Techniques of scientific management

Prescribing a common tool height is standardisation. Planning suitable rest pauses to reduce fatigue is part of fatigue study, so the answer is standardisation and fatigue study.

The time and cost clerk keeps records of the time taken and costs incurred. These records help assess whether the high output is being achieved economically.

The direct answer is option A. A performance decision should not be based on actual time alone. Scientific management may measure time, but the real result also includes the quality, quantity, safety, and usefulness of the output. If a worker takes longer but produces much better and acceptable goods, declaring failure from time alone would ignore an important result. Option A is correct because quality should also be checked with the time record. Option B is wrong: a time record is not always useless; it can help compare performance and improve methods when interpreted properly. Option C is wrong because a route clerk mainly decides the sequence or route of operations, not the final quality. Option D is wrong because simplification aims to remove unnecessary work and improve efficiency; it does not automatically destroy quality. The fair conclusion is to study both speed and outcome before deciding. Memory cue: fast work is valuable only when the result is acceptable.

If workers do not understand how a standard was set, they may doubt its fairness and be less willing to accept it. Explaining the process can help build understanding and acceptance.

The direct answer is option A: a standardisation and training-document mismatch. Standardisation means fixing the correct tools, methods, specifications and procedures. When a new standard tool is introduced, the manual used for training and daily work must also describe that new tool. If workers are trained but the manual is outdated, the physical standard and the written instruction no longer agree. That is the gap. Option A correctly identifies this implementation and documentation mismatch. Option B is wrong because simplification concerns reducing unnecessary varieties, while storage is not the issue. Option C is wrong: fatigue study concerns tiredness and rest; it does not describe an outdated tool manual, and “perfect balance” does not identify a gap. Option D is wrong because inspection concerns checking quality and wage concerns payment; neither explains the documentation problem. A useful exam cue is: new standard or process plus old manual means standardisation follow-up and document updating are needed.

Workers need to understand the required limits before they can apply a quality standard consistently. Training and clear instructions provide that understanding.

Method study examines how work is done to find and remove unnecessary steps. Increasing speed alone does not improve an inefficient method.

Method study examines how work is organised and performed. Reviewing the layout and material flow can help reduce unnecessary movement and distance.

Accepted output includes only the units that are not on quality hold. Therefore, accepted output = total production − quality-hold units = 160 − 12 = 148. It would be 150 only if 10 units were on hold, while 160 is the total output. Exam tip: write the total output first, then subtract rejected, defective, or hold units.

A changed product mix can require different methods or different amounts of time. The old output standard may therefore no longer be appropriate and should be reviewed.

The answer is A, unity of command. Fayol’s principle says that an employee should receive orders from one superior. Functional foremanship assigns different specialist foremen to give instructions, so it can conflict with that principle.

The answer is A. Matching a worker to a suitable task, training them, and allowing steady practice helps them develop skill and work efficiently. Repeated reassignment interrupts that practice.

The answer is A. Rework and rejected output consume time and resources, which can offset savings from improved production flow. Their levels and costs should therefore be checked when assessing total cost.

The answer is A, method study. It examines how a job is performed and its sequence of steps to find a more efficient method. That makes it relevant when an inefficient work sequence causes a bottleneck.

The answer is A. The clues point to several techniques used together: functional foremanship tools such as route plans and instruction cards, standardisation, motion and time study, fatigue study, and a wage incentive linked to accepted output. It is therefore an integrated application, not just one technique.

The governing concept is functional foremanship and the separation of specialised supervisory duties in Taylor’s scientific management. An inspector checks whether output meets the prescribed quality standard, but an inspector alone cannot correct deliberate disobedience to instructions. When workers knowingly ignore standard methods and rejection rises, the cause includes a discipline and compliance problem. The disciplinarian is the specialist responsible for maintaining orderly conduct and ensuring that prescribed instructions are followed, so option C is correct. A time-and-cost clerk records time and cost information, and a route clerk plans the sequence or movement of work; neither directly handles deliberate misconduct. A repair boss may address equipment or repair work, but the case identifies intentional non-compliance rather than a machine defect. The specialist must therefore be selected according to the cause of rejection, not merely its numerical increase.

