation (known as Interpretive paradigm), which is still related on the main concern of efficiency and productivity of output, however, this paradigm recognize the essential part of human relation on its process. Researchers in this paradigm try to observe “on-going processes” to better understand individual behaviour and shared meanings.

The third paradigm is a combination of radical change and objective dimension (known as radical structuralist paradigm). This paradigm explains the fundamental conflict in society (class struggle) and how they would bring about change. Often these changes are radical and revolutionary,

further emphasis on how human related to its structure, from a micro point of view. The human relation school firstly introduced by Elton mayo which further identified the social interaction does affect on efficiency.

his experimental work in the Hawthorne plant.

What is Organisation theory? OT provides basic understanding, analyzing and interpreting why organizations are structured differently and how these structures impact organizational outcomes such as strategy, products, markets, efficiency, etc.

4 premises: ASSUMPTIONS, CONDITION, MECHANISM, CONCLUSION.

Taylorism::

The rise of Scientific Management (ASM American System of Manufactures). Firstly introduced by F.Taylor, studying the time it took each worker to complete a step;, and by rearranging equipment, Taylor believed he could discover what an average worker could produce under optimum conditions. In addition, he figured the promise of higer wages would create added incentive for workers to exceed this “average” level. To Taylor, the “one right way” of doing job well is the scientific way.

Key elements of his management:

1. Rationalisation: the integration of technology, work and management.
2. Fragmentation: greater efficiency of working method on the shop floor through the simplification of tasks.

Taylor thought it was natural that workers would “soldier”, i.e be lazy, and that they needed to be controlled and disciplined by managers. He did not see that under certain conditions workers would voluntarily cooperate with managers to improve production processes. Taylorism assumptions: decision rested with mgt and authority (weber’s bureaucracy), orgs is like machine, can be engineered, workers are the tools of mgt, soldiering, division labour, wages incentives are meant to increase worker’s productivity.

Taylorism is based on the idea of the “mass market” where large factories with high fixed costs achieve returns only by developing economies of scale that enable them to produce a large number of a limited range of standardized products.

Fordism::

The shift from Taylorism to Fordism is a natural process when productivity slowed down within an organization when Taylorism reached its limits: efficiency gains were being outstripped by increasing cost of surveillance. (rigid separation of mntal and management)

POST-fordism: the idea that work could be rationalized was gradually taken up in industrial societies but was stripped of some elements of its Taylorist past, in particular deskilling. These new systems saw the increasing customization of products and services.

Concept: standardization of parts, standardization of speed, economies of scale. By the efficient use of conveyor belt, and minute division of labour, Ford was able to reduce the total production time. The mode of macroeconomic growth was based on the “accumulation regime” that creates a “virtous cycle” of wealth creation. Ford realized that mass production required mass consumption, and mass consumption could only more about with affordability of car purchasers. Ford enhanced the chance formore purchase by boosting the wages of his own workers and designing loan packages under the concept of “Buy now, Pay later”.

Weaknesses: while Taylorism saw alienation arising from production, Fordism saw alienation from “self”. Quality of the life of the worker is poor, the simplicity of the tast, the relentless speed and noise of the line, the boredom and the fatigue. Marxist saw it as a deskilling and control over power (done so deliberately by employers in order to keep skills at a low level). Human manual and mental actions were split totally, with impersonality extended further. Relations between management and employees were generally conflictual rather than co-operative. In Germany, technology is not a means to destroy existing expertise but to expand and develop it.

In the short term, the fordist system is simply too inflexible if there was a discontinuous shift In technology or changing/demanding customer requirements requiring swift adjustments. As for the long term, there may be the missed opportunity to build in innovations into the next generation manufacturing plants. Usually should be able to innovate the necessary in the assemblies but their limited skills meant an inability to continue to the development of technology and/or the production of more sophisticated goods. (no variety).

It was very expensive to change the production of cars, the huge costs for machinery meant that once bought, a piece of machinery would be kept and used even after it had become obsolete. However, this cost saving strategy was very short sighted in that it saved money in the short term but meant that in the long term Ford’s factories were unable to handle changes in market demand. The decline in productivity and profits in the 1960s and 1970s in the UK was a direct result of this.

