If you could have something named after you, what would it be?

Thinking about this question raises a number of possibilities. Should I think only of my ego, and have the satisfaction of seeing my name attached to something popular? Or should I think about making my mark in a particular field, contributing something important to future generations?

How about combining the two. I think I would be ecstatic if I could have a new method of scientific management in business named after me. That would be an enormous contribution to the improvement of business processes, and also provide the egotistical validation of post-mortem fame. Well, it would be wonderful to have a new business management process named after me while I am alive, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

I am certain we are all familiar with Taylorism, the scientific management method named after American mechanical engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856 – 1915). His model of factory production, innovative for its time, was the mainspring of Fordism, the business process implemented by the car manufacturer and founder of Ford Motor Company, Henry Ford. The latter pioneered a system of mass production in manufacturing which was subsequently widely imitated.

Taylorism today is largely superseded by newer business management processes – Continuous Improvement, Business Process Reengineering (BPR) – you may find multiple resources about these topics. Taylorism regarded individual workers as automatons, and required adherence to rigid procedures. Now, procedures are all well and good, and they form the backbone of a successful production. However, stifling individual creativity and flexibility is harmful to overall business needs.

Continuous Improvement is based upon the Japanese concept of Kaizen – a philosophy and business culture which should permeate the entire organisation. It is translated as Continuous Improvement and takes a holistic approach to business management. Taylorism breaks down tasks into discrete units. Continuous Improvement encourages employee engagement to improve business efficiency.

It is beyond the scope of this brief article to summarise the differences between all the scientific management practices. I am not suggesting that I have a blueprint for an entirely new management approach which is superior to Continuous Improvement or Business Process Reengineering. However, after decades of experience in the IT industry, having witnessed all the management consultants and their differing business philosophies, I think it is time to come up with an integrated approach.

A quick word about AI. The latter is already impacting business on so many levels. Bill Gates, billionaire entrepreneur, is hyping the success of AI, and claims that in a few years, AI systems will replace doctors, lawyers, accountants – his vision does not extend to replacing useless, intellectually barren and overvalued CEOs. This is a bit of AI hyperbole on the part of those who stand to profit most from the deployment of AI as it currently stands.

In fact, I think we have AI the wrong way around. I do not want robots to do all the creative work, like art and writing, so I have more time to wash dishes and laundry. Robotised synthetic intelligence can do all the monotonous and menial tasks, so that I have more time to concentrate on creative pursuits, such as art, painting, music and writing. Freddie deBoer, writer at Truthdig, states that those who are talking up AI have a vested interest in increasing their networth related to AI.

Be that as it may, I think AI has forced us to rethink our business management practices, and we need to update our ways of doing business to reflect people’s needs in this new world of AI. Do I have a solution? No, not yet. But it is worth thinking about.