Joan Woodward

“The ‘fit’ between organisation and technology has long been a theme of interest for academics. A key piece of work in this vein is Joan Woodward’s 1958 report which links the manufacturing set up an organisation operates with not only the structure the organisation adopts but also the way people within the organisation communicate and work together. This work gives a relationship between the organisational world and the technology it deals with, it moves beyond the simple assumption of technological determinism often used in economics that Langlois (2002)refers to, by providing a mechanism.”

“As open systems, organizations faced an environment that might be placid and benevolent, or turbulent and harsh. Economic, social, political, and technological changes could come rapidly or slowly, and some organizational arrangements might be better able to cope with the changing environment than others. Could it be that there was no one way to structure an organization that design was influenced by environmental factors and could vary, depending on technology?”

“Organizational theorists, at least since the pioneering work of Burns and Stalker, 1961 and Joan Woodward, 1965 and others in what came to be called the contingency school, have recognized that centralization is appropriate for organizations with routine tasks, and decentralization for those with nonroutine tasks. For an early statement see Perrow 1967, and Lawrence and Lorch, 1967.”

“There was a particular form of organisation most appropriate to each technical situation.”

“In some firms role relationships prescribed by the chart seemed to be of secondary importance to personal relationships between individuals.”

“As technology advances the entire concept of authority in industry may have to change. In process firms the relationships between superior and subordinate was much more like that between a travel agent and his clients than that between a foreman and operators in mass production. The process foreman's job was to arrange things within limits, set by the plant, which both he and the operators accepted.”

“Those responsible for marketing had to sell, not a product, but the idea that their firm was able to produce what the customer required. The product was developed after the order had been secured, the design being, in many cases, modified to suit the requirements of the customer. In mass production firms, the sequence is quite different: product development came first, then production, and finally marketing.”

“A breakdown of management into its basic functions — development, production and marketing — revealed that the character of the functions, their chronological sequence, the closeness with which they had to be integrated and their relative importance to the success and survival of the business, all depended upon the system of techniques in the firm concerned.”

“The number of levels of authority in the management hierarchy increased with technical complexity, while the span of control of the first-line supervisor decreased.”

“Production systems which are technologically the most advanced are also the least adaptable and work to the longest time scale of decision making. These are the process industries (chemical plants, oil refineries and so on) in which vast resources are invested in the creation of a closely programmed and tightly controlled process which will continue to perform the same task over a very long period.”