The objective of this work is to provide a vision and a theoretical-conceptual framework different from the one provided so far, which helps to analyze the different situations that can be found in our companies, with the aim of designing and planning actions that lead to the implementation and development of the New Forms of Work Organization (NFOT), so that they can achieve qualitatively superior results by integrating the technical aspects of the work process and the social dimension; that is, the treatment of the psychological, social and cultural needs of people, in conjunction and as an inherent part of the technical elements.
One thing must be clear from the beginning, and that is that NFOT cannot be understood only from changes in the shapes of the elements or technical aspects, as it has been presented for a long time.
Precisely the experiences of the last decades, provide more than enough elements so that the NFOT, in our society, are not only of forms, but must involve changes in content. It means that to be truly NFOT, the fundamental traditional principles of organization and direction of processes and of the company must be radically changed.
We are, of course, talking about multi-threaded long-term multithreading, which, however, must start sometime. It implies new complexities, new content, and integration of occupational categories, or redesign of current ones. Otherwise, knowledge management, new business knowledge, innovation, will increase the differentiation between workers every day. Topics like Communication, Information, Leadership, Motivation, Teamwork, to name just a few, will not make sense to most. The incessant elevation of the general cultural level, of the training and preparation of workers, in our society, requires changes that change the forms and contents of work organization.
Addressing the psychological and social needs of people, and designing the work process according to the demands of these needs, is what differentiates people from equipment and machines, it is what differentiates socialist humanism from capitalist dehumanization; it is what should differentiate NFOTs from traditional forms.
When talking about NFOT, nowadays reference is made in the world not only to the forms that differ from them, that is, to the previous, traditional forms of work organization or as the Taylorist-Fordist model is often identified, but also it extends to new modes of employment, and to new forms of work relationships beyond the space limited by the entity, and to work systems that integrate beyond the forms of work organization itself.
The traditional forms are identified with the period of time that goes from the second decade of the 20th century with the consolidation of the modern company, to the present day through the sixties, when the first NFOTs began to be identified and defined.
In relation to the development and practical application of NFOT in the world, two important aspects must be distinguished that should help to make more accurate judgments and avoid mechanical repetition of concepts and approaches: one, the conceptual developments that have taken place in the last four decades They have derived from simple forms without implications for the management and business organization, because the traditional fundamental principles are not interested, to the more complex forms up to the work systems; Two, the different applications that have taken place in different countries, most of the time differ from the conceptual developments. Therefore, it is necessary to critically analyze both theory and practice.
The best way to perpetuate something is to develop it, so that the initial NFOTs, while breaking with the narrow frameworks of the previously conceived ways of grouping individuals, do not pose radical changes in business management and organization. The advancement of forms does not necessarily mean the development of new content, much less the change of principles.
In this sense, it is unlikely that radical revolutionary changes in the principles that govern labor processes in developed capitalist societies will be put into practice, which would question the very foundations of capital, as shown by the practical experiences of the last four decades.
But in our socialist society they must change, and the absurdity should not be reached that new technologies or the technical demands of work processes determine social and economic policies, nor that the importance of the technical dimension limits or annuls the dimension of the company, which our society should privilege.
For us, it is essential to understand that NFOTs mean bottom-up development, and that as long as they continue to develop due to the factors that identify them, they must necessarily break with established traditional principles and must promote the establishment of new principles of organization and direction..
It is not possible to understand and explain the NFOT, focusing only on the technical problems of the work process, without considering the main conceptual and practical problems that range from economic and social aspects of society, through political and ideological, to technical and technological, depending on the breadth and depth of the critical analysis.
In this way, we only conceive the NFOT in our society as those capable of combining and integrating the technical dimension with the social dimension of the company; without putting or magnifying the technical of the work process, nor conceiving the social as secondary to technical treatment.
If these approaches are accepted, it should be clear that NFOTs are only possible if each and every one of the factors mentioned in their interaction and inter-action are taken into account. No problem related to work activity can be analyzed independently of the context in which the work activity is carried out, which ultimately constitutes the most important sphere of human activity and which develops as part of society, understood as a social organization only.
