In 1916, Henri Fayol formulated one of the first definitions of control as it pertains to management:

Control of an undertaking consists of seeing that everything is being carried out in accordance
with the plan which has been adopted, the orders which have been given, and the principles
which have been laid down. Its object is to point out mistakes in order that they may be
rectified and prevented from recurring.[1]

According to EFL Brech:

Control is checking current performance against pre-determined standards contained in the

plans, with a view to ensure adequate progress and satisfactory performance.

According to Harold Koontz:

Controlling is the measurement and correction of performance in order to make sure that
enterprise objectives and the plans devised to attain them are accomplished.

According to Stafford Beer:

Management is the profession of control.

Robert J. Mockler presented a more comprehensive definition of managerial control:

Management control can be defined as a systematic effort by business management to

compare performance to predetermined standards, plans, or objectives in order to determine
whether performance is in line with these standards and presumably in order to take any
remedial action required to see that human and other corporate resources are being used in
the most effective and efficient way possible in achieving corporate objectives.[2]

Also control can be defined as "that function of the system that adjusts operations as needed to achieve
the plan, or to maintain variations from system objectives within allowable limits". The control subsystem
functions in close harmony with the operating system. The degree to which they interact depends on the
nature of the operating system and its objectives. Stability concerns a system's ability to maintain a pattern
of output without wide fluctuations. Rapidity of response pertains to the speed with which a system can
correct variations and return to expected output.[3]
A political election can illustrate the concept of control and the importance of feedback. Each party
organizes a campaign to get its candidate selected and outlines a plan to inform the public about both the
candidate's credentials and the party's platform. As the election nears, opinion polls furnish feedback about
the effectiveness of the campaign and about each candidate's chances to win. Depending on the nature of
this feedback, certain adjustments in strategy and/or tactics can be made in an attempt to achieve the
desired result.

From these definitions it can be stated that there is close link between planning and controlling. Planning is
a process by which an organization's objectives and the methods to achieve the objectives are established,
and controlling is a process which measures and directs the actual performance against the planned goals
of the organization. Thus, goals and objectives are often referred to as siamese twins of management. the
managerial function of management and correction of performance in order to make sure that enterprise
objectives and the goals devised to attain them being accomplished.

Characteristics[edit]
Control is a continuous process
Control is a management process
Control is embedded in each level of organizational hierarchy
Control is forward looking
Control is closely linked with planning
Control is a tool for achieving organizational activities
Control is an end process
Control compares actual performance with planned performance*
Control point out the error in the execution process
Control helps in minimizing cost
Control helps in achieving standard
Control saves the time
Control helps management for monitoring performance

Elements[edit]
The four basic elements in a control system:

1.the characteristic or condition to be controlled

2.the sensor
3.the comparator
4.the activator
occur in the same sequence and maintain a consistent relationship to each other in every system.[3]
The first element is the characteristic or condition of the operating system which is to be measured. We
select a specific characteristic because a correlation exists between it and how the system is performing.
The characteristic can be the output of the system during any stage of processing or it may be a condition
that is the result of the system. For example, it may be the heat energy produced by the furnace or the
temperature in the room which has changed because of the heat generated by the furnace. In an
elementary school system, the hours a teacher works or the gain in knowledge demonstrated by the
students on a national examination are examples of characteristics that may be selected for measurement,
or control.

The second element of control, the sensor, is a means for measuring the characteristic or condition. For
example, in a home heating system this device would be the thermostat, and in a quality-control system
this measurement might be performed by a visual inspection of the product.

The third element of control, the comparator, determines the need for correction by comparing what is
occurring with what has been planned. Some deviation from the plan is usual and expected, but when
variations are beyond those considered acceptable, corrective action is required. It involves a sort of
preventative action which indicates that good control is being achieved.

The fourth element of control, the activator, is the corrective action taken to return the system to its
expected output. The actual person, device, or method used to direct corrective inputs into the operating
system may take a variety of forms. It may be a hydraulic controller positioned by a solenoid or electric
motor in response to an electronic error signal, an employee directed to rework the parts that failed to pass
quality inspection, or a school principal who decides to buy additional books to provide for an increased
number of students. As long as a plan is performed within allowable limits, corrective action is not
necessary; however, this seldom occurs in practice.[citation needed]
Information is the medium of control, because the flow of sensory data and later the flow of corrective
information allow a characteristic or condition of the system to be controlled. To illustrate how information
flow facilitates control, let us review the elements of control in the context of information.[4]

