2025年10月5日 星期日

Distinguishing Facts, Truth, and Information

 

Distinguishing Facts, Truth, and Information

While often used interchangeably, factstruth, and information represent distinct concepts, especially when examined closely in philosophy, law, and data management.


Facts vs. Truth

The main difference lies in their nature: a fact is an objective, verifiable reality, whereas truth is often a more subjective, philosophical concept—a property of a claim or belief that aligns with reality or an accepted standard.

AspectFactTruth
NatureObjective, indisputable, concrete reality. Exists independent of belief.Subjective or universal concept, often a property of a proposition or belief.
VerifiabilityCan be proven or verified through evidence, measurement, or demonstration.Refers to the state or quality of being in accordance with reality or an accepted standard.
ChangeDoes not change (or only changes if the physical reality changes).Can be more fluid, influenced by perspective, belief, or context.
RelationshipFacts are what make a statement or proposition true.Truth is the quality of a statement or belief that corresponds to facts.

Examples

CategoryFactTruth (a true proposition or belief)
ScienceWater boils at  at standard atmospheric pressure."It is true that 100C is the boiling point of water" (A claim about the fact).
HistoryWorld War II ended in 1945.The historical truth is that the war caused immense suffering (A broader, accepted reality informed by facts).
PersonalI have a headache right now. (Can be verified by brain scans or self-reporting).Honesty is the best policy. (A value or principle, accepted as a general 'truth' by many).
ObservationThe car is red. (A verifiable observation).The red car is beautiful. (A subjective claim/belief that is "true" to the speaker).

Why We Say "The Truth" in Court

In a legal setting, witnesses are sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This choice of wording emphasizes a greater scope than simply listing a few facts:

  • Seeking Substantive Truth: A trial's goal is to establish the substantive truth—the actual reality of what happened—based on the evidence presented. It's not just about a collection of isolated facts, but the coherence and completeness of a witness's account in relation to the event.

  • Beyond Isolated Facts: "The truth" encompasses a person's full and honest account, including their perspective, recollection, and intent. A witness could state a fact (e.g., "The light was green") but omit another critical fact (e.g., "I ran the green light while texting"), which would render their testimony untruthful.

  • A Property of Statements: From a philosophical perspective, truth is a property of a statement, assertion, or proposition. When a witness swears to tell "the truth," they are promising that the statements they make will conform to reality (the facts) as they know it. Swearing on a set of independent facts (like "The Earth is round") would be meaningless; they are swearing on the veracity of their claims.

  • The Burden of Proof: Ultimately, the court combines the testimonial truths and proven facts to reach a formal legal truth, which is a finding of fact based on the legal standard of proof (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt).


Information vs. Facts

