顯示具有 TOC 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 TOC 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2025年7月24日 星期四

論分流之術與助理之用:經理專注之本,組織暢行之道

論分流之術與助理之用:經理專注之本,組織暢行之道

引論

夫組織之營運,經理之神思與決斷,實為其樞。若任務如潮,訊息如流,未經篩選而紛至,則經理之心神必為之所奪,疲於奔命,徒增雜務,而專注之力衰,致使全局之產出減。此文將闡分流之法,此法源於醫軍之用,旨在應對事務之繁雜,以序其工,以護其要。並闡明助理之設,非為浮華,乃組織效率之要略。夫助理者,若善盡分流之責,則能使經理人專心致志,減系統之遲滯。尤為關鍵者,本文亦論如何防助理之職,淪為官僚之弊,務求既保經理之專,又不阻要務之通。

一、多工之弊:制約之理

現今營運,專案環伺,事務紛呈,致使經理人常陷於多工之窘境。約束理論(Theory of Constraints, TOC)有言:若系統之瓶頸(即經理人之專注力)不加保護,則全局之產出必受其害。故欲使組織暢行,當識其瓶頸,並使餘者皆從之。此中關鍵,即在於控管流向經理之資訊與事務。

二、分流之術:決斷之要

分流之法,本用於急症救治,乃依輕重緩急而定事之先後。用之於經理事務,其效有三:

  • 務重且急者,直達經理,迅得決斷。

  • 次要之事,則加以篩濾,或緩之,或委之。

  • 經理之寶貴時日,盡用於能致廣大效益之處。

此術之用,正如 TOC 關鍵鏈專案管理之旨,在於減省多工,保障要務之流,使之日日得行。

三、助理之用:制約之護

夫助理之設,非冗員也,乃組織系統之槓桿。其職不在瑣務,而在為經理之瓶頸設保護之緩衝。其責有四:

  • 篩濾諸般訊息,減省經理心神之切換。

  • 延遲、委託或彙整次要之事。

  • 規劃日程,使之與經理之要務相符。

  • 協調後續,不以瑣碎擾其心神。

助理之為用,實為首階之決策門,助經理以明辨,以專思,專注於能影響全局之決斷與行動。此謂通流之助,能增瓶頸經理之效能,進而提升組織之績效。

四、杜絕官僚之弊:流暢為本

然則,助理之分流,雖為要務,亦存其弊。若無精審之設計與溝通,則助理恐淪為官僚之阻,或阻礙要訊,或誤判緩急,甚或為把關而把關。欲防此弊,當立以下數條:

  • 明定策略之先後:助理須明瞭經理之真正要務,此要務當以組織之全局為本。

  • 暢通升級之徑:遇極急極要之事,員工須有清楚且公認之途,可越助理而上報。分流之法當應變而非僵化

  • 定期回饋之議:經理與助理當週次會晤,以校準先後,檢討疏漏,調整分流之制。

  • 透明篩選之則:篩濾之法當基於明確公開之標準,非憑主觀或不彰之規。如此方能免「助理為阻」之嫌,使組織上下同心。

TOC 有言:助理之設,非為次要瓶頸,乃為經理之瓶頸服務,不可喧賓奪主。

五、效益與影響

論其效益,經理設助理,回報可觀:

  • 一位時薪二百之經理,若耗四分之一時日於雜務,則每月損失之策略產出可達萬元。若聘時薪三五十之助理,則能以微薄之資,挽回經理寶貴之時日。

  • 經理之專注,能使決策更快,錯誤更少,產出更盛

  • 組織之流動與連貫性因此得增,不致因等待高階意見而停滯。

結語

分流之法,乃管理繁雜、保護稀缺資源之要術也。組織若善用助理,使其為經理分流,則能有效提升其最貴重資源之產出。此非官僚之奢,乃系統之槓桿。然欲收其效,助理當以透明為本,與策略同步,且能應變於例外。若能妥善設計與管理,分流之職,必為卓越營運之樞紐。


經理專注憑分流助理善用解煩憂。

事得其序路自暢此乃組織興旺由。

Triage and the Strategic Role of the Assistant: Enhancing Managerial Focus and Organizational Flow

Triage and the Strategic Role of the Assistant: Enhancing Managerial Focus and Organizational Flow

Abstract

In organizations where managerial attention and decision-making capacity are constraints, the unfiltered flow of tasks, communication, and demands can lead to bad multitasking, delayed projects, and reduced overall throughput. This paper explores how triage—adapted from medical and military practices—serves as a powerful method for managing overload, sequencing work, and protecting critical resources. It further demonstrates why assigning a secretary or personal assistant to a manager is not a luxury, but a strategic investment in organizational efficiency. The assistant, properly functioning as a triage layer, enables focused execution and reduces systemic delays. Importantly, the paper also addresses how to prevent the assistant role from degenerating into bureaucratic obstruction, ensuring that managerial focus is preserved without compromising essential information flow.