Relationship between the elements of control and real time information[edit]

Controlled characteristic or condition[edit]
The primary requirement of a control system is that it maintains the level and kind of output necessary to
achieve the system's objectives.[5] It is usually impractical to control every feature and condition associated
with the system's output. Therefore, the choice of the controlled item (and appropriate information about it)
is extremely important. There should be a direct correlation between the controlled item and the system's
operation. In other words, control of the selected characteristic should have a direct relationship to the goal
or objective of the system.
Sensor[edit]
After the characteristic is sensed, or measured, information pertinent to control is fed back. Exactly what
information needs to be transmitted and also the language that will best facilitate the communication
process and reduce the possibility of distortion in transmission must be carefully considered. Information
that is to be compared with the standard, or plan, should be expressed in the same terms or language as in
the original plan to facilitate decision making. Using machine methods (computers) may require extensive
translation of the information. Since optimal languages for computation and for human review are not
always the same, the relative ease of translation may be a significant factor in selecting the units of
measurement or the language unit in the sensing element.

In many instances, the measurement may be sampled rather than providing a complete and continuous
feedback of information about the operation. A sampling procedure suggests measuring some segment or
portion of the operation that will represent the total.[2]
Comparison with standard[edit]
In a social system, the norms of acceptable behavior become the standard against which so-called deviant
behavior may be judged. Regulations and laws provide a more formal collection of information for society.
Social norms change, but very slowly. In contrast, the standards outlined by a formal law can be changed
from one day to the next through revision, discontinuation, or replacement by another. Information about
deviant behavior becomes the basis for controlling social activity. Output information is compared with the
standard or norm and significant deviations are noted. In an industrial example, frequency distribution (a
tabulation of the number of times a given characteristic occurs within the sample of products being checked)
may be used to show the average quality, the spread, and the comparison of output with a standard.

If there is a significant and uncorrectable difference between output and plan, the system is "out of control."
This means that the objectives of the system are not feasible in relation to the capabilities of the present
design. Either the objectives must be reevaluated or the system redesigned to add new capacity or
capability. For example, the traffic in drugs has been increasing in some cities at an alarming rate. The
citizens must decide whether to revise the police system so as to regain control, or whether to modify the
law to reflect a different norm of acceptable behavior.

Implementor[edit]
The activator unit responds to the information received from the comparator and initiates corrective action.
If the system is a machine-to-machine system, the corrective inputs (decision rules) are designed into the
network. When the control relates to a man-to-machine or man-to-man system, however, the individual(s)
in charge must evaluate (1) the accuracy of the feedback information, (2) the significance of the variation,
and (3) what corrective inputs will restore the system to a reasonable degree of stability. Once the decision
has been made to direct new inputs into the system, the actual process may be relatively easy. A small
amount of energy can change the operation of jet airplanes, automatic steel mills, and hydroelectric power
plants. The pilot presses a button, and the landing gear of the airplane goes up or down; the operator of a
steel mill pushes a lever, and a ribbon of white-hot steel races through the plant; a worker at a control
board directs the flow of electrical energy throughout a regional network of stations and substations. It
takes but a small amount of control energy to release or stop large quantities of input.[4]
The comparator may be located far from the operating system, although at least some of the elements
must be in close proximity to operations. For example, the measurement (the sensory element) is usually at
the point of operations. The measurement information can be transmitted to a distant point for comparison
with the standard (comparator), and when deviations occur, the correcting input can be released from the
distant point. However, the input (activator) will be located at the operating system. This ability to control
from afar means that aircraft can be flown by remote control, dangerous manufacturing processes can be
operated from a safe distance, and national organizations can be directed from centralized headquarters.

Process[edit]
Step 1. Establishment of Standard.

Standards are the criteria against which actual performance will be measured. Standards are set in both
quantitative and qualitative terms.

Step 2. Measurement of actual performance

Performance is measured in an objective and reliable manner. It should be checked in the same unit in
which the standards are set.

Step 3. Comparing actual performance with standards.

Step 4. Analysis the cause of deviations.

Step 5. Taking corrective action.

