1 0 0 0 OA 一九八八年の外国経営史
1 0 0 0 OA フランス企業の組織作りに関する比較史的考察 (一九世紀半ば・二〇世紀初頭)
- 著者
- 藤村 大時郎
- 出版者
- 経営史学会
- 雑誌
- 経営史学 (ISSN:03869113)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.23, no.4, pp.24-54,ii, 1989-01-30 (Released:2010-11-18)
After reviewing administrative structures of multi-unit enterprises in the mid-nineteenth century France, I examined that of Schneider et Cie which had been defined by its 1913 organizational rules. Like most advanced structures of contemporary american firms, it had a central office comprised of heads of functional departments-operating, financial, industrial accounting, personnel and legal departments. Into the first operating department, however, were integrated manufacturing, sales and engineering offices, and the line of authority between the major manufacturing and the other two units, and also between the operating and the other departments was defined on a line-and-staff basis. This contrast to the american integrated industrial enterprises can be explained by the similarity in the object of organization building, that is coordination of production and marketing activities, as well as the difference, lack of its own sales network in the french enterprise.Another and more important difference is found out in behavior at organization building. In contrast to american organization builders, Schneider's executives used data only for controling activities, so not for evaluating the performance of managers, and their range of authority and responsibility remained obscure in consequence. This discovery of another way of organization buildng suggests that creation of the general officers which constitute a major innovation in developing the decentralized, divisional structure was a result of the american way of organization building, because strictness in the delegation of authority to the division managers is assured by clearness of individual responsibility confined by objective figures. The schema of strategy and structure of A.D. Chandler, Jr., therefore, should be reconsidered.
1 0 0 0 OA シュネーデル社の成長行動と経営組織 (一九一三年)
- 著者
- 藤村 大時郎
- 出版者
- 経営史学会
- 雑誌
- 経営史学 (ISSN:03869113)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.19, no.2, pp.1-37,i, 1984-07-30 (Released:2009-11-06)
Schneider and Company, a leading industrial enterprise in France, instituted the Rules to establish principles of its internal organization in 1913. Based on these Rules, I attempt to suggest an explanation for its administrative structure on the eve of the World War I, focusing on its operating units.Schneider, like other French industrial enterprises in those days, made little use of mass-production techniques, providing nonstand-ardized goods for producers and governments. However, Schneider had a high reputation as a maker of large, precision products which required a highest level of technology at that time to be fabricated, such as locomotives, marine engines, artillery, armorplates, bridges. As most of its products were made by order and small-batch, Schneider had grown, since its establishment in 1836, by continuously diversifying its products, and by diversifying in a number of industries. According to the Rules, Schneider made industry the basis of the organization of its production units : iron mines, coal mines, pig iron and steel producing, rolling mill, machine construction, electric machine construction, field artillery, naval artillery, forging and armorplate finishing, shipbuilding, mine making, bridge and building. Each of these units had its manager as well as its accountant's and engineer's offices, and formed a separate unit of accounts. Therefore each formed the “operating unit”, to use the term of professor Chandler, Jr., though many of them were in the same site, Le Creusot. Organizational imperatives at Schneider, however, showed clear differences to those at the American “modern business enterprise”.As most of its products required several months or more to be accomplished, and were made by order and small batch, Schneider organized its operating units to administer individual orders from the acceptance to the deliery. Thus the unit's accounts were organized to perform estimating and recording costs of separate orders. The controller's office was also formed to apparaise the unit's performance by order. Since each of these orders formed an autonomous administrative unit, the operating units which administered them remained autonomous. Though large enterprise with more than 10, 000 employees, Schneider was composed of numerous administrative units of orders, and of autonomous operating units.Schneider did form, in Paris, headquarters and a central office headed by salaried managers, but by different ways from those at United States firms which integrated mass production with mass distribution. As Schneider's growth behavior was different from that of the American big business, its organizational growth pattern also different.
- 著者
- 藤村 大時郎
- 出版者
- 経営史学会
- 雑誌
- 経営史学 (ISSN:03869113)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.17, no.4, pp.1-30,i, 1983-01-30 (Released:2010-11-18)
One of the results acquired through investigation of the Rules of the Schneider and Co., which were instituted in 1913 to establish principles of its management organization, is a discovery of the fact that, in France before the First World War, there was another type of business organization different from what Professor Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. explained eloquently in his book, “The Visible Hand”. The difference is found in the function performed by the middle management of the Schneider and Co., which are divided into five Divisions according to its products, such as coal and steel, various engines and electric motors, artillery and armour plates, ships, and bridges. As well as almost all of its products are order-made, each Division is organized to perform efficiently functions necessary for order production. According to the Rules of 1913, each Division is composed of Sales, Technical, Production, Test and Accounting Departments, and main functions are fulfilled by the first three Departments; respectively negociation with clients, design for contract and production management (of job shop type). The most remarkable thing is that, in there Rules, heavy emphasis is placed on co-ordination among these functions, not only between negotiation and design but also negotiation and production management, so as to acquire orders profitably and quickly. It would appear that this co-ordination is not the “Administrative Co-ordination” which replace the “Invisible Hand”, though very suitable for the big business of order production type. These Rules also prescribe centralization of the functions of these Departments in Paris headquators in order to realize its better relationship, although this principle is not fully applied to all Divisions owing to its industrial characters.In this article, I have examined such middle management organization and the business strategy of the Schneider and Co., which form clear contrast to what Professor Chandler, Jr. elucidated; those of mass production, so that we can find out another aspect of the French entrepreneurship and big business.