For decades, Bell Labs was considered the hot spot for innovation, and its researchers won several Nobel Prizes and Turing Awards, including Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. The lab’s resources were cut as management started pushing for more immediate returns based on incremental technological changes, and ultimately it failed to capitalize on the internet revolution of the early 2000s, Jon Gertner writes in his book The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation.
Peopleware： 腦力密集產業的人才管理之道
Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, 2nd ed.
簡單評湯姆．狄馬克 提摩西．李斯特Peopleware： 腦力密集產業的人才管理之道 (Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, 2nd ed.)台北：經濟新潮社，2007
這是重譯本。有索引。書中章節標題如第13章「 雨傘步」（兒童遊戲）等，如果沒有作者幫忙解釋，很少人會懂得它的。
gradient
這字在數學上稱為"梯度" 不過在日長常用語以"漸次變化(率)"等比較好 如室內各空間的私密程度與它們與大門之距離有關
這hairy 不是吃重 是極難 令人怕到快抓狂 proximity 喻空間"接近"而非"近似" (p.99)
第16章 很高興能待在這裡 本章一開始先來一段隨堂測驗： 第一題：貴公司這幾年來，員工離職率是多少？ 第二題：取代一名離職者的平均成本是多少？ 計分方式：兩題都答得出來，就算過關，此外皆不及格。結果大多數人都過不了關。 說句公道話，這種事可能不是你份內的工作。好吧，再提供另一種計分方式：只要貴公司有任何人知道這兩題的答案，就算過關。大多數人還是過不了關。我們避免量測離職率的原因，一如癮君子避免與醫生認真地討論健康問題──這會造成許多困擾，而且結果都是壞消息。 離職率：明顯的成本 一 般我們所接觸到的離職率在每年80%~33%之間，這代表員工的平均在職時間為15至36個月，假設貴公司目前的離職率落在這個範圍，則員工平均兩年多一 點就會離職。無論是透過人力仲介或公司內部的人事單位，聘雇一位新人的成本相當於一個半月至兩個月的薪水。新人一旦錄用，或許就會立即參與專案，於是他的 時間便完全奉獻給專案。然而，這是帳目上的假象，眾所皆知，新人第一天上班幾乎不會有任何貢獻，甚至更糟，因為其他人還得花時間引導他進入狀況。 幾 個月後，新人開始有一點貢獻，五個月內，他終於完全上手，於是，公司為新人起步所付出的合理代價，估計大約是每位新人會損失三個月的工時。（顯然，如果工 作內容更加深奧難懂，起步成本就會更高，或高很多。）所以取代一位離職者的總成本，大約是四個半月至五個月的員工薪水，相當於這位新人做下去整整兩年後累 計付給他的薪水的兩成。 離職率的隱性成本 員工離職的成本占所有人力成本的兩成，但這只是看得見的人員流動成本，更令人感到不安的是看不見的成本，而且情況更糟。 在高離職率的公司裡，員工傾向採取一種破壞性的短期觀點，因為他們知道自己不會待太久。於是，舉例來說，當你為部屬爭取更好的工作場所時，別太驚訝某個高層人士會這樣反駁： 「等 等，老兄。你講的都是要花大錢的事，我們要是給工程師那麼大的空間，還有噪音防護，甚至隱私，說不定到最後每個月都得為每個人多花五十塊錢！再乘上全公司 的工程師總數，這可是成千上萬的一大筆數目，我們怎麼可能花這麼多錢！我跟大家一樣都很重視生產力，但你沒看到我們第三季的數字有多糟嗎？」當然，對於以上說法，最無懈可擊的回答就是，現在先投資一個合理的環境，未來便可避免另一個可怕的第三季。不過，勸你還是省省吧，你遇到的是一個眼光短淺 的人，再怎麼無懈可擊也左右不了他，此人大概也快離開公司了，短期支出對他而言是一筆實實在在的支出，至於長期利益則根本不具任何意義。 在高離職率的組織裡，沒有人願意採取長期觀點。 員工為何離職 對正打算換工作的人而言，其理由跟所牽涉到的人的個性一樣，有各式各樣的。一個流動率高到近乎病態（超過50%）的組織中，大部分走人的原因不外乎以下幾點： ●過客心態：同事之間缺乏長期的工作參與感。 ●可有可無的感覺：管理就只是把員工當成可替代的零件（既然離職率這麼高，沒有人是無可取代的）。 ●覺得對公司忠誠很可笑：誰會效忠一個把員工當成零件的公司？ 此處還包括無形的影響，也就是離職率會刺激離職率。由於員工做沒幾天就離職，公司便不需要把錢花在訓練上，既然公司對員工不做任何投資，員工便會認為離職也無妨。 永續經營的理念 這 些年來，我們有幸能為少數幾家離職率超低的公司效命並擔任顧問，這些最優秀的公司並非都一個樣，不過，有一個共通點就是它們全部都著迷於使自己成為最優秀 的，無論在走廊上、工作會議，以及閒聊時，這始終是共同的話題。相反的情況也是如此：不是「最優秀」的公司很少或從不討論這個話題。 最 優秀的公司本能地會去努力使自己變成最優秀的，此一共同目標帶來了一致的方向、共同的滿足感，以及強大的凝聚效果，在這裡可以感受到永續經營的氣氛，讓人 覺得只有笨蛋才會去別處找工作──其他人會覺得你瘋了。有些很有企圖的公司會直接營造出這種社區感，例如，讀者文摘和部分惠普公司的辦公地點，就有公司為 員工們開闢的社區花園，每到午休時間，花園裡便充滿了業餘耕種或鋤草的農夫，也有人隔著圍籬討論番茄的種種，有時還會舉辦最甜的豌豆或最長的胡瓜比賽，也 有以物易物的活動，你可以拿一些大蒜跟別人交換玉米。 你可以證明社區花園在短期內根本沒有任何意義，這些開銷都會出現在本季的財務報表上，於是大部分的公司都會立即打消這個念頭。但對最優秀的公司而言，短期利潤並非唯一考量，更重要的是成為最優秀的，而這是個長期的概念。 員工傾向留在這樣的公司，是因為這裡四處瀰漫著期待你留下的感覺，公司願意大量投資在個人成長，無論是攻讀碩士或時間更長的新人訓練，某些機構甚至長達一年。當公司在培育人才上投資這麼多心力時，你很難不注意到這種期待你留下的訊息。 低 流動率公司還有另一項共同特徵，就是廣泛的再訓練（retraining）。你很容易碰到從祕書、發薪職員，或收發室小弟升上來的經理或主管。這些人當初 進公司時毫無經驗，通常才剛從學校畢業，當他們需要新技能以做些改變時，公司便提供了這些技能。沒有哪一項工作是死路。