1. Introduction: The Problem of Bad Multitasking

Modern project environments often suffer from excessive work-in-progress (WIP), frequent task switching, and pressure to respond immediately to multiple stakeholders. Managers, as key decision-makers, become critical constraints in such systems. When overburdened with direct access demands, they are forced to multitask, leading to lost time, poor prioritization, and a significant drop in strategic focus.

The Theory of Constraints (TOC) identifies this pattern as a systemic issue: if the constraint (managerial attention) is not protected, the entire organization suffers from diminished throughput. TOC principles advocate not only identifying the constraint but also subordinating the rest of the system to it—and this includes controlling the flow of information and tasks that reach the constraint.


2. Triage: A Method for Strategic Prioritization

Triage, originally developed for emergency medicine, is the process of prioritizing work based on urgency, impact, and the availability of resources. Applied to managerial workflows, triage ensures that:

  • High-impact and urgent decisions reach the manager promptly

  • Less critical or routine matters are filtered, delayed, or delegated

  • The manager’s limited time is spent where it delivers the most value

In project management contexts, this aligns directly with TOC's Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM)approach, which emphasizes reducing multitasking and protecting task flow along the critical path. Triage serves as the operational tool that translates this strategy into daily practice.


3. The Assistant as a Triage Buffer: A Strategic Asset

An assistant or secretary who functions as a triage manager is a leverage point in the organizational system. Rather than being an overhead expense, the assistant acts as a protective buffer for the managerial constraint. Their role includes:

  • Filtering and prioritizing communication to minimize context-switching

  • Deferring, delegating, or batching low-priority demands

  • Structuring schedules to align with the manager’s highest-impact work

  • Coordinating follow-ups without overloading the manager with trivialities

In essence, the assistant serves as a first-level decision gate, allowing the manager to operate with greater clarity and depth, focusing on decisions and actions that affect overall system performance.

This approach transforms the assistant into a throughput enabler, increasing the effective capacity of the constrained manager, and thereby improving the performance of the entire organization.


4. Preventing Bureaucratic Dysfunction: Maintaining Transparency and Flow

While the assistant’s triage function is vital, there is a legitimate risk: without careful design and communication, the assistant role can devolve into a bureaucratic bottleneck—blocking critical information, misjudging priorities, or becoming a gatekeeper for its own sake.

To prevent this, several safeguards must be put in place:

  • Clear alignment on strategic priorities: The assistant must be trained and regularly updated on the manager’s true priorities, based on the organization’s global goals, not just local efficiency or appearances.

  • Open channels for escalation: Employees must have a clear and understood process for bypassing the assistant when something truly urgent or high-impact arises. Triage should be adaptive, not rigid.

  • Regular feedback and debriefing loops: The assistant and manager should hold structured weekly reviews to calibrate priorities, reflect on missed signals, and tune the triage system.

  • Transparency of criteria: The filtering process should be based on clear, shared criteria, not subjective or opaque rules. This helps avoid the trap of “assistant as blocker” and ensures alignment across the organization.

In TOC terms, the assistant must not become a secondary constraint. Their purpose is to subordinate to the managerial constraint, not replace or overshadow it.


5. Business Case and Organizational Impact

From a cost-benefit perspective, assigning an assistant to a manager yields measurable returns:

  • A senior manager earning $200/hour who wastes 25% of their time on admin tasks is effectively losing $10,000–$20,000/month in strategic output. An assistant earning $30–$50/hour can reclaim that time at a fraction of the cost.

  • Focused managerial attention leads to faster project decisionsfewer errors, and greater throughput—particularly when the manager is involved in removing bottlenecks, managing buffers, or realigning priorities.

  • The organization gains flow and coherence, as fewer initiatives stall waiting for executive input or follow-up.

