(校稿任务) 第105篇 Organizational Targets—Enough Is Enough
本帖最后由 小编D 于 2013-5-14 13:39 编辑
请对以下文章有翻译兴趣的组员留下你的预计完成时间和邮箱地址，以便小编登记翻译者信息以及文章最终完成时间
本文翻译：devillera
Organizational Targets—Enough Is Enough
“目标”-适可而止
Deming warned us about them, so what’s the problem?
对此，戴明已提醒过我们，这是为何呢？
Long ago, W. Edwards Deming warned us about the use of what he called “arbitrary numerical goals.” Targets are another name for these. They are so commonplace that governments, service, and manufacturing organizations all use them. Targets have become accepted in all organizations, but this habitual use conceals the harm they actually do.
很久以前，戴明就提醒我们不要随意使用“臆断的数字目标”。本文所说的“目标”只是这一说法的翻版。然而，政府部门、服务业、制造业却在不断的使用着这种“目标”。“目标”已被所有的组织所接收并习以为常，同样，其中隐藏的害处也愈加弥深。
If you are an executive, middle manager, or worker, odds are you have targets to hit. Many times these have to do with sales, budget (financial), output, or anything else that can be dreamed up. Targets seem to make sense because they give all involved clarity over things that they can “control.” Additionally, targets provide feedback and achievement: If I hit or exceed the number, I have done well (maybe even get a reward), and if I don’t hit the number, I get paid attention to by someone above me. This is true no matter what level you have achieved in an organization.
作为一个高管、中层或者工人，你遇到“目标”的几率不会很小。“目标”常常与销售收入、财务预算、产值或者其它易被联想到的方面联系在一起。这使“目标”看上去变得很有意义，因为它使一切变得清晰而好控制。此外，“目标”给人以激励作用：如果我完成了甚至超过那个数字，那证明我干得很好（还有可能得到奖励）；如果我达不成那个数字，我就会得到上司的更多“注意”了。 事实是不管你的“目标”处在何种水平，最终你完成了它。
What are the arguments for targets?
关于“目标”的争论在哪里呢？
In the book, Freedom from Command and Control (Productivity Press, 2005), John Seddon outlines many of the arguments one might hear about using targets:
Targets motivate people.
Targets set direction.
Targets should be based on what is reasonable.
People should be involved in setting their targets.
在《自由、自治与控制》（网上没有找到该书的中午翻译，属于自翻）一书中，John Seddon总结了诸多关于“目标”讨论的焦点：
“目标”对人有激励作用
“目标”指导方向
“目标”的建立应该合乎情理
人们应该参与与自身相关 “目标”的设定
When sales are involved, rewards often are given in achieving targets. Conventional thinking tells us that this motivates people. Indeed, it does: It motivates people to manipulate (even cheat) to hit the target(s) 。This may come in the form of overselling a product or service that is later returned or cancelled. I’ve seen this far too often in functionally separated organizations when the sales department has sales targets, and the operations department gets to manage costs. The result is called “American toast.” In Deming’s words, “You burn, I’ll scrape.”
当销售收入被设定为“目标”的时候，奖励通常在完成“目标”后跟随而来。思维惯性告诉我们这样会对员工起到激励作用。的确，这样“目标”就会“激励”人们想尽一切办法去达成它，这其中包括造假。那样就会进入这样一个怪圈：产品或者服务销售超额完成，随之而来的是客户的退货或者订单取消。我们已见惯了这样的场景，在职能分离的组织尤甚。例如当销售部门完成销售“目标”时，运营部门却不得不付出更多的经营成本。这被称之为“美国吐司”，用戴明的话说，叫“你高明，我也有招”（？）
As Seddon said, when targets are set in any part of the organization, they become the de facto purpose of the organization; meaning workers, managers, and executives are focused on meeting the target and not the customer. A lack of focus on the customer and forgetting why the customer chose to deal with your organization leads to waste, but when you ignore the customer in favor of targets, the loss is massive.