第33章 終極的管理罪惡是…… 終極的管理罪惡就是浪費人的時間，聽起來，這個罪惡好像很容易避免，但其實沒那麼簡單，身為管理者，你也有自己的需要，而這些需要可能剛好跟保留並明智運用下屬時間的念頭相牴觸。 例如 你召集部屬開會，自己卻姍姍來遲（你得接一通老闆打來的緊急電話），把大家留在那裡枯等；會議當中，你被人叫出去，就為了跟客戶進行短暫而重要的會談，至於會議，則因你的離席而失去了重點；或者，這場會議本身就是浪費所有人的時間（或許除了你之外）。 會 議一開始，頭幾分鐘都在說笑，老闆安布魯茲跟每個人都能聊上兩句，被點到的人也會哈啦回去，鬧著玩。然後，氣氛驟變，安布魯茲正式主持會議，諸多議題迅速 而有效地提出來，每個議題他都會跟其中一位與會者討論，藉由雙方短暫的交談，安布魯茲會聽取現況報告，以便掌握該週的進度。會議期間，時間大致會平均分配 給每一位與會者，當某一位跟老闆交談時，其他人就在一旁安靜聆聽。輪到伊蓮向老闆報告時，我看到羅傑心不在焉，顯然正在盤算等一下要怎麼向安布魯茲報告。 當會議結束時，安布魯茲分派交辦事項，幾乎人人都有。以上這幅令人熟悉的畫面有什麼問題嗎？我覺得這根本不是一場會議，而是一項儀式。 ──狄馬克 當你召集一群人開會，基本的前提就是為了取得某種共識，因而有必要讓大家聚在會議室裡相互交流。這要是變成與會者輪流跟某位關鍵人物交談，便喪失了大家齊聚一堂的用意，也許老闆個別跟每位部屬私下交談就夠了，其他人沒有必要在場聆聽。 我 們一開始就說過，這是為了滿足你的需要──身為老闆的需要──才開的會，或許會耽誤幾位部屬的時間，但有何不妥？為了能持續控管，老闆不就是該這麼做嗎？ 難道這不是管理並協調眾人行動一致的合理代價嗎？可以說是，也可以說不是。就了解現況的目的而言，召開會議並非絕對必要，還有很多比較不浪費時間的方式可 用。之所以要開會，並不在於滿足老闆對資訊的需求，而是為了一再保證（reassurance），這項儀式提供了一再保證的機會，保證每個人都知道老闆就 是老闆，既然是老闆開的會，大家就該出席，以示對統治階級的尊重。 現況報告會議是跟身分地位有關 召開真正的工作會議必須具 備真正的動機，這才把人都找來，針對某個事情集思廣益，目的在於達成共識。根據定義，這樣的會議是一件特別的事，所謂特別，意味著會議不太可能例行性地召 開，所以，任何例行的會議多少都令人懷疑具有儀式的目的，而不是為了取得眾人的共識。每週召開一次的現況報告會議(status meeting)就是一個明顯的例子，它的目的看起來像是現況報告，然其真正的意圖卻是現況確認，而且此現況並非工作的現況，而是對老闆的身分地位 (status)的確認。 組織是需要儀式，若真的是為了儀式而召開會議也絕對合理，特別是當專案達到某個里程碑、歡迎新進人員，或慶祝共 同完成了某個優秀的工作成果。這種會議並未浪費任何人的時間，它不僅滿足了表達感恩的實際需要，也肯定了所有成員──包括其重要性，及其價值。儀式性的會 議若只是用來歌頌老闆，那才叫浪費。
Peopleware
How to run a project
Hard-won wisdom fills this small book: How to create a team, place, or company that is productive. First published 20 years ago, and updated once since then, copies of it have quietly served as a guru for many start ups and successful projects in Silicon Valley. Neither academic nor faddish, two veteran consultant authors offer real intelligence. This book has totally informed how I do projects. I learned about the myth of overtime, the need for closure and ceremonies, how teams jell, and why everyone should and can have a window. I first read it decades ago and re-read it every time I embark on anything involving more than one person and several years of my life. Unlike a lot of management lore, it is aimed at the project level (where I want to be) rather than the large organization. The message in the book touts productivity, without ever mentioning the dreary idea of time management. It's more about optimizing people, and thus the title, Peopleware.
-- KK
Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams, 2nd ed. Tom Demarco, Timothy Lister 1999, 245 pages $35 Available from Amazon
Sample excerpts:
I was teaching an in-house design course some years ago, when one of the upper managers buttonholed me to request that I assess some of the people in the course (his project staff). He was particularly curious about one woman. It was obvious he had his doubts about her: "I don't quite see what she adds to a project -- she's not a great developer or tester or much of anything." With a little investigation, I turned up this intriguing fact: During her twelve years at the company, the woman in question had never worked on a project that had been anything other than a huge success. It wasn't obvious what she was adding, but projects always succeeded when she was around. After watching her in class for a week and talking to some of her co-workers, I came to the conclusion that she was a superb catalyst. Teams naturally jelled better when she was there. She helped people communicate with each other and get along. Projects were more fun when she was part of them. When I tried to explain this idea to the manager, I struck out. He just didn't recognize the role of catalyst as essential to a project.
