Take a look at the previous posts to learn about the features of a managerial tool that can be designed to be part of an artificial manager. With such a tool, an artificial manager can solve a particular organizing problem using a management method – as if a human manager were doing it. But surely you have already run into a fundamental technical problem to solve in order to build such a robot. How is an artificial manager supposed to know what a human manager would do?
The answer on the surface is simple: you need to record what the human manager does. Simply put, you need to record the details, of what it does. In other words, you need to record the manager’s actions, and then let the artificial manager perform them similarly and in a similar order! Just how to register these activities?
Well, the assumption I made was this: a managerial tool is also a measurement tool . The construction of managerial tools in the organizational size system is also based on the assumption of R.P. Bagozzi that there is a close relationship between the concept attributed to a given phenomenon in organizational reality and the magnitude that the measuring tool (which is also a managerial tool) measures. The managerial tool collects information about the actions taken by the manager or other participants in the organization (in the original “operations or experimentation” – author’s note) with the ceteris paribus principle. 
The managerial tool in the concept of organizational size system measures about where and when the tool was used, who used it and what resources were produced in the subsequent steps of using the tool (in the original “The things upon which work is done” – author’s note) and how the process for which the tool was used was carried out .
In the article below you can read about the effects of using managerial tools as measurement tools that record managerial activities. An example is the data collected in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Example of recording managerial activities – setting goals and defining tasks – by two managers.
From Figure 1, you can read how many goals and tasks were created with the managerial tools, how long it took to work on them, how many times they were edited, etc. You can read more in this article:
 O. Flak: Ustalanie celów i zadań za pomocą narzędzi menedżerskich online – wyniki obserwacji. Technologie wiedzy w zarządzaniu publicznym, Studia Ekonomiczne 2013, Nr 199, Katowice, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach, s. 46-57;
O. Flak, A. Pyszka: Differences in Perception of the Participants in The Management Process and its Real Trajectory. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation 2013, Vol. 9 (4), Nowy Sącz, Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu, s. 53-72;
O. Flak, J. Alnajjar: Ocena spójności intertekstowej w planowaniu projektu. Wyniki badania z wykorzystaniem układu wielkości organizacyjnych. Lingwistyka Stosowana 2015, Nr 13, s. 1-14;
O. Flak, K. Hoffmann-Burdzińska: Management Techniques and Tools in Project Planning – part 1. Quantitative Results of Research. W: Innowacje w zarządzaniu i inżynierii produkcji. T. 1. Red. R. Knosala. Opole, Oficyna Wydawnicza Polskiego Towarzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją, 2016, s. 277-287;
O. Flak, K. Hoffmann-Burdzińska: Management Techniques and Tools in Project Planning – part 2. Qualitative Results of Research. W: Innowacje w zarządzaniu i inżynierii produkcji. T. 1. Red. R. Knosala. Opole, Oficyna Wydawnicza Polskiego Towarzystwa Zarządzania Produkcją, 2016, s. 288-299;
Hoffmann-Burdzińska K., Flak O.: Management by Objectives as a Method of Measuring HR Teams Effectiveness. Journal of Positive Management 2015, Vol. 6 (3), s. 67-82.
 R.P. Bagozzi: Measurement and Meaning in Information Systems and Organizational Research: Methodological and Philosophical Foundations…, s. 265.
 H.M. Carlisle: Measuring the Situational Nature of Management. California Management Review 1968, Vol. 11 (2), s. 45-52.