When viewed through a TOC lens, this isn’t just about time management—it's about flow optimization. Protecting the constraint and using triage wisely is one of the fastest ways to increase throughput without new resources.


6. Conclusion

Triage is a vital tool for managing complexity and protecting constrained resources in high-demand environments. By assigning a well-trained assistant to perform triage for a manager, an organization effectively increases the throughput of one of its most valuable resources. This is not bureaucratic indulgence—it is systemic leverage.

However, for this leverage to be realized, the assistant must remain transparent, aligned with strategic goals, and responsive to exceptions. When designed and managed properly, this triage function becomes a key component of operational excellence.


2025年6月27日 星期五

超越雄心:對英國現代產業戰略的回應

超越雄心:對英國現代產業戰略的約束理論回應

於公元2025年6月23日,英國政府揭示其《現代產業戰略》——一項大膽的十年藍圖,旨在重塑國家的經濟未來。該戰略清楚表達其雄心:催化商業投資,擴展前沿產業,使英國位於全球創新的最前沿。它提出了國家與產業之間的夥伴關係,旨在打破投資不足與生產力停滯的循環。

雖然此願景值得讚賞,但該戰略面臨著熟悉的陷阱:試圖同時解決一切問題。從約束理論的角度看,這是平庸的配方。若不識別系統的限制因素——國家生產力與繁榮的真正約束——我們將面臨能量在過多方面的分散,優化子系統而非提升整體表現。

讓我們探討此戰略的承諾與陷阱,並為英國政策制定者及產業提供更清晰的方向——尤其是那些不在IS-8之內的行業,從雄心轉向變革。


優勢:方向、投資與包容性

該戰略的長期視野及多部門承諾令人耳目一新。它認識到在人工智慧擾動、地緣政治波動和氣候緊迫的時代,僅依賴以往的商業模式已不再足夠。政府正採取更“強有力”的角色——承諾投入大量公共資本(超過1200億英鎊),簡化監管途徑,並直接解決歷史性的瓶頸,如能源成本、規劃延遲及技能不匹配。

基於地區的做法,賦權於地方集群及基礎產業,亦是另一可喜的演變。這表明更廣泛的理解,即價值不僅在前沿實驗室中創造,也在鋼鐵廠、港口及陶瓷廠中形成。


限制:缺乏明確的約束與焦點

儘管範疇廣泛,該戰略缺乏一個明確識別的系統性約束——限制英國生產力的核心問題。在約束理論中,改進始於識別這一約束,並將所有決策服從於其提升。若無此,甚至大量投資也可能無法產生有意義的產出。

這一約束是否為:


高工業能源成本?

監管惰性?

商業活力不足?

技能缺口?


該戰略與每一項約束都有所接觸,但沒有明確承諾。相反,它部署了一系列廣泛的干預措施——雖然本身有用,但卻可能解決症狀而非根本原因。

此外,對於投資而非生產力的重視是一個概念上的失誤。僅有資本並不能驅動改進。流動性、速度與協同——約束理論生產力思維的基石——在此缺失。我們聽到政府將花費多少,但對於如何快速緩解約束或如何減少經濟中的在製品卻鮮有提及。


IS-8困境:地方最優與被遺忘的多數

該戰略圍繞八個“高增長”行業(IS-8)。雖然專注於這些行業是合理的,但風險明顯:以這些行業為代價優化整體系統。這些行業僅佔英國就業基礎的一小部分。若其成功未能與基礎及周邊產業系統性地聯繫,則可能成為地方最優——改善特定節點的同時,整體經濟卻停滯不前。

非IS-8行業——從建築到物流、教育到零售——極少獲得戰略聚焦。然而,這些行業構成了經濟金字塔的基礎,並常常承受著監管負擔、技能短缺及創新擴散緩慢的最嚴重影響。若無明確計劃以打通這些領域的約束,則上升的潮水可能無法惠及所有船隻。


前行之道:基於約束理論的國家聚焦

為使產業戰略從雄心變為變革,英國必須採取以下步驟:

