Currently burccracie is the foundation of the administration of the public sector organizations. While scientific management complements bureccraci, but cannot substitute it.
Burracracie and scientific management has been under the test up until the present time.
I don't agree with many of the scholars that "Bureaucracy"ÃÂ and the concept of "Scientific Management"ÃÂ are no longer relevent.
Buerecracy as a foundation of the administration can always be developed by upper management using scientific management's tolls and by applying the principles of management to achive the overall organization's goals.
If the measurement of the success of any organization is by delivering the product or service that has been expected or agreed on , this product or service was on budget, time and quality. Then the current system is working well for the customers despite the human issues addressed by the scholars.
The State of California Department of Transportation where I work implements scientific management stated by Taylor along with the management principles mentioned by Foil, considering that Caltrans is a specialized organization, specialized personnal are picked and assingent each projects, projects are oregnized by specialized tasks that needs specialized knowledge.
Bureaucracy is well acknowledged within the State of California administrative system to be the best practice.
As a middle manager with the State, I deal on a daily basis with fixed functions and official rules that are called bylaws and/or administrative regulations. These written rules and regulations govern all the relationships between upper management, lower offices, and business practices through a hierarchy system. They are set to protect management, lower office workers and the public and are the product of the negotiations between administration representatives and bargaining units' representatives and industry experts.
On the other hand, scientific management principles are the basis for the State government successful services or products.