Kinds[edit]
Control may be grouped according to three general classifications:[3]
1.the nature of the information flow designed into the system (open- or closed-loop control)
2.the kind of components included in the design (man or machine control systems)
3.the relationship of control to the decision process (organizational or operational control).
Open- and closed-loop control[edit]
A street-lighting system controlled by a timing device is an example of an open-loop system. At a certain
time each evening, a mechanical device closes the circuit and energy flows through the electric lines to
light the lamps. Note, however, that the timing mechanism is an independent unit and is not measuring the
objective function of the lighting system. If the lights should be needed on a dark, stormy day the timing
device would not recognize this need and therefore would not activate energy inputs. Corrective properties
may sometimes be built into the controller (for example, to modify the time the lights are turned on as the
days grow shorter or longer), but this would not close the loop. In another instance, the sensing,
comparison, or adjustment may be made through action taken by an individual who is not part of the
system. For example, the lights may be turned on by someone who happens to pass by and recognizes the
need for additional light.

If control is exercised as a result of the operation rather than because of outside or predetermined
arrangements, it is a closed-loop system. The home thermostat is the classic example of a control device in
a closed-loop system. When the room temperature drops below the desired point, the control mechanism
closes the circuit to start the furnace and the temperature rises. The furnace-activating circuit is turned off
as the temperature reaches the preselected level. The significant difference between this type of system
and an open-loop system is that the control device is an element of the system it serves and measures the
performance of the system. In other words, all four control elements are integral to the specific system.

An essential part of a closed-loop system is feedback; that is, the output of the system is measured
continually through the item controlled, and the input is modified to reduce any difference or error toward
zero. Many of the patterns of information flow in organizations are found to have the nature of closed loops,
which use feedback. The reason for such a condition is apparent when one recognizes that any system, if it
is to achieve a predetermined goal, must have available to it at all times an indication of its degree of
attainment. In general, every goal-seeking system employs feedback.[3]

Human and machine control[edit]

The elements of control are easy to identify in machine systems. For example, the characteristic to be
controlled might be some variable like speed or temperature, and the sensing device could be a
speedometer or a thermometer. An expectation of precision exists because the characteristic is quantifiable
and the standard and the normal variation to be expected can be described in exact terms. In automatic
machine systems, inputs of information are used in a process of continual adjustment to achieve output
specifications. When even a small variation from the standard occurs, the correction process begins. The
automatic system is highly structured, designed to accept certain kinds of input and produce specific output,
and programmed to regulate the transformation of inputs within a narrow range of variation.[6]
For an illustration of mechanical control: as the load on a steam engine increases and the engine starts to
slow down, the regulator reacts by opening a valve that releases additional inputs of steam energy. This
new input returns the engine to the desired number of revolutions per minute. This type of mechanical
control is crude in comparison to the more sophisticated electronic control systems in everyday use.
Consider the complex missile-guidance systems that measure the actual course according to
predetermined mathematical calculations and make almost instantaneous corrections to direct the missile
to its target.

Machine systems can be complex because of the sophisticated technology, whereas control of people is
complex because the elements of control are difficult to determine. In human control systems, the
relationship between objectives and associated characteristics is often vague; the measurement of the
characteristic may be extremely subjective; the expected standard is difficult to define; and the amount of
new inputs required is impossible to quantify. To illustrate, let us refer once more to a formalized social
system in which deviant behavior is controlled through a process of observed violation of the existing law
(sensing), court hearings and trials (comparison with standard), incarceration when the accused is found
guilty (correction), and release from custody after rehabilitation of the individual has occurred.[6]
The speed limit established for freeway driving is one standard of performance that is quantifiable, but even
in this instance, the degree of permissible variation and the amount of the actual variation are often a
subject of disagreement between the patrolman and the suspected violator. The complexity of our society
is reflected in many of our laws and regulations, which establish the general standards for economic,
political, and social operations. A citizen may not know or understand the law and consequently would not
know whether or not he was guilty of a violation.
Most organized systems are some combination of man and machine; some elements of control may be
performed by machine whereas others are accomplished by man. In addition, some standards may be
precisely structured whereas others may be little more than general guidelines with wide variations
expected in output. Man must act as the controller when measurement is subjective and judgment is
required. Machines such as computers are incapable of making exceptions from the specified control
criteria regardless of how much a particular case might warrant special consideration. A pilot acts in
conjunction with computers and automatic pilots to fly large jets. In the event of unexpected weather
changes, or possible collision with another plane, he must intercede and assume direct control.[4]

Organizational and operational control[edit]

The concept of organizational control is implicit in the bureaucratic theory of Max Weber. Associated with
this theory are such concepts as "span of control", "closeness of supervision", and "hierarchical authority".
Weber's view tends to include all levels or types of organizational control as being the same. More recently,
writers have tended to differentiate the control process between that which emphasizes the nature of the
organizational or systems design and that which deals with daily operations. To illustrate the difference, we
"evaluate" the performance of a system to see how effective and efficient the design proved to be or to
discover why it failed. In contrast, we operate and "control" the system with respect to the daily inputs of
material, information, and energy. In both instances, the elements of feedback are present, but
organizational control tends to review and evaluate the nature and arrangement of components in the
system, whereas operational control tends to adjust the daily inputs.