*
Any regular get-together meeting is somewhat suspect to have a ceremonial purpose rather than a focused goal of consensus.
But organizations have a need of ceremony. It's perfectly reasonable to call a meeting with a purpose that is strictly ceremonial, particularly at project milestones, when new people come on board, or for celebrating good work by the group. Such meetings do not waste anyone's time. They fulfill real needs for appreciation. They confirm group membership -- its importance and its value.
*
Modern office politics makes a great class distinction in the matter of allocating windows. Most participants emerge as losers in the window sweepstakes. People who wouldn't think of living in a home without windows end up spending most of their daylight time in windowless workspace.
We are trained to accept windowless office space as inevitable. The company would love for every one of us to have a window, we hear, but that just isn't realistic. Sure it is. There is a perfect proof that sufficient windows can be built into a space without excessive cost. The existence proof is the hotel, any hotel. You can't even imagine being shown a hotel room with no window. You wouldn't stand for it. (And this is for a space you're only going to sleep in.)
*
The purpose of a team is not goal attainment but goal alignment.
*
A few very characteristic signs indicate that a jelled team has occurred. The most important of these is low turnover during projects and in the middle of well-defined tasks. The team members aren't going anywhere till the work is done. Things that matter enormously prior to jell (money, status, position for advancement) matter less or not at all after jell. People certainly aren't about to leave their team for a rinky-dink consideration like a little more salary. There is a sense of eliteness on a good team. Team members feel they're part of something unique. They feel they're better than the run of the mill. They have a cocky, SWAT Team attitude that may be faintly annoying to people who aren't part of the group.
*
In my two years at Bell Labs, we worked in two-person offices. They were spacious, quiet, and the phones could be diverted. I shared my office with Wendl Thomis who went on to build a small empire as an electronic toy maker. In those days, he was working on the ESS fault dictionary. The dictionary scheme relied upon the notion of n-space proximity, a concept that was hairy enough to challenge even Wendl's powers of concentration. One afternoon, I was bent over a program listing while Wendl was staring into space, his feet propped up on the desk. Our boss came in and asked, "Wendl! What are you doing?" Wendl said, "I'm thinking." And the boss said, "Can't you do that at home?"