As mentioned at the beginning, today under the name of NFOT dissimilar concepts are grouped, from the organizational forms of tasks, jobs and work processes, identified from the 60s, such as the Expansion of tasks, Enrichment of tasks, Rotation of positions, later the (semi) -autonomous Groups, until the true Work Systems, and the forms that arise as consequences of the flexible reordering of work time or in response to economic situations.
We reiterate that NFOTs and work systems seek the effectiveness of a rational work activity, that is, they also seek to increase work productivity, but under different principles from traditional ones, in which processes are integrated to a lesser or greater extent. technical, social and cultural; in other words, the technical aspects, in conjunction with the relational and communicational aspects.
First of all, it is necessary to emphasize that the NFOT and the Work Systems are not implemented or developed by working only the organization of work. The NFOT should be worked as it appears in the following graph, which shows the intersection of the most important aspects to take into account, from the Business Management and Business Organization, to the Business Culture, the domain of special knowledge and the Technical and social disciplines.
If this is understood and accepted, then the interdisciplinarity and transfunctionality to which we referred can be understood, which materializes in many ways; for example, that in Integrated Project Management (DIP) or Project Management the entire construction project process from manufacturing to delivery is coordinated by the Marketing management function.
To the same extent that the NFOTs follow the new principles, Planning, Organization and Control must be part of the organizational forms. So it is about redesigning the content as well.
From the moment that emphasis is placed on quality, diversification of productions, integration of operations and functions, R&D capacity, and innovation as part of the value of the product, it is evident that it is not enough to evaluate the quantities of units produced and the time spent on it. The new concept of productivity, as well as raising quality, is above producing larger quantities of inferior products.
Quality is a function of productivity that puts into action social factors, especially a greater responsibility of each worker; Consequently, the NFOT is an essential alternative to be developed to achieve Total Quality parameters.
The essence of the NFOT, as we understand it, is not transformation or changes of a technical nature only, as they are often presented as part of production processes. Today it is recognized by authors from various disciplines, especially from the social sciences, that the models and forms of organization that pursue "total quality", a concept in development for a few decades, are recognized forms of intensification of the conditions of work. exploitation of the labor force in developed capitalist countries; as the so-called "toyotism" model to which it is necessary to refer due to the dissemination received and the various applications; precisely because they are models and forms that have been limited to reducing changes, technical changes.
Thus, NFOTs are often reduced to incorporating unproductive work, such as maintenance activities, quality inspection or other technical control functions, to the productive worker; or to understand and apply "versatility" as the activity of operating several machines or equipment combining simple tasks, which does not require variations or greater qualification, but does intensify work. Nor does it imply changes in the traditional fundamental principles of work organization. A clarification is necessary here, especially to demystify production models based on new "hard" technologies.
Despite the existence of differences between the Taylorist-Fordist conception and Toyotism (see Table 4), conceptually so widespread as an example of a new model of production and work, in reality the elimination of the differences in practice is apparent. The differences are in fact technological, in that this production system requires and facilitates the application of NFOT, and then limits it. Tasks are once again simplified, so that the necessary workforce becomes cheaper. In other contexts, the empowerment of the new technology is manifested with a highly qualified workforce, and organizational forms with great autonomy and responsibility are established.
Table 4
| Taylorism-Fordism | Toyotism |
| Mass production. Assembly line. Serial production | Production linked to demand. Varied and diversified |
| Fragmentation of functions. Parceled tasks | Teamwork. Task enrichment |
| Separation of execution and elaboration | Flexible production processes and work organization |
| Concentrated and verticalized structural units | Horizontal integration that extends to providers |
| Importance of logistics (signage-kanban) |
Thus, an interrelation between the factors "technological change-organization of work-qualification of workers", important variables in our society, and for our company, interact and influence each other, but whether the influence is positive or negative depends on the stakeholders, strategy, and established policies.
The first major difference, which marks the technological change between the two conceptions, one traditional and universally extended, the other, a modern conception conceptualized as the maximum expression of efficiency, and which is cited more times than necessary as an example, is of the order technical with serious implications from the psychological and social point of view; it is the elevation of the productive rhythm of work based on the strict control of the speed of the productive chain by the management.
In the case of Toyotism, the group rather than the Work team is not the social space that we want to show, it even differs from the concept of work team applied in other countries such as Germany and Sweden, France and Italy.