The Japanese had a flexible system of production based on the For model but at a lower cost with high quality and variety. The Germans still incurred high cost but it had a high reputation and customization, with a diversified system of production. All these firms, in combining mass production, customization and diversification, out-competed the US firms. With innovations in work process and products, a more adaptable production system was put in place. Tech was also used to enhance skills in order to create higher quality products.

With the introduction of JIT (just in time) manufacturing by the Japanese, the old Foridst “just in case” manufacturing system where parts and spare components are stockpiled, was made obsolete. This rigidity and inflexibility originally set out by fords working practices has now been replaced by a fast paced, dynamic and constantly evolving capitalist world.

These modifications did not save ASM but delayed its inevitable demise. As Morgan says: “These new ideas constitute waves of renewal which left their own practices, proposals and solutions as sediments, modifying but not fundamentally changing the system… In this sense, these innovations merely postpone the day of reckoning rather than putting it off altogether.

Human relation

Taylor and Ford: believed in “RABBLE HYPOTHESIS”, (natural society consists of a horde of unorganized individuals; every individual acts in a manner calculated to secure his self-interest; every individual acts in a manner calculated to secure his self-interest; every individual thinks logically, to the best of his ability, in the service of this aim. This is why the best way to induce workers to work harder is to offer them more money.

Structural Contingency Theory

Any misfit between the contingency variables and the structure leads to lower performance. If there is a change in any of the contingency variables, the structure is out of fit and the organization needs to undergo structural change to regain fit between contingency variables and structure. The move from misfit to fit is adaptive change which is the essence of structural contingency theory.

The main factors which are identified by the SCTs are: the environment of the organisation, the form of technology used, and size of the organization.

Burns and Stalker (Organic and Mechanistic organization)

The most effective structure is one that adjusts to the requirements of the environment.

Lawrence and Lorsch

The researchers were most interested in comparing the degree of integration and differentiation between subgroups in each company, and how these subgroups related to the environment the firm operated within.

The two elements represented opposing forces. Thus, there is a need to achieve a balance, and a structure is chosen to keep this balance in order to be effective.

While SM and rational choice deals with one variable (Assumption), SCT argues that there are simply too many variables and the best that an organization could do was to examine the CONDITIONS in the environment that allowed it to operate smoothly. Thus SCT is an extension of the ASM by understanding its environment and structure fit, by looking at its size and dependency level.

Read Full Post »

VoIP is dead? (Introducing Jajah)

“VoIP is Dead”

“VoIp is Dead” is what Jajah co-founder Roman Scharf announced from ETRE today. The whole quote actually says “VoIP, as it’s thought of today, is dead”. But there you go.

Is VoIP really dead? – Well, some might say it can’t be dead, it’s a description of a technology. For all the early adopters among us VoIP stands for Voice over Internet Protocol. Companies like Skype made this technology famous by letting people talk over the internet, and not have to pay long distance charges for the “call”. Nice invention! The only issue is it’s too complicated for regular people who still believe a phone is a phone and a computer is a computer.

Jajah calls also use the internet for a part of the call – this is how we are able to remove the cost of long distance phone calls. But unlike VoIP 1.0 companies like Skype, Jajah uses regular phones on both ends of the call – and since the introduction of Jajah Mobile, you don’t need computers at all. Now you can simply make a long distance / international calls directly from an everyday mobile phone.

So, when we say ” VoIP is Dead” what we are really saying is you can now make free and very low cost calls around the world and you don’t need to know what VoIP is. You no longer need to care. All you need to do is join Jajah – and start calling. Our vision is to remove the barriers to communication for everyday people, not just early adopter and technology users who are comfortable with downloads and headsets and microphones.

Jajah is for everybody who has a phone that wants to make free and low cost telephone calls to someone else with a telephone. It’s that easy.

VoIP isn’t really dead, of course, but who cares. Jajah makes it so everyday people can make free or low cost calls without needing to know what VoIP is.