*
Organizations also have some need for closure. Closure for the organization is the successful finish of the work as assigned, plus perhaps an occasional confirmation along the way that everything is on target (maybe a milestone achieved or a significant partial delivery completed). How much confirmation corporations require is a function of how much money is at risk. Frequently, closure only at the end of a four-year effort is adequate for the needs of the organization. The problem here is that organizations have far less need for closure than do the people who work for them. The prospect of four years of work without any satisfying "thunk" leaves everyone in the group thinking, "I could be dead before this thing is ever done." Particularly when the team is coming together, frequently closure is important. Team members need to get into the habit of succeeding together and liking it. This is part of the mechanism by which the team builds momentum.
*
Productivity took a hit when Louise left, even passing below zero for a while as others scurried to make up for the loss of a well-integrated team member. Then, eventually, it worked its way up to where it was before.
The shaded area on the graph represents the lost production (work that didn't get done) caused by Louise's departure. Or, viewed differently, it is the investment that the company is now making to get Ralph up to where Louise was after the company's past investments in her skills and capabilities.
*
Once a team begins to jell, the probability of success goes up dramatically. The team can become almost unstoppable, a juggernaut for success. Managing these juggernaut teams is a real pleasure. You spend most of your time just getting obstacles out of their way, clearing the path so that bystanders don't get trampled underfoot: "Here they come, folks. Stand back and hold onto your hats." They don't need to be managed in the traditional sense, and they certainly don't need to be motivated. They've got momentum.
*
Have you ever been in an organization that simply glowed with health? People were at ease, having a good time and enjoying interactions with their peers. There was no defensiveness, no sense that single individuals were trying to succeed in spite of the efforts of those around them. The work was a joint product. Everybody was proud of its quality.
Presented below is an admittedly simplistic list o the elements of a chemistry-building strategy for healthy organization: -Make a cult of quality. -Provide lots of satisfying closure. -Build a sense of eliteness. -Allow and encourage heterogeneity. -Preserve and protect successful teams. -Provide strategic but not tactical direction.
*
When you first start measuring the E-Factor, don't be surprised if it hovers around zero. People may even laugh at you for trying to record uninterrupted hours: "There is no such thing as an uninterrupted hour in this madhouse." Don't despair. Remember that you're not just collecting data, you're helping to change people's attitudes. By regularly noting uninterrupted hours, you are giving official sanction to the notion that people ought to have at least some interruption-free time. That makes it permissible to hide out, to ignore the phone, or to close the door (if, sigh, there is a door). At one of our client sites, there was a nearly organic phenomenon of red bandannas on dowels suddenly sprouting from the desks after a few weeks of E-Factor data collection. No one in power had ever suggested that device as an official Do Not Disturb signal; it just happened by consensus. But everyone soon learned its significance and respected it.
*
When you observe a well-knit team in action, you'll see a basic hygienic act of peer-coaching that is going on all the time. Team members sit down in pairs to transfer knowledge. When this happens, there is always one learner and one teacher. Their roles tend to switch back and forth over time with, perhaps, A coaching B about TCP/IP and then B coaching A about implementation of queues. When it works well, the participants are barely even aware of it. They may not even identify it as coaching; to them it may just seem like work. Whether it is named or not, coaching is an important factor in successful team interaction. It provides coordination as well as personal growth to the participants. It also feels good. We tend to look back on significant coaching we've received as a near religious experience. We feel a huge debt to those who have coached us in the past, a debt that we cheerfully discharge by coaching others.
*
Learning is limited by an organization's ability to keep its people.
*
The most likely learning center for any sizable organization is the white space that lies between and among middle managers. If this white space becomes a vital channel of communication, if middle managers can act together as the redesigners of the organization, sharing a common stake in the result, then the benefits of learning are likely to be realized. If, on the other hand, the white space is empty of communication and common purpose, learning comes to a standstill. Organizations in which middle managers are isolated, embattled, and fearful are nonstarters in this respect.
*
*
If you have ever undertaken a major development effort, you almost certainly know the wisdom of the adage, "Build one to throw away." It's only after you're finished that you know how the thing really should have been done. You seldom get to go back and do it again right, of course, but it would be nice.
This same idea can be applied to whole careers. Between the two of us, we've spent nearly thirty years managing projects or consulting on project management. Most of what we've learned, we've learned from doing it wrong the first time. We've never had the luxury of managing any of those projects over again to do it entirely right. Instead, we've written this book.
沒有留言:
張貼留言