Or of small organizational units developed under the concept of «flexible specialization» (Sabel, C. Y Piore, M. 1984) that tries to articulate technological development with productive deconcentration, with other implications at the social, community and territorial level, which do not is the subject of analysis here.
Integration into a work team, in the manner of Toyotaism, which seeks to enrich tasks, can be much more alienating than the individual, repetitive, simple and demotivating work of Taylorism-Fordism. It is not based on autonomy, one of the distinguishing factors of the organization of work in the new forms, but on the “elimination of the autonomous organization of workers (Watanabe, B. 1993). The author himself points out: «Toyota works in groups of eight workers… if just one of them fails, the group loses the increase, therefore, the latter guarantees productivity, assuming the role that the leadership previously had. The same type of control is done on absenteeism.
Therefore, the control of times and movements and the chronometer of Taylorism-Fordism, is replaced by the intensification of the movement of the assembly line. As the flow must be uninterrupted and the assembly uniform, "the restrictions on autonomy are so strong that they prevent teams from substantially modifying the organization of tasks" (Capelli, P. And Rogovsky, N. 1994). In this sense, the work team has restricted the decision that makes the difference with traditional ways, that is, the way to carry out tasks.
"The execution of the individual task becomes a total routine so that the work teams can check if some slight variation of the tasks allows to raise the performance" (Adler, PS 1993). These practical situations and verified by investigations carried out, extraordinarily limit talking about the enrichment of tasks and NFOT. The value for us is that the errors mentioned should not be repeated.
Even those who defend the Japanese model, recognize the negative aspects, fundamentally from the social point of view, and point out that "all democracy in labor relations" is necessary (Coriat, B. 1992). The author himself concludes that "for Western business, the only challenge truly is to move from incited involvement to negotiated involvement"; in other words, from “forced” participation to “managed” participation, finally built as a technical space that seeks above all else productivity and quality, hence the skills and competencies required by “hard” technology; human capital or knowledge and skills at the service of capital. The fundamental principles of traditional work organization are far from being overcome.
Toyotism has not solved this problem, and we do not give it as an example of NFOT, which must be based not only on changes in technical processes, but also on interpersonal relationships, communications, motivations, cultural values.
With Toyotism once again the social dimension is subverted to the needs of the technical dimension. With or without westernization of this model, it represents in the current context "a true tool of capital against labor" (Antunes, R. 2001),); it is "Japanese way of consolidated expansion of industrial monopoly capitalism" (idem). It leads to karoshi or "sudden death at work caused by the rhythm and intensity that arises from the incessant search for increased productivity" (Watanabe, B. 1993.
Unlike Taylorism-Fordism, which in its historical moment responded with mass production and large series, and a company that was valued by the number of workers, in the era of flexible accumulation, the company with the lowest number of workers stands out. and higher productivity rates, which is why NFOTs are essential.
Now, the elimination of the existing gap between execution and conception remains apparent, since the integrated what and how does not belong to the workers.
"The existence of a self-determined activity in all stages of the production process is an absolute impossibility under Toyotism… there is a process of estrangement from the social being that works that tends to approach the extreme" (Antunes, R. 2001).
Returning to the NFOT line, in contrast to the fundamental principles of the traditional organization, it is necessary to establish new Principles:
* Seek the integration of specialized management functions with the execution work, at the job level, at the group level, of the processes and the company . The factor of integration is man. While the level of integration is higher, the greater should be the treatment of the psychological and social needs of the workers, since the behavior from the individual level, through the group or collective level to the level of the whole company, and the passing from one level to another, makes interpersonal treatment, communications, motivations more complex.
* Integration is also valid to overcome the simplification of activities, since the first principle implies more than a summation of tasks, as is characteristic of the first new forms, such as job rotation, integration at a functional level, of activities and processes, which must necessarily be organized into primary groups or collective forms of work. The overcoming of the simplification and fragmentation of activities is not achieved alone, nor many times today, due to the complexity in the conception and in the execution, at the individual level, however comprehensive it may be, but must be sought at the collective level. Therefore, a basic concept to overcome simplification, in addition to greater knowledge and greater preparation, is knowledge management.
* To incorporate control and supervision as part of the organization of the established work unit, functions implicit in the first point, integration is also necessary, from the workplace.