如Seddon所言，当“目标”被指定到组织的各个角落时，“目标”便已成为了组织存在的实际目的。这意味着工人、经理、高管的眼睛都聚焦于“目标”上面，而不是顾客。对顾客的忽略必将会放松对顾客与之合作的初衷，从而造成浪费，尤其当完全忽视了顾客所关心的某些方面时，损失将无比巨大。
Some argue that targets set a direction, but isn’t it enough to know that we want sales to go up and costs down? What we need to concern ourselves with is the method, not a target. If we are making American toast, we should look at end-to-end costs of hitting revenue targets if costs outstrip the gains. Revenue and costs are two sides of the same coin.
一些观点认为“目标”指导方向，但“目标”实实在在的给我们指明如何让销售收入增加和成本下降了吗？我们需要关心的是方法，而不是“目标”。如果我们制作美国吐司，我们应该进行全过程的成本监控以达成收益目标，避免成本支出大于收益。收益和成本就如同一个硬币的两面。
Some chose targets based on such nonsense as SMART, which stands for specific, measureable, attainable, realistic, and timely. This approach for setting objectives seems reasonable but tells us little about what the right measures are for an organization. However, they are still arbitrary. The correct measures must be gained from understanding systems, and they will require no targets. This is true even if you set your own targets.
一些“目标”的选择基于荒谬的SMART原则，即特殊性、可测量性、可达成性、相关性和时效性等几个方面。通过这种方法来设定“目标”听上去合情合理，但对正确的措施告之甚少。然而，这样仍然是武断的。正确的措施必须来源于明确的系统，这要求没有“目标”。即使你要给自己设定一个目标，那也是真实的。
Those of you who understand variation can appreciate where Deming is coming from—or you should. Look at the control chart below. It represents sales by week (in thousands) 。 The lower control limit is 47.4, the upper limit is 182.9, and the average is 115.1. Because the data represent common cause variation (between the limits), the system that produces these sales will continue to operate between 47.4 and 182.9 unless the system (or method) changes.
了解变差的那部分你能够帮你靠近戴明。请看下面的一张控制图。这是目前的轴销售收入趋势图（单位：千）。控制图下限为47.4，上限为182.9，平均值为115.1。数据代表的是普通变差（两限之间），除非系统（或方式）改变，销售额将一直在47.4和182.9之间波动。
Click here for larger image.
I’ve seen too many managers look at data without understanding a basic control chart. I’ve seen some executives, when shown a chart, try to set the target at the average (in this case 115.1), which of course will lead to you hitting the target about half the time and missing about half the time. Others try to set the target at the lower control limit, which means that you will hit your sales target all the time, but won’t improve the system. Still others will “raise the bar” or set “stretch targets,” which still doesn’t change the system.
我见过许多经理看不懂普通的控制图。也见过一些高管，试图将平均值（此例为115.1）设定为销售目标，当然，这将直接导致一半时间能完成“目标”，而另一半时间不能。另一部分人试图将“目标”设定在下控制限上，这意味着你无须做任何改进也能一直达成你的“目标”。还有人想要更上层楼，攀高“目标”，且没打算要改变系统。
No matter where I set the target, the system will not change until the system that produces it changes either positively or negatively. If organizations understood variation, they would never set targets; they would (hopefully) use the data as a performance baseline and improve by experimenting with method.
不管我将“目标”定在何处，系统将不会人为改变直到其自身发生积极或消极的变化。如果组织理解变差的含义，他们就不会非要去设定“目标”。他们会满怀希望的使用数据来划出系统的基本性能表现线，并通过方法的研究来实现改进。
In my next column, I’ll talk about an approach to establishing measures rather than using targets. There’s a better way if you are prepared to change the way you think about the design and management of work.
我的下一专栏将要谈到如何提出措施的方法而非使用“目标”。如果你想要改变设计和管理工作的方式的话，这是一条更好的途径。
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tripp Babbitt
Tripp Babbitt is a systems thinking interventionist who helps service executives improve service using nonconventional methods. His 18-year-old company, Bryce Harrison Inc., engages with service organizations (public, private, and the service side of manufacturing) 。 Babbitt is currently working with the Vanguard Method conducting corporate and government interventions. For further information go to www.newsystemsthinking.com or his blog at http://blog.newsystemsthinking.com.