The direction for organizational control comes from the goals and strategic plans of the organization.
General plans are translated into specific performance measures such as share of
the market, earnings, return on investment, and budgets. The process of organizational control is to review
and evaluate the performance of the system against these established norms. Rewards for meeting or
exceeding standards may range from special recognition to salary increases or promotions. On the other
hand, a failure to meet expectations may signal the need to reorganize or redesign.[7]
In organizational control, the approach used in the program of review and evaluation depends on the
reason for the evaluation — that is, is it because the system is not effective (accomplishing its objectives)?
Is the system failing to achieve an expected standard of efficiency? Is the evaluation being conducted
because of a breakdown or failure in operations? Is it merely a periodic audit-and-review process?

When a system has failed or is in great difficulty, special diagnostic techniques may be required to isolate
the trouble areas and to identify the causes of the difficulty. It is appropriate to investigate areas that have
been troublesome before or areas where some measure of performance can be quickly identified. For
example, if an organization's output backlog builds rapidly, it is logical to check first to see if the problem is
due to such readily obtainable measures as increased demand or to a drop in available man hours. When a
more detailed analysis is necessary, a systematic procedure should be followed.[7]
In contrast to organizational control, operational control serves to regulate the day-to-day output relative
to schedules, specifications, and costs. Is the output of product or service the proper quality and is it
available as scheduled? Are inventories of raw materials, goods-in-process, and finished products being
purchased and produced in the desired quantities? Are the costs associated with the transformation
process in line with cost estimates? Is the information needed in the transformation process available in the
right form and at the right time? Is the energy resource being utilized efficiently?

The most difficult task of management concerns monitoring the behavior of individuals, comparing
performance to some standard, and providing rewards or punishment as indicated. Sometimes this control
over people relates entirely to their output. For example, a manager might not be concerned with the
behavior of a salesman as long as sales were as high as expected. In other instances, close supervision of
the salesman might be appropriate if achieving customer satisfaction were one of the sales organization's
main objectives.

The larger the unit, the more likely that the control characteristic will be related to some output goal. It also
follows that if it is difficult or impossible to identify the actual output of individuals, it is better to measure the
performance of the entire group. This means that individuals' levels of motivation and the measurement of
their performance become subjective judgments made by the supervisor. Controlling output also suggests
the difficulty of controlling individuals' performance and relating this to the total system's objectives.[7]

Problems[edit]
The perfect plan could be outlined if every possible variation of input could be anticipated and if the system
would operate as predicted. This kind of planning is neither realistic, economical, nor feasible for most
business systems. If it were feasible, planning requirements would be so complex that the system would be
out of date before it could be operated. Therefore, we design control into systems. This requires more
thought in the systems design but allows more flexibility of operations and makes it possible to operate a
system using unpredictable components and undetermined input. Still, the design and effective operation of
control are not without problems.

The objective of the system is to perform some specified function. The objective of organizational control is
to see that the specified function is achieved. The objective of operational control is to ensure that
variations in daily output are maintained within prescribed limits.

It is one thing to design a system that contains all of the elements of control, and quite another to make it
operate true to the best objectives of design. Operating "in control" or "with plan" does not guarantee
optimum performance. For example, the plan may not make the best use of the inputs of materials, energy,
or information — in other words, the system may not be designed to operate efficiently. Some of the more
typical problems relating to control include the difficulty of measurement, the problem of timing information
flow, and the setting of proper standards.[7]
When objectives are not limited to quantitative output, the measurement of system effectiveness is difficult
to make and subsequently perplexing to evaluate. Many of the characteristics pertaining to output do not
lend themselves to quantitative measurement. This is true particularly when inputs of human energy cannot
be related directly to output. The same situation applies to machines and other equipment associated with
human involvement, when output is not in specific units. In evaluating man-machine or human-oriented
systems, psychological and sociological factors obviously do not easily translate into quantifiable terms. For
example, how does mental fatigue affect the quality or quantity of output? And, if it does, is mental fatigue a
function of the lack of a challenging assignment or the fear of a potential injury?

Subjective inputs may be transferred into numerical data, but there is always the danger of an incorrect
appraisal and transfer, and the danger that the analyst may assume undue confidence in such data after
they have been quantified. Let us suppose, for example, that the decisions made by an executive are rated
from 1 to 10, 10 being the perfect decision. After determining the ranking for each decision, adding these,
and dividing by the total number of decisions made, the average ranking would indicate a particular
executive's score in his decision-making role. On the basis of this score, judgments — which could be quite
erroneous — might be made about his decision-making effectiveness. One executive with a ranking of 6.75
might be considered more effective than another who had a ranking of 6.25, and yet the two managers may
have made decisions under different circumstances and conditions. External factors over which neither
executive had any control may have influenced the difference in "effectiveness".[7]
Quantifying human behavior, despite its extreme difficulty, subjectivity, and imprecision in relation to
measuring physical characteristics is the most prevalent and important measurement made in large
systems. The behavior of individuals ultimately dictates the success or failure of every man-made system.
Information flow [edit]

Oscillation and Feedback

Another problem of control relates to the improper timing of information introduced into the feedback
channel. Improper timing can occur in both computerized and human control systems, either by mistakes in
measurement or in judgment. The more rapid the system's response to an error signal, the more likely it is
that the system could overadjust; yet the need for prompt action is important because any delay in
providing corrective input could also be crucial. A system generating feedback inconsistent with current
need will tend to fluctuate and will not adjust in the desired manner.

The most serious problem in information flow arises when the delay in feedback is exactly one-half cycle,
for then the corrective action is superimposed on a variation from norm which, at that moment, is in the
same direction as that of the correction. This causes the system to overcorrect, and then if the reverse
adjustment is made out of cycle, to correct too much in the other direction, and so on until the system
fluctuates ("oscillates") out of control. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1. “Oscillation and
Feedback”. If, at Point A, the trend below standard is recognized and new inputs are added, but not until
Point B, the system will overreact and go beyond the allowable limits. Again, if this is recognized at Point C,
but inputs are not withdrawn until Point D, it will cause the system to drop below the lower limit of allowable
variation.[7]
One solution to this problem rests in anticipation, which involves measuring not only the change but also
the rate of change. The correction is outlined as a factor of the type and rate of the error. The difficulty also
might be overcome by reducing the time lag between the measurement of the output and the adjustment to
input. If a trend can be indicated, a time lead can be introduced to compensate for the time lag, bringing
about consistency between the need for correction and the type and magnitude of the indicated action. It is
usually more effective for an organization to maintain continuous measurement of its performance and to
make small adjustments in operations constantly (this assumes a highly sensitive control system).
Information feedback, consequently, should be timely and correct to be effective. That is, the information
should provide an accurate indication of the status of the system.[3]

Setting standards[edit]
Setting the proper standards or control limits is a problem in many systems. Parents are confronted with
this dilemma in expressing what they expect of their children, and business managers face the same issue
in establishing standards that will be acceptable to employees. Some theorists have proposed that workers
be allowed to set their own standards, on the assumption that when people establish their own goals, they
are more apt to accept and achieve them.

Standards should be as precise as possible and communicated to all persons concerned. Moreover,
communication alone is not sufficient; understanding is necessary. In human systems, standards tend to be
poorly defined and the allowable range of deviation from standard also indefinite. For example, how many
hours each day should a professor be expected to be available for student consultation? Or, what kind of
behavior should be expected by students in the classroom? Discretion and personal judgment play a large
part in such systems, to determine whether corrective action should be taken.

Perhaps the most difficult problem in human systems is the unresponsiveness of individuals to indicated
correction. This may take the form of opposition and subversion to control, or it may be related to the lack
of defined responsibility or authority to take action. Leadership and positive motivation then become vital
ingredients in achieving the proper response to input requirements.

Most control problems relate to design; thus the solution to these problems must start at that point.
Automatic control systems, provided that human intervention is possible to handle exceptions, offer the
greatest promise. There is a danger, however, that we may measure characteristics that do not represent
effective performance (as in the case of the speaker who requested that all of the people who could not
hear what he was saying should raise their hands), or that improper information may be communicated.[7]

Importance of control
1.Increasing size of business
2.Motivation for efficient employees
3.For complete discipline
4.Helpful in future planning
5.Aids efficiency
6.Decrease in risk
7.Helpful in coordination
8.Helpful in decentralisation
1.s