JAJAH is made for people who …

* want to call anyone, anywhere in the world at anytime for free, or at super-low rates
* like to use their existing phone (mobile or landline) to make their calls
* want to keep their existing phone number and don’t want another binding contract
* don’t want to be tied to their computer via a headset
* want to call their friends for free – no matter if they are online or not or don’t even have a computer (your grandmother for example)
* are not excited by downloading complicated software and spending hours messing with settings to do internet calls
* have any sort of internet connection (broadband or dial-up, wireless or wired)

Personal experience: Well, i tried to put in my number and destination number, and IT WORKS for sure. btw (i’m still unsure this so called “super-low rates” calling rates… who knows?)… just wait and see the feedback from the internet.
Jajah really make a nice breakthrough though.. 😀
Go Go Go!!
-eXeQzaLie-

OFficial website::: www.jajah.com

Read Full Post »

I Heart Mozilla Firefox!

Today I came back home early around 6pm and watched my two housemates playing new released 2142 Battlefied (EA games).. while they’re playing I’m coding my own blog, adding some online dictionary, thanks to Merriam-Webster for providing the HTML code, I’m basically just modifying a bit (eliminating the thesaurus and fixing the width size etc), and alas, the new upgraded blogger is just simply nice. They respond faster than usual, loading time decreased, and the user interface is just… nice. Indeed.

For the recent problem that occurs regarding my own Apache server, apparently there’s an overlap in defining the serial port number, I was previously using the port 80, I already opened the firewall and its gateway, and it works until yesterday, a feedback from my friend asking for an access to download some music/pics from my pc. I reviewed the server log and apparently there’s no traffic since last week. Lol… weird.

I figured out that one of my housemate is also opening the so called port 80. so I tried to find another port that hasn’t yet used, so I moved to 81 instead. However as the thing moved, I also trying to figure the DynDNS, the domain exeqzalie.homelinux cannot be use temporarily, I’ll provide the direct IP instead… but shiet… the IP is somewhat dynamic.. not permanent one… T_T

So after I attended a career workshop with one of the Microsoft deputy office or something, I understand the importance of information management, including the basic management of one’s bookmark information. I wanted to do this grouping since long time ago but I’m too lazy or dunno why… btw.. today… at last…

Ok.. so I booked Yulia’s ticket online, and she’s quite happy about it. and uh.. btw I think I’ll make an excuse to my supervisor that I’m having a holiday from 11 till 5jan.. haha… erm… oh yes, I’m reading the Friedman’s book “The world is flat” recently, and I’ll try to highlight some abit of the portion here.

Read Full Post »

Organisation Theory – glance

Section B : Paradigm shift.

Paradigm: it is patterned way of seeing and making sense of this world. It leads to greater predictability and some control of how human behave. It is firstly introduced by Thomas Kuhn, who proposed a break from its dominant paradigm (known as functionalism).

Kuhn argued that a shift occurs when a sufficient number of anomalies are in conflict with existing scientific or metaphysical rules. The anomalies that occur apparently cannot be solved thoroughly using human relations schools, so it is essential to break through from the dominant paradigm so that we are able to further examine from a very different point of view.

Burrell and Morgan argued that in order to identify a theory, it is necessary to know the “assumptions on which it rests.” Scientific does make an assumption of a rational human behaviour, but according to B&M, there were other assumptions on which organization theory was based, and that these would lead to different perspective. One assumption is regarding the nature of social sciences, whether it is objective or subjective. Another one is to understand the nature of society itself, whether it is radical change or, on the other hand, regulation.

Combining the two dimensions will ultimately result in a matrix type of combination comprising four different paradigms. The first one is objective and regulation paradigm (known as functionalist paradigm), which primarily characterized by its goal of pursuing efficiency, productivity, control over power, and its regulation. Preferably suitable for stable environment, status quo, social order, consensus, actuality and bureaucracy does play an important administrative role in this matter. (Taylorism, Fordism, Sloanism, Structural contingency theory). It assumes rational human action and believes one can understand organizational behaviour through hypothesis testing.

The second paradigm is a combination of subjectivity and regulation (known as Interpretive paradigm), which is still related on the main concern of efficiency and productivity of output, however, this paradigm recognize the essential part of human relation on its process. Researchers in this paradigm try to observe “on-going processes” to better understand individual behaviour and shared meanings.

The third paradigm is a combination of radical change and objective dimension (known as radical structuralist paradigm). This paradigm explains the fundamental conflict in society (class struggle) and how they would bring about change. Often these changes are radical and revolutionary,

further emphasis on how human related to its structure, from a micro point of view. The human relation school firstly introduced by Elton mayo which further identified the social interaction does affect on efficiency.

his experimental work in the Hawthorne plant.

What is Organisation theory? OT provides basic understanding, analyzing and interpreting why organizations are structured differently and how these structures impact organizational outcomes such as strategy, products, markets, efficiency, etc.

4 premises: ASSUMPTIONS, CONDITION, MECHANISM, CONCLUSION.

Taylorism::

The rise of Scientific Management (ASM American System of Manufactures). Firstly introduced by F.Taylor, studying the time it took each worker to complete a step;, and by rearranging equipment, Taylor believed he could discover what an average worker could produce under optimum conditions. In addition, he figured the promise of higer wages would create added incentive for workers to exceed this “average” level. To Taylor, the “one right way” of doing job well is the scientific way.

Key elements of his management:

1. Rationalisation: the integration of technology, work and management.
2. Fragmentation: greater efficiency of working method on the shop floor through the simplification of tasks.

Taylor thought it was natural that workers would “soldier”, i.e be lazy, and that they needed to be controlled and disciplined by managers. He did not see that under certain conditions workers would voluntarily cooperate with managers to improve production processes. Taylorism assumptions: decision rested with mgt and authority (weber’s bureaucracy), orgs is like machine, can be engineered, workers are the tools of mgt, soldiering, division labour, wages incentives are meant to increase worker’s productivity.

Taylorism is based on the idea of the “mass market” where large factories with high fixed costs achieve returns only by developing economies of scale that enable them to produce a large number of a limited range of standardized products.

Fordism::

The shift from Taylorism to Fordism is a natural process when productivity slowed down within an organization when Taylorism reached its limits: efficiency gains were being outstripped by increasing cost of surveillance. (rigid separation of mntal and management)

POST-fordism: the idea that work could be rationalized was gradually taken up in industrial societies but was stripped of some elements of its Taylorist past, in particular deskilling. These new systems saw the increasing customization of products and services.

Concept: standardization of parts, standardization of speed, economies of scale. By the efficient use of conveyor belt, and minute division of labour, Ford was able to reduce the total production time. The mode of macroeconomic growth was based on the “accumulation regime” that creates a “virtous cycle” of wealth creation. Ford realized that mass production required mass consumption, and mass consumption could only more about with affordability of car purchasers. Ford enhanced the chance formore purchase by boosting the wages of his own workers and designing loan packages under the concept of “Buy now, Pay later”.

Weaknesses: while Taylorism saw alienation arising from production, Fordism saw alienation from “self”. Quality of the life of the worker is poor, the simplicity of the tast, the relentless speed and noise of the line, the boredom and the fatigue. Marxist saw it as a deskilling and control over power (done so deliberately by employers in order to keep skills at a low level). Human manual and mental actions were split totally, with impersonality extended further. Relations between management and employees were generally conflictual rather than co-operative. In Germany, technology is not a means to destroy existing expertise but to expand and develop it.

In the short term, the fordist system is simply too inflexible if there was a discontinuous shift In technology or changing/demanding customer requirements requiring swift adjustments. As for the long term, there may be the missed opportunity to build in innovations into the next generation manufacturing plants. Usually should be able to innovate the necessary in the assemblies but their limited skills meant an inability to continue to the development of technology and/or the production of more sophisticated goods. (no variety).

It was very expensive to change the production of cars, the huge costs for machinery meant that once bought, a piece of machinery would be kept and used even after it had become obsolete. However, this cost saving strategy was very short sighted in that it saved money in the short term but meant that in the long term Ford’s factories were unable to handle changes in market demand. The decline in productivity and profits in the 1960s and 1970s in the UK was a direct result of this.