来自http://www.qualitydigest.com
请对以下文章有翻译兴趣的组员留下你的预计完成时间和邮箱地址，以便小编登记翻译者信息以及文章最终完成时间
本文翻译：devillera
Organizational Targets—Enough Is Enough
“目标”-适可而止
Deming warned us about them, so what’s the problem?
对此，戴明已提醒过我们，这是为何呢？
Long ago, W. Edwards Deming warned us about the use of what he called “arbitrary numerical goals.” Targets are another name for these. They are so commonplace that governments, service, and manufacturing organizations all use them. Targets have become accepted in all organizations, but this habitual use conceals the harm they actually do.
很久以前，戴明就提醒我们不要随意使用“臆断的数字目标”。本文所说的“目标”只是这一说法的翻版。然而，政府部门、服务业、制造业却在不断的使用着这种“目标”。“目标”已被所有的组织所接收并习以为常，同样，其中隐藏的害处也愈加弥深。
If you are an executive, middle manager, or worker, odds are you have targets to hit. Many times these have to do with sales, budget (financial), output, or anything else that can be dreamed up. Targets seem to make sense because they give all involved clarity over things that they can “control.” Additionally, targets provide feedback and achievement: If I hit or exceed the number, I have done well (maybe even get a reward), and if I don’t hit the number, I get paid attention to by someone above me. This is true no matter what level you have achieved in an organization.
作为一个高管、中层或者工人，你遇到“目标”的几率不会很小。“目标”常常与销售收入、财务预算、产值或者其它易被联想到的方面联系在一起。这使“目标”看上去变得很有意义，因为它使一切变得清晰而好控制。此外，“目标”给人以激励作用：如果我完成了甚至超过那个数字，那证明我干得很好（还有可能得到奖励）；如果我达不成那个数字，我就会得到上司的更多“注意”了。 事实是不管你的“目标”处在何种水平，最终你完成了它。
What are the arguments for targets?
关于“目标”的争论在哪里呢？
In the book, Freedom from Command and Control (Productivity Press, 2005), John Seddon outlines many of the arguments one might hear about using targets:
Targets motivate people.
Targets set direction.
Targets should be based on what is reasonable.
People should be involved in setting their targets.
在《自由、自治与控制》（网上没有找到该书的中午翻译，属于自翻）一书中，John Seddon总结了诸多关于“目标”讨论的焦点：
“目标”对人有激励作用
“目标”指导方向
“目标”的建立应该合乎情理
人们应该参与与自身相关 “目标”的设定
When sales are involved, rewards often are given in achieving targets. Conventional thinking tells us that this motivates people. Indeed, it does: It motivates people to manipulate (even cheat) to hit the target(s) 。This may come in the form of overselling a product or service that is later returned or cancelled. I’ve seen this far too often in functionally separated organizations when the sales department has sales targets, and the operations department gets to manage costs. The result is called “American toast.” In Deming’s words, “You burn, I’ll scrape.”
当销售收入被设定为“目标”的时候，奖励通常在完成“目标”后跟随而来。思维惯性告诉我们这样会对员工起到激励作用。的确，这样“目标”就会“激励”人们想尽一切办法去达成它，这其中包括造假。那样就会进入这样一个怪圈：产品或者服务销售超额完成，随之而来的是客户的退货或者订单取消。我们已见惯了这样的场景，在职能分离的组织尤甚。例如当销售部门完成销售“目标”时，运营部门却不得不付出更多的经营成本。这被称之为“美国吐司”，用戴明的话说，叫“你高明，我也有招”（？）
As Seddon said, when targets are set in any part of the organization, they become the de facto purpose of the organization; meaning workers, managers, and executives are focused on meeting the target and not the customer. A lack of focus on the customer and forgetting why the customer chose to deal with your organization leads to waste, but when you ignore the customer in favor of targets, the loss is massive.
如Seddon所言，当“目标”被指定到组织的各个角落时，“目标”便已成为了组织存在的实际目的。这意味着工人、经理、高管的眼睛都聚焦于“目标”上面，而不是顾客。对顾客的忽略必将会放松对顾客与之合作的初衷，从而造成浪费，尤其当完全忽视了顾客所关心的某些方面时，损失将无比巨大。
Some argue that targets set a direction, but isn’t it enough to know that we want sales to go up and costs down? What we need to concern ourselves with is the method, not a target. If we are making American toast, we should look at end-to-end costs of hitting revenue targets if costs outstrip the gains. Revenue and costs are two sides of the same coin.