In the case of the NFOT of the (semi) autonomous Groups, control and supervision as part of the management are functions of the groups. It should not be forgotten that technical development has led to a different relationship between the workforce, the means of work and the objects of work. If with mechanized processes the worker initially coordinated and regulated the development of operations according to pre-established parameters and procedures, with automation he must become a system controller, which implies much greater autonomy in the decisions to be made. It is not a question of integration of functional components, neither horizontally nor vertically, but of multiple collaborations and cooperations, thereby achieving the so-called “integration of the internal chain”.
Several important questions always arise, including the following:
- How to overcome old established habits and practices?
The answer is:
Establishing and stimulating new habits and practices while establishing actions that avoid the possibility of incurring in old habits and practices.
- How to get the integrator man to integrate?
The answer is:
Creating consistency with simplicity in mind. The simplicity is given in this case in following the following change management steps:
1 ° Communicate and exchange about the reasons for the change
2 ° Indicate the supports and risks
3 ° Evaluate and know the expectations
4 ° Identify leaders for change
5 ° Carry out the corresponding training on site as part of the process
6 ° Establish permanent feedback
By the way, the integration and the organizational unit can even cover the external environment of the company, and the so-called value chain between companies is created, in which not only internal horizontal cooperation and integration is established. Now the Inter-company value chain, both horizontal and vertical, can be identified, since several companies can participate in the production of a unit, with a company in a step or phase of a vertical chain, with another company in another step or phase of another chain vertical. This dynamic and the level of coordination requires a much greater autonomy of decisions than those established by the traditional principles of work organization.
If the changes at the level of Inter.-business organizations are increasingly complex, this forces us to seek new ways of working, more flexible or "lightened" as it has been conceptualized. The complexity of implementation is also increasing as the degree of changes in processes increases. From the optimization of the internal processes of the value chain of the company, in which the software plays an important role since they allow to connect the components of each sub-process through the logical transmission of data, it passes to changes and reengineering of processes, to redesign of networks, and to redefinition and scope of networks that implies a true transformation of processes.
Each of the advances implies greater internal integration and greater integration with processes external to the company, based on the identification of six main internal processes, namely: Human Resources, Finance, Logistics. Production or Services, Sales, Marketing. These functional areas or structural management units of the company have an impact on the ways in which work is organized in the base units.
If the dynamics of technological change are increasing, it must not be allowed to be the "hard" technology that drives the company, or the models of production processes that determine the scope of the forms of work. The organizational flexibility of the production processes, the information and data running, the coding and standardization of the processes, which facilitates the variety of products and the control of costs, all this has an impact on the ways of working.
But it implies organizational and cultural changes of lesser or greater depth, and even radical changes, and forces to improve established techniques and working methods, and makes the psychosocial and behavioral treatment of the different actors essential.
It is common to read that Intelligent Organizations, which are characterized by the fact that their members develop capacities that allow them to work in teams, communicate clearly and in a timely manner, contribute their creativity and make decisions, that is, create “workers who are capable of responding to the needs of the productive process". But, the problem is that the needs of the production process do not correspond most of the time with the needs of the workers. And this is what we must take care of in our society.
Table 5 summarizes the main factors of the current company, namely: Technology, Processes and People (modified from Norris, G. and others 2001), its impact and difficulty through changes in Functions and Structure, that together with People form the three main factors of the social subsystem of the company.
In summary, if these factors are worked on in an integrated manner, the level of difficulty is high, it takes time to reach People from Technology and Processes, but the changes will be more radical and profound; they are going to be social too.
For changes to take place at the level of Structures and Functions, and for technological and process changes to make sense, it is necessary to work with People. This is often unknown, or relegated to the background, and the emphasis is on technology and processes over and over again, as if they were alien to people. This is the most common error and limitation in NFOTs.
To the extent that Technology, Processes and People are integrated and understood, one should speak of Work Systems rather than NFOT.
In terms of system, the Social Subsystem is complemented by the Cultural Subsystem and the Technical Subsystem (Glasl, F. en Prokopenko, J. And North, K. 1996).
These subsystems, identified since the 60s, and also known as Human-Cultural, Managerial-Structural, and Technical-Technological (Leavitt, 1965), or Engineering Design, Technical-Organizational Elements and Organizational Behavior ”(Cuesta, A. 1999) contain the necessary elements to transform and change not only work systems, but also the elements that support it. But it is about doing it in a systemic way.
If there are changes in the structure of trafficking, attention cannot be paid only to techno-structural changes, without considering as a whole the changes in direction or the development of human resources and the functions that cover it, as indicated in Table 4. None of the elements of the subsystems it is advisable to analyze without considering the relationships and effects that it produces in the others, and to try to achieve global changes and superior results.
Work processes are carried out by people; They are interlinked with people, with functions, with structures, but also with policies, including technology, R&D, innovation, it is not possible to project and manage technical change in the medium and long term.
Working the work processes, only from the technical point of view, without considering the relationships with the social and cultural systems, leads to the production systems manifesting as they usually do in recent times in the world, and that they are referred by different authors; they are oblivious to the social consequences for the worker. This is an essential idea. It is an idea that in our society must be constantly monitored, especially when it comes to companies in the process of Business Improvement.
Without fundamental changes in the larger organizations to which the different NFOTs or work systems may belong, it is difficult for them to develop and survive. Because the new work systems imply changes in the management methods and styles, in the organizational management structures, in the knowledge of the workers, in the values and motivations of the workers, elements that positively or negatively enhance technical changes.
The social dimension, little by little, is recognized conceptually and practically. Thus, among the main themes for the Business Excellence awards that are considered in different countries, together with Product Diversification, R&D capacity, Integration of Operations and Customer Satisfaction, the Organization is proposed first. of Teamwork with emphasis on Cooperation, Interpersonal Relations and Human Resource Development (Arai, J. in Prokopenko, J. and North, K. 1996). It is the synthesis of the referred subsystems. It is the recognition that the technical dimension must be combined with the social dimension.
A renowned world-class consulting firm asks six questions when starting a consulting job to assess management quality; One of the questions refers to the integration of financial, economic, human resources and technological management, and of the remaining five, there are four directly referring to the social dimension of the company. Such is the importance of the social dimension, understood as such everything directly related to man and his performance, with the preservation of man and the enhancement of his integral development.
At this point it is necessary to stop and reflect, think, and clarify ideas in relation to situations that occur in our country; some that must be strengthened, others that must be reoriented, others that must be overcome.
Al establecer, como parte de un documento fundamental como es Las Bases Generales para el Perfeccionamiento Empresarial (1998), el Principio General de «la más amplia participación de todos los trabajadores y que se constituye en el elemento de dirección y organización empresarial..» y que «el proceso de toma de decisiones debe utilizar el análisis y discusión colectiva de los asuntos que se seleccionen, sobre la base de la mas amplia información y la comunicación adecuada..» es evidente que se amplía la base social de la dirección en la empresa, y se elevan las exigencias para todos los trabajadores.
The training and preparation of workers becomes not only an important aspect of the technical dimension and the social dimension, but it also becomes a social duty, to seek greater efficiency, effectiveness and the creation of new management and leadership capacities., to which the development of the NFOT, of new work systems is consubstantial; the application of new production systems together with the NFOT. To the same extent, mental schemes and practices that follow traditional principles of work organization must be broken.
At the same time, they have been trying to introduce and develop strategies and functions related to a key area such as Human Resources, under new definitions, concepts and approaches that privilege the treatment of people in their entirety, and not as mere material resources and financial It means that treatment of people, even personalized, has been promoted in recent years under the name of "care for men."
But this concept in principle only encompassed material attention; Others, the majority, interpret and apply it as the development of skills and knowledge, but privileging training and professional improvement actions over other functions; the least, work on the values of the new culture, the behavior of individuals and groups, interests and motivations, new functions. Thus, the criterion prevails among us that the first objective of human resource management is the development only of «skills and knowledge»: In the background or as a support, social and psychological elements and organizational behavior are considered, which are also very little treated.
Human Resource Management Systems have proliferated in recent years, as well as the models that support them. But regardless of the complexity and conceptual breadth, and that they integrate to a greater or lesser extent the internal environment with the external environment, and take into account to a greater or lesser degree the economic, social, legal and global policy elements, they tend to follow the same philosophy and ideology of the fundamental principles of the organization of traditional work applied to work processes, with which the contradictions between the greater preparation of workers and the narrow frameworks of their actions become increasingly evident. In this way, human resources management systems, although conceptual and in practice more comprehensive,they become more comprehensive from the technical point of view only, and most of them still do not respond to the social and psychological needs, not to mention the economic ones, of the workers.
Human Resource Management and its systemic, complex treatment, with a strategic focus, is only possible depending on the progress of the Organization and Business Management, and the active and effective role of the workers.
In our society, with the issue of Business Excellence or Competitiveness variables, along with Quality, or Execution or Delivery Times, Work Organization, Leadership, Innovation, Development of Human Resources; not as secondary or supporting variables, but as main variables that translate into the final product and customer satisfaction. And this is often not accepted or understood.
So why are there not greater coincidences or relationships between production systems and forms of work organization that privilege and put the technical dimension and the social dimension at the same time? In other societies, it will be because the flexibility of the organization of work with a social dimension, which would truly be the NFOT, may imply actions that do not lead to an intensification of the work required by the production processes, and that endanger the very foundations of the social systems.
In our society, it must be borne in mind that productivity is, above all, the effectiveness of man's rational activity that is carried out with a certain objective useful to society, and not a mechanical relationship between the production obtained and the resources used; and among the objectives of our society is always the improvement of man.
Let us see in the following tables (Table 6 and Table 7) in which we can better visualize the idea that production systems have predominated and determined the use and development of NFOTs, using these new forms to intensify work. The NFOTs have not been able to deploy their full potential even according to the theoretical approaches carried out, and consequently the (semi) autonomous Groups and the integral work systems that truly break with the traditional fundamental principles of work organization have not been sufficiently developed..
Table 6
Productive Models and Forms of Work Organization
In Table 6 it is understood that each shape represents a qualitatively higher step in relation to the previous shape. This does not mean that a superior form cannot be undertaken without having developed the previous form. This is directly related to the real needs and possibilities of the company.
As can be seen in Table 7, to the same extent that production systems are transformed, there is greater use of NFOTs, with the reserves or limitations indicated. Practically all the production systems indicate elements referring to the NFOTs among the observations. One of the systems is even identified and is called Group Diversification, in which the Enrichment of tasks is maximized. And with the Integral Groups, or autonomous groups, it is their requirement, the high coordination and interrelation between the groups, which in fact implies a transformation of the work and production system, with greater development of autonomy.
The productive systems support the NFOT to the same extent that they serve to strengthen it, but the productive system should not be the determining factor; the determining factor, being an integrating factor, must be the MAN and his psychological and social needs.
Table 7
Characterization of some production systems (according to Lindholm, RI in Prokopenko J. and North. K 1996 modified))
| Production system | Flow characteristics
of work |
Observation |
| Mechanized production line
The machine sets the pace |
Flow controlled by machine | Sensitive to modifications. Control over materials. Effective use of space. |
| Chain work. Worker sets the pace. | Supplies per order | Adaptable and suitable for group work. Need for harmonization. Risk of work stacking. |
| Automated process | Material flow and its processing controlled by the machine | Systems supervision and maintenance. High quality of work content. (Semi) autonomous groups. Isolation from other workstations can occur. |
| Concentration of operations | Related tasks. They are combined into a communal serial production workspace. | Low degree of identification with other stages of production. Risk of tendency to under-optimization. Suitable for long production runs. Capital intensive in low capacity utilization. |
| Group diversification line | Combine flow production | Adaptable to different production requirements. Requires group cooperation to achieve high efficiency. |
| Service Group | Support functions | It requires high flexibility. Difficulty planning. |
| Integral Group | Work concentrated on one product. | High demand for coordination and interrelation between groups. |
It is necessary to clarify that these production systems, fundamentally those that contain elements of transformation of systems, are identified in practice especially in the sectors of components, the automobile, manufacture of machine tools and construction. On the one hand, highly qualified job roles are identified with content enrichment, in contrast to and coexistence of temporary support jobs with traditional work organization.
The purely economic aspects continue to occupy the most important place, and the shorter execution times of the elements of a task and an operation continue to be analyzed. But to plan the functions of a position that takes into account the psychological and social needs of the individual, in a company that works with integrated management models, it is essential to consider a group of factors, and the economics of work alone is insufficient..
To meet and take into account the psychological and social needs of workers, it is necessary to attend and take into account:
* The potential and actual individual and collective capacities
* The experiences
* Motivations
* Interests
* Values
* Behaviors
* The satisfactions
Individual satisfaction in the NFOT and the development of these is based in principle on:
* Degree of variety of tasks
* Ability to decide on the structure of the work and the content of the task
* Flexibility in the man / machine relationship on the basis of greater collaboration
However, the intervention and decisions of the worker remain relative, since the technological division continues to predominate over the functional division, and the functional division has advanced insofar as it must respond to certain characteristics of the productive systems as summarized in Table 8.
Table 8
Progress of NFOT in relation to production systems
From the "linearization of manufacturing procedures" in order of transformation in the continuous flow of Taylorism-Fordism, and with the advancement of technology and the automation of the straight line and the U-line, not far from chain assembly, going through the assembly of sub-assemblies that correspond to a function to which an entire plant can be dedicated, to the complete assembly in a station or fixed space of a product by a team or several teams, everything responds to the technical sub-system, with technology that demands high and new professionalism, but many times without the necessary transformations of the social sub-systems and the cultural sub-system.
With "Light or Lean Production", the fact that it responds well to mass and standardized productions that seek to eliminate unnecessary time, space and costs is repeated once again, but not to productions that have to adjust their products to specific requirements and a wide variety of products.
Regarding the production systems identified by Groups, in fact it is an enormous conceptual and practical advance, since it is the first time that the NFOTs determine the production systems; However, as is logical to suppose, they must develop greater autonomy than the previous forms, and not only become variants of the mechanized line or of automated or support processes. The Integral Groups as indicated in Table 7 require high coordination and interrelation; it is the basis of the DIP.
This is the trend that must develop in the face of the absolutization of technique and its dominance over people's lives at work.
At this point it is necessary to make another clarification that is usually misinterpreted or is unknown and is in relation to the techniques and methods of work study. Of course, these have been evolving.
As NFOTs move towards collective work and teamwork, collective techniques and methods become more important.
* Synthesis is being imposed on individual analysis and the value of the individual work unit, and on techniques to reduce work content.
* The study of the displacement of workers, with the multiple activity or man-machine diagrams, or the combined one, is valid, as long as everything is done on the basis of the principle of grouping, integrating, and not fragmenting.
* The first rule of work study "is that each task should be systematically analyzed in advance, reflecting on how to do it from start to finish" (Kanawaty, G. 1996).
To plan group work, and increase the degree of variety of tasks, it is necessary to first plan the functions from individual positions, seeking integration and a variety of tasks, for which it is necessary to take into account:
* cycle length
* batch size, quantity
* distribution of non-repetitive tasks
* the structure of work and content of tasks between different series
But if group work is not planned as a second step, and then it is not conceived how it is oriented towards integration at the level of the company's processes, the level of integration remains low.
As for office work and service activities, technological development has also caught up with them, and computerization allows a greater variety of tasks and a degree of autonomy to decide the distribution of tasks and how to carry them out. Even more horizontal relationships are produced in service activities and functions are more integrated than in productive sectors. The same does not happen in the commercial sector, with a traditional or greater division of labor, greater centralization of controls and very little maneuvering for decisions in the workplace; also with little or no development of teamwork.
If a balance were to be made, both in the world and in our country, basically, to a lesser or greater degree the fundamental principles of the organization of traditional work with the NFOTs are maintained, a situation that is reinforced by the production systems themselves that they remain focused on time and costs, over and above the psychosocial well-being of the workers. But collective forms of high cooperation are being imposed, which means that it is essential to pay attention and work on social and cultural aspects such as Communication, Group Organization and Motivation.
The criteria for the effectiveness of work organization have been changing.
Along with the technical elements of:
- Better use of resources Stability of the production or service system
Psychological and social elements are also considered, such as:
- Autonomy (decisions on matters pertaining to the work carried out by the worker) Attractive work (jobs with different degrees of difficulty. Integration of auxiliary work. Variation in content) Creation of individual work as part of a collective
These are the elements contained in the standardized instrument (Hackman, JR and Oldham, RG cited by Capelli and Rogovsky, 1994) to which we referred in the previous section, which is used to diagnose jobs and evaluate the «enrichment of positions".
Consequently, as a trend, the following should be imposed:
Team work
Integration at the process level
Taking individual or collegiate decisions about the work that is done.
The transformation of work in the world is a complex process. Proof of this are the theoretical and conceptual developments in the last fifty years, and their relative little breadth of application in practice in such a way that the traditional fundamental principles of work organization change, which in fact are also management principles.
The diversity of situations, structural factors and strategies, but especially the economic and social environment in which it is carried out, continue to favor the urgent over the important. And what is urgent in capitalist societies continues to be Capital that forms surplus value and the capitalist mode of exploitation; yesterday it went through the shovel, then through the production chain, measuring time and movements; today by the expansion of work endowed with a greater intellectual dimension, work as a form of capital, Intellectual Capital as a form of capital according to the theory of Human Capital.
In our country, verified in investigations in recent years, and now through case studies, NFOTs have not been systematically imposed on all companies, not even within companies that have partially applied any of the forms.
There are increases in technical qualifications, there are multipurpose work groups, including work teams and (semi) autonomous groups that develop the Integral Management by Project (DIP), but the fundamental features of the traditional principles of work organization are maintained and the address.
Autonomy, Teamwork or collective work that assumes integration as a principle, as part of a management method and style, and the management of human resources understood as management of both real capacities must be emphasized and promoted much more and potentials, knowledge, values, interests, needs and motivations of people.
It is necessary to start by promoting and perfecting Cooperation at work, since NFOTs are forms that break with the conception, planning and distribution of activities and traditional forms of grouping workers; and this, above all, are social and cultural aspects. Cooperation is an important factor in the strategic direction, both internal and external of the company.
The central thesis is that NFOT, for our society, must really imply a different relationship between workers; of the character and content of work that breaks with the conceptual framework and established traditional principles, and allows reaching not only higher levels of quality, efficiency, competitiveness of the company, but also integral development of the people. This advantage is privileged by our society.
1.4 BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Alhama, BR: «The necessary end of the division of labor». Economics of Labor No. 33-34, INICT, Havana 1989. Alhama, BR: «Collective forms of work organization. Importance of Groups ». Article in preparation. Alhama, BR: "Human Resources and its social dimension in the company." Cubasiglo XXI, 2003 Alonso, AF: "Strategic Problems of the Work System" IEIT, nov. 2001Almodovar, Alonso, Serra, Ferriol and others "Conceptualization of Experiences in Stimulation in Laboratory Companies from 1988 to 1991" Labor Institute, 1992Antunes, R.: Goodbye to work ?, Cortez Editora, Brazil, 2001 General Bases for the Business Improvement, Havana, 1998 Butera, F., Di Martino, V. And Kohler, E.: Technological development and the importance of living and working conditions. Kogan Page, London, 1990 Cappelli, P.and Rogovsky, N.: «What qualifications do the new work systems require?», International Labor Review, N ° 2, 1994. Castro, P.: Sociología do trabalo, Eduff.Niteroi, 2003. Collective of authors: Los changes in the socio-class structure. Editorial Ciencias Sociales, Havana, 2003. Collective of authors: Introduction to the study of the Scientific Organization of Work, Scientific-Technical Editor, La habana, 1976. De Pablo, A.: New forms of work organization: a varied reality and selective Internet services. Universidad Complutense.González, L.: Methodological aspects of the Organización Centifica del Trabajo, Editora Ciencias Sociales, Havana, 1981. Kanawaty, G.: Introduction to the study of work, Fourth Edition, ILO, Geneva, 1996.Levine, DI and D´Andrea, LT: "Participation, Productivity and the Firm's Environment"; Mansel, B.:New organization of work, FIET, Geneva, 1998. Mitchell, DJB et.al.: “Alternative Pay Sistems”, in AS Blinder:Paying for Productivity (Washington, the Brookings Institution, 1990) Norris, G., H.;, Hatlry, MK; Dunleavy, RJ, and Balls, DJ: From ERP to E-Business, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, Editora Deusto, 2001. OIT: Introduction to the Study of Work. ICL.1970.OIT: “Roundtable for Caribbean Employer's Organizations: Pay Systems an Reform” (Grenada, ILO, 1990). Prokopenko, J. and Katz: Productivity and Quality Management, ILO, Geneva, 1997Womack, JP; Jones, DT and Roos, D.: "How Lean Production can Change the World" in The New York Time Magazine, September 23, 1990.