1. 識別國家約束

政府應委託進行聚焦的當前現實樹分析,以定位限制英國生產力的單一主導約束——無論是監管滯後、電網連接緩慢,或是對風險的文化厭惡。若無此焦點,戰略將變得分散。

2. 將所有政策服從於提升約束

一旦識別,所有政策——能源改革、規劃改革、技能發展、研發資金——應朝著提升約束的方向對齊。這確保了連貫性,並最大化努力的回報。

3. 重視生產力而非投資

投資是手段,而非目的。英國必須採納基於流動的生產力衡量標準:接入時間、招聘時間、出口時間。更快的產出、更少的延遲及更清晰的市場通道,將對國家生產力的提升比數十億的沉沒資本更具成效。

4. 整合非IS-8經濟

應為不在IS-8中的行業制定二級戰略計劃。此計劃必須識別其特定的流動約束(例如,採購周期緩慢、培訓系統分散),並提供低成本、高杠杆的干預措施——如延遲付款規範、公共採購准入或數位能力提升。

5. 確保質量不被遺忘

質量——不僅是產品的質量,還包括實施的質量——必須貫穿所有干預措施。否則,我們將面臨返工、不對齊及浪費努力的風險。該戰略必須強調一次做對的執行及適用性的監管設計。


結論:從計劃到突破

英國的現代產業戰略是邁向正確方向的重要一步。它表明了嚴肅性、長期主義及與商業合作的意願。但要實現真正的變革,必須進一步努力——專注於限制國家生產力的約束,並將所有干預措施對齊以提升該約束。

通過應用約束理論的邏輯,英國可以從一般的雄心轉向具針對性的突破——不僅促進未來產業的增長,還能釋放經濟每個角落的潛力。

讓我們不追求做一切,而是專注於一件能改變一切的事。


Beyond Ambition: A Response to the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy

Beyond Ambition: A TOC-Based Response to the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy

By Tonah, TOC Practitioner & Clear Thinking Advocate

On 23 June 2025, the UK Government unveiled its Modern Industrial Strategy — a bold 10-year roadmap to reshape the nation's economic future. The strategy articulates clarity of ambition: to catalyze business investment, scale frontier industries, and place the UK at the forefront of global innovation. It sets forth a vision of partnership between state and industry, aiming to break a cycle of underinvestment and stagnant productivity.

While this vision is commendable, the strategy risks falling into a familiar trap: attempting to fix everything, everywhere, all at once. From a Theory of Constraints (TOC) perspective, this is a recipe for mediocrity. Without identifying the system’s limiting factor — the real constraint to national productivity and prosperity — we risk diffusing energy across too many fronts, optimizing subsystems rather than elevating the performance of the whole.

Let us explore both the promise and the pitfalls of this strategy, and offer a clearer direction for UK policymakers and industries — particularly those outside the IS-8 — to move from ambition to transformation.


The Strengths: Direction, Investment, and Inclusivity

The strategy’s long-term horizon and multi-sector commitment are refreshing. It recognizes that business-as-usual won’t suffice in an era of AI disruption, geopolitical volatility, and climate urgency. The government is taking on a more “muscular” role — committing substantial public capital (£120+ billion), simplifying regulatory pathways, and directly addressing historic bottlenecks such as energy costs, planning delays, and skills mismatches.

The place-based approach, empowering regional clusters and foundational industries, is another welcome evolution. It signals a broader understanding that value is not only created in frontier labs but also in steelworks, ports, and ceramics plants.


The Limitations: Absence of a Clear Constraint and Focus

Despite its breadth, the strategy lacks a single, clearly identified systemic constraint — the core issue limiting UK productivity. In TOC, improvement begins with identifying this constraint and subordinating all decisions to its elevation. Without this, even large investments may fail to produce meaningful throughput.

Is the constraint:

  • High industrial energy costs?

  • Regulatory inertia?

  • Weak business dynamism?

  • Skills gaps?

The strategy flirts with each, but commits to none. Instead, it deploys a wide suite of interventions — useful in themselves — but risks solving symptoms, not root causes.

Furthermore, the heavy focus on investment rather than productivity is a conceptual misstep. Capital alone does not drive improvement. Flow, speed, and synchronization — cornerstones of TOC productivity thinking — are largely absent. We hear of how much the government will spend, but little on how fast constraints will be relieved or how work-in-process will be reduced across the economy.


The IS-8 Dilemma: Local Optima and the Forgotten Majority

The strategy centers around eight “high-growth” sectors (IS-8). While focusing on these sectors is justifiable, the risk is clear: optimizing these at the expense of the broader system. These sectors represent only a fraction of the UK’s employment base. Their success, if not connected systemically to foundational and peripheral industries, could become a local optimum — improving select nodes while the wider economy stagnates.

Non-IS-8 industries — from construction to logistics, education to retail — receive little strategic focus. Yet these sectors form the base of the economic pyramid, and often suffer the worst effects of regulatory burden, skills shortages, and slow innovation diffusion. Without a coherent plan to unblock constraints in these areas, the rising tide may fail to lift all boats.


The Way Forward: A TOC-Informed National Focus

To make the Industrial Strategy transformational, not just aspirational, the UK must take the following steps:

1. Identify the National Constraint

The government should commission a focused Current Reality Tree analysis to locate the single dominant constraint to UK productivity — whether it be regulatory lag, slow grid connectivity, or a cultural aversion to risk. Without this focal point, strategy becomes scattered.

2. Subordinate All Policy to Elevating the Constraint

Once identified, all policy — energy reform, planning reform, skills development, R&D funding — should align toward elevating the constraint. This ensures coherence and maximizes return on effort.

3. Focus on Productivity Over Investment

Investment is a means, not an end. The UK must embrace flow-based productivity measures: time-to-grid, time-to-hire, time-to-export. Faster throughput, fewer delays, and clearer pathways to market will do more for national productivity than billions in sunk capital.

4. Integrate the Non-IS-8 Economy

A second-tier strategic plan should be built for sectors not in the IS-8. This must identify their specific flow constraints (e.g., slow procurement cycles, fragmented training systems), and offer low-cost, high-leverage interventions — such as late payment regulation, public procurement access, or digital capability enablement.

5. Ensure Quality is Not Forgotten

Quality — not just of products, but of implementation — must be embedded across interventions. Otherwise, we risk rework, misalignment, and wasted effort. The strategy must emphasize right first time execution and fit-for-purpose regulatory design.


Conclusion: From Plan to Breakthrough

The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy is an important step in the right direction. It signals seriousness, long-termism, and willingness to partner with business. But to achieve real transformation, it must go further — by becoming ruthlessly focused on the constraint that limits national productivity, and by aligning all interventions to elevate that constraint.

By applying the logic of the Theory of Constraints, the UK can move from general ambition to targeted breakthrough — not only growing the industries of the future, but unlocking the hidden potential in every corner of its economy.

Let’s not aim to do everything. Let’s focus on the one thing that will change everything.


Tonah is a Thinking Processes expert in the Theory of Constraints, helping governments, businesses, and individuals clarify complexity and accelerate transformation.

2025年6月26日 星期四

蒸融一局之困:制約理論視角下博弈、信任與全局最優之雙贏

 

蒸融一局之困:制約理論視角下博弈、信任與全局最優之雙贏


昔者,一局之戲,兩造會面,互不相識,信任維艱。經典博弈論曰:為求自保,其局終歸次優之納許均衡。世人因應之道,多賴中介,如法司、錢莊、平臺之屬,以維信諾,然則交易之費,監管之責,往往隨之而高。

獨制約理論(TOC)有奇術焉,名曰「烏雲撥散法」(EC),其宗旨在於:人皆向善。此論旨在化解一局之困,變衝突為全局之利,不以強制,不致耗費,而得兩全其美之果。本文將闡述制約理論如何以全局之觀,異於世俗以科技、制度為繩之局部優化,並輔以實例明之。

一、引言

博弈論之經典,尤以「囚徒困境」為甚,揭示一局之交,協作之難。其中理性之輩,為護己利,所擇之策,常使全局價值折損。此致世間多循「防禦性信諾施行」之道:中介、監察、刑罰、契約之屬,應運而生。

然制約理論,特別是其化解衝突之具——「烏雲撥散法」,別開蹊徑。其不以威脅、控制強人所難,而求揭示並化解衝突根源之假設。其立論之基——「人皆向善」,為吾輩重塑互信互動之局,即便於一局、無名之境,亦能有所作為。

本文旨在探究制約理論之烏雲撥散法,如何超越納許均衡,化局部之優為全局之雙贏。吾人將對比當今社會之主流機制——多為不信任之科技延伸——與制約理論之所為,並審思其系統性之深遠影響,包括陷入低效或專制之險。

二、一局之戲與納許均衡

古典之「一局囚徒困境」中,兩理性之人須獨立擇協作或背棄,互不知對方所選。設若惡念為先,則雙方皆背棄乃為上策——儘管互助可得更優之總體結果。

此框架適用於諸多現實交易:

  • 買賣二手車,僅此一遭。
  • 自由業者,承接單次任務。
  • 旅客投宿,未識主人。

2.1 納許均衡之局限

一局之戲中,納許均衡:

  • 自保而輕協作。
  • 假定利益不符乃為常態。
  • 依賴外部強制或誘因以促協作。

理論雖善,實踐則致:

  • 交易之費高昂(緣於第三方驗證)。
  • 不信任之制度化。
  • 信任機制創新之潛力受限。

三、制約理論之雙贏範式

制約理論之立論迥異。其不始於收益矩陣,而始於衝突圖,其中各方之所為,源於其所需,而所需又基於共同之目標。

3.1 烏雲撥散法(EC)

烏雲撥散法將衝突圖繪如下:

  • 甲(共同目標):兩方終極所求。
  • 乙、丙(需求):各方欲滿足之根本所需。
  • 丁、戊(行動):為達所需而生之衝突行動。

制約理論繼而詰問連結行動與需求之假設,揭示毋庸妥協,而能兩全其美之道。

3.2 人皆向善——基本假設

異於博弈論預設各方皆自私且須受制之論,制約理論假定:

「若有人行事似有損或非最佳,乃因其有未解之衝突或謬誤之假設,而非惡意。」

此法不否自利——實則兼而納之。制約理論旨在設計系統,使行善即為最佳之自利策略

四、以制約理論重審一局之境

吾人將審視十種常見之一局之困境。每況,世俗之主流解決之道皆為:

  • 中介(如律師、平臺、契約),抑或
  • 科技控制(如人工智慧、區塊鏈、監察)。

此乃局部優化:其雖降風險,然預設惡意,增高成本,扼殺互利之潛力。

情境局部優化基於EC之雙贏法
計程車計費器、叫車應用聲譽與共享利益之激勵
水電工平臺、契約行業社群與互評機制
網購託管、政策互評與身份關聯之績效
二手電子品會面、測試產品溯源透明與相互驗證
酒店預訂評級、訂金平臺與利益相關者之共同治理
自由職業託管、平臺基於成果之協作與相互投資
二手車檢驗、託管可攜式聲譽與共同驗證之披露
補習試聽課學習小組與共同承諾契約
裝修法律合同共同設計之里程碑與質量透明
市場買賣公共會面社區錨定之交易與價值信號

每局之中,制約理論皆問:何等假設使吾人信賴不信任乃為必需?吾人又能建構何種結構,使信任合理而非天真?

五、信任體系淪為專制之危

此有一關鍵問題:若制約理論之體系被制度化,是否會類似中國之社會信用體系,或導致如弱勢合作社般之低效集體主義?

答曰:其關鍵在於誰掌控其邏輯以及系統之彈性如何維持

路徑描述制約理論之判斷
消費者合作社自願信任,然激勵常不協調若無系統性之協調與流動,則力弱
社會信用體系經監察與懲罰強制信任違背制約理論之自願清晰與賦權信念

制約理論非關強制;其乃在於免除強制之必要,藉由對需求、目的、結構之明晰。

「人皆向善」不意味其總是正確——乃謂其在壓力、恐懼、假設之下,盡其所能做出最佳決策。

制約理論使吾輩能重建系統,使人無需強制,無需許可,亦無需妥協,而能行善。

六、制約理論與博弈論:哲學之對比

方面博弈論制約理論
人觀自利、理性、防禦善良、理性、受系統限制
預設結果納許均衡(常為次優)衝突消融(雙贏)
信任機制強制、懲罰、激勵假設透明化與互利
目標最小化損失/風險最大化所有人之流動/價值
干預制度控制或科技強制系統邏輯之明晰與重新設計

七、結論:重塑信任而不天真

制約理論之核心承諾在於重塑一局互動之能力,使:

  • 無需信任——因互利顯而易見。
  • 不施控制——因一致性清晰可見。
  • 協作不被懲罰——反成顯而易見之最佳選擇

「人皆向善」非道德判斷——乃設計原則也。

若系統建基於恐懼,吾人將得高成本高控制

若系統建基於明晰流動、與衝突化解,吾人將得稀有而強大之物:

一個雙贏之選亦為最理性之選之世界——即便於一局之戲中亦然。