The governing concept is piece-rate wage calculation based on accepted output. Rejected units do not qualify for payment because they fail the required quality condition. First find accepted output: 142 total units − 5 rejected units = 137 accepted units. Since the question explicitly states that the accepted units are paid at ₹9 each, wage = 137 × ₹9 = ₹1,233. Therefore, option A is correct. Option B incorrectly uses 140 units, probably confusing the standard with accepted output. Option C multiplies the gross production of 142 units by ₹9, ignoring rejection. Option D also overstates payment by using an incorrect unit count. The standard figure of 140 is relevant context but does not replace the actual accepted quantity in this calculation.

The governing concept is method study, which examines the complete sequence of operations used to perform a job. A bottleneck means that some stage of the process is restricting the movement or output of the whole system. If the standards are already suitable, merely resetting them will not remove that obstruction. Method study compares alternative procedures, layouts, tools, and movement sequences to identify a more efficient way of doing the work. Thus option C is correct. Standardisation mainly establishes uniform specifications; simplification reduces unnecessary varieties; and differential piece-rate changes financial incentives according to performance. None of those directly analyses and redesigns the obstructed work process as method study does.

The governing concept is the distinction among Taylor’s techniques. Method study focuses on finding the best overall method of performing work and is therefore the appropriate technique for locating and removing a bottleneck in a process. Option A correctly makes that match. Time study determines the standard time required for a task, so selecting a product colour is unrelated to it. Simplification aims to reduce unnecessary variety, not increase it; hence option C reverses the concept. Motion study analyses the movements of a worker to eliminate unnecessary motions, whereas reducing product models is a simplification decision. Therefore, the other options pair a technique with an unsuitable cue.

The governing concept is payment for accepted units in a piece-rate system. A rejected unit does not satisfy the required quality standard and therefore must be excluded from the payable quantity. Accepted output = total production − rejected production = 156 − 8 = 148 units. Applying the stated high rate, wage = 148 × ₹9 = ₹1,332. Hence option A is correct. Option C would pay for all 156 units and ignores the rejection, producing 156 × 9 = ₹1,404. Option B and option D use other incorrect quantities or arithmetic. The standard quantity of 150 may help determine eligibility for a rate in some wage schemes, but here the question explicitly supplies the applicable rate, so the calculation must use accepted output.

The governing concept is accurate identification of Taylor’s techniques. Method study evaluates the complete process and seeks the best way to perform the work, so removal of a process bottleneck is correctly matched with it in option A. Time study primarily determines the standard time for a task; although rest may be considered in setting a reasonable standard, “planning a rest pause” is not its defining cue. Simplification reduces unnecessary varieties, whereas selecting a uniform material grade is more directly an example of standardisation. Motion study examines and removes unnecessary worker movements; reducing product variety belongs to simplification. Therefore, only option A gives the correct expert pairing.

The governing concept is that a scientifically designed method must improve efficiency without sacrificing safety or quality. A higher speed that creates more accidents is not a genuinely superior method because it increases hidden costs, interruptions, injuries, and defective output. The best method should therefore combine an efficient work pace with safe procedures, suitable rest, ergonomic movement, training, and quality checks. Option A correctly expresses this balanced approach. Option B focuses only on the financial incentive and ignores worker welfare and output quality. Option C wrongly treats reduced rest as the solution, even though inadequate rest may increase risk. Option D considers only physical route length and omits the wider process requirements. Sustainable efficiency is the relevant standard.

Taylor's scientific management seeks efficient production through systematic study, but efficiency is not simply the highest possible speed. A speed boss or speed supervisor must help maintain the prescribed pace, while quality inspection checks whether the output meets the required standards. If speed is increased and defects rise, the decision is incomplete unless it is balanced with inspection, process control, and acceptable quality. Wage cuts, reducing product varieties, and bank-loan records do not directly control the quality consequence described in the situation. Therefore option C is the most relevant managerial response. It reflects the practical principle that productivity gains should be evaluated together with quality, rework, waste, and customer requirements.

The facts identify the main cause as deliberate non-compliance by workers, not a machine failure or a scheduling problem. In Taylor's functional foremanship, the disciplinarian is concerned with maintaining discipline, ensuring that workers follow established instructions, and addressing deliberate violations of workplace rules. A repair boss would be relevant when machinery is defective; a route clerk deals with the sequence or route of work; and a time-and-cost clerk records time and cost information. None of those roles directly addresses intentional disobedience. Therefore option D is correct. The reasoning depends on diagnosing the cause of defects first and then selecting the specialist whose function matches that cause.