The Japanese had a flexible system of production based on the For model but at a lower cost with high quality and variety. The Germans still incurred high cost but it had a high reputation and customization, with a diversified system of production. All these firms, in combining mass production, customization and diversification, out-competed the US firms. With innovations in work process and products, a more adaptable production system was put in place. Tech was also used to enhance skills in order to create higher quality products.

With the introduction of JIT (just in time) manufacturing by the Japanese, the old Foridst “just in case” manufacturing system where parts and spare components are stockpiled, was made obsolete. This rigidity and inflexibility originally set out by fords working practices has now been replaced by a fast paced, dynamic and constantly evolving capitalist world.

Read Full Post »

Dawn of War – Dark Crusade ss

Dark crusade screenshot. me, cris and yun fei playing LAN f/th insane comps.

Dawn of War – Gameplay

With the addition of a squad system and more realistic ranged-close combat dynamics (see above section), Dawn of War is different from the majority of strategy games. Troops have morale, which, when drained completely, causes the squad to “break” and scatter, severely decreasing firepower but granting a movement bonus. Squads can be reinforced on the spot rather than forcing the player to create new units at their base. The game contains many breaks from the norm of the genre, and introduced several new concepts.

The game is, overall, very micromanagement-oriented. With the reinforcement system, extra armament for troopers, and special skills, the player is often forced to switch back and forth between different squads and vehicles quickly, making fast decisions to keep their combat effectiveness. The strategic-point system favors aggressive gameplay; early in the game, skirmishes and battles within the first few minutes are common. The extra gameplay dynamics open up many new options for players – such as the strategy of sending in several well equipped squads against a stronger enemy force and reinforcing them as they lose their numbers, prolonging the life of the squad hopefully long enough for them to accomplish their objective (usually defense of an area until reinforcements can arrive).

Infantry units in the game more accurately reflect actual warfare; each individual squad is made up of many troopers, which act independently as individuals yet fight and move as a group. If a missile blast hits the squad, the troopers are blown away. If they survive, they get to their feet and resume firing from their position, leaving the squad scattered, as it likely would be in real life. The player could order the squad to move, thereby regrouping them, or leave them as they are, which might put them at a disadvantage, or indeed, in rare cases, an advantage (against artillery barrages, for instance). Troopers fire as they move rather than being forced to stop before they fire (though this is still the case with some heavy weaponry), unlike many other strategy games. When the squad is broken and ordered to retreat, the squad tends to act less cohesively, with troopers straying from the group more easily and not moving as tightly, reflecting their panicked and demoralized state.

The scope of the squad mechanics means that strategy plays an even bigger part in the game, especially with infantry warfare. Holding of strategic avenues (not necessarily Strategic Points) – such as those with valuable heavy cover near a bottleneck leading to a player’s base – with infantry becomes a worthwhile task, unlike in others, where the strategic value of a location without a building or resource on it is usually next to nil and not worth defending.

In other strategy games, retreat and “pulling one’s losses” are not effective; unless infantry are retreating to a place where they can find more units to help them fight or to take shelter in turrets or buildings, the squad will fight as well in any other location as it does at the point at which it is already fighting. Strategic retreat is thus an ineffective tactic in most circumstances. In Dawn of War, however, with the added scope of squad-based infantry combat and reinforcements, withdrawing a squad can allow it to replenish and regain its morale at the next set of fortifications or the player’s base, allowing it to perhaps drive off its attackers once they attack again – this is almost unique in the field of real-time strategy gaming.

Read Full Post »

someday..

So today mom gave me 1k and i’ve received last month’s pay.. haha.. and i moved to new place, and stayed at the one of the main room which cost me about 460 per month. it was because my mom’s and sis is here so.. they both need a bigger space and they’ll often come here to visit me and have some medication blah blah.. tired of working btw.. i’m working 10 hours straight today and i’ve been performing well in front of one of the aunties over there.. hahahah… G_G imo.. i’m going to sleep since it’s quite late already.. gnite sleep tihgt! sehadofadsfhaooaaaaa!!!!

-eXeQzaLie

Read Full Post »