一些观点认为“目标”指导方向，但“目标”实实在在的给我们指明如何让销售收入增加和成本下降了吗？我们需要关心的是方法，而不是“目标”。如果我们制作美国吐司，我们应该进行全过程的成本监控以达成收益目标，避免成本支出大于收益。收益和成本就如同一个硬币的两面。
Some chose targets based on such nonsense as SMART, which stands for specific, measureable, attainable, realistic, and timely. This approach for setting objectives seems reasonable but tells us little about what the right measures are for an organization. However, they are still arbitrary. The correct measures must be gained from understanding systems, and they will require no targets. This is true even if you set your own targets.
一些“目标”的选择基于荒谬的SMART原则，即特殊性、可测量性、可达成性、相关性和时效性等几个方面。通过这种方法来设定“目标”听上去合情合理，但对正确的措施告之甚少。然而，这样仍然是武断的。正确的措施必须来源于明确的系统，这要求没有“目标”。即使你要给自己设定一个目标，那也是真实的。
Those of you who understand variation can appreciate where Deming is coming from—or you should. Look at the control chart below. It represents sales by week (in thousands) 。 The lower control limit is 47.4, the upper limit is 182.9, and the average is 115.1. Because the data represent common cause variation (between the limits), the system that produces these sales will continue to operate between 47.4 and 182.9 unless the system (or method) changes.
了解变差的那部分你能够帮你靠近戴明。请看下面的一张控制图。这是目前的轴销售收入趋势图（单位：千）。控制图下限为47.4，上限为182.9，平均值为115.1。数据代表的是普通变差（两限之间），除非系统（或方式）改变，销售额将一直在47.4和182.9之间波动。
Click here for larger image.
I’ve seen too many managers look at data without understanding a basic control chart. I’ve seen some executives, when shown a chart, try to set the target at the average (in this case 115.1), which of course will lead to you hitting the target about half the time and missing about half the time. Others try to set the target at the lower control limit, which means that you will hit your sales target all the time, but won’t improve the system. Still others will “raise the bar” or set “stretch targets,” which still doesn’t change the system.
我见过许多经理看不懂普通的控制图。也见过一些高管，试图将平均值（此例为115.1）设定为销售目标，当然，这将直接导致一半时间能完成“目标”，而另一半时间不能。另一部分人试图将“目标”设定在下控制限上，这意味着你无须做任何改进也能一直达成你的“目标”。还有人想要更上层楼，攀高“目标”，且没打算要改变系统。
No matter where I set the target, the system will not change until the system that produces it changes either positively or negatively. If organizations understood variation, they would never set targets; they would (hopefully) use the data as a performance baseline and improve by experimenting with method.
不管我将“目标”定在何处，系统将不会人为改变直到其自身发生积极或消极的变化。如果组织理解变差的含义，他们就不会非要去设定“目标”。他们会满怀希望的使用数据来划出系统的基本性能表现线，并通过方法的研究来实现改进。
In my next column, I’ll talk about an approach to establishing measures rather than using targets. There’s a better way if you are prepared to change the way you think about the design and management of work.
我的下一专栏将要谈到如何提出措施的方法而非使用“目标”。如果你想要改变设计和管理工作的方式的话，这是一条更好的途径。
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tripp Babbitt
Tripp Babbitt is a systems thinking interventionist who helps service executives improve service using nonconventional methods. His 18-year-old company, Bryce Harrison Inc., engages with service organizations (public, private, and the service side of manufacturing) 。 Babbitt is currently working with the Vanguard Method conducting corporate and government interventions. For further information go to www.newsystemsthinking.com or his blog at http://blog.newsystemsthinking.com.
来自http://www.qualitydigest.com
没有找到相关结果
已邀请:
RSS Feed
3 个回复
devillera (威望:0) (湖北 十堰) 汽车制造相关 员工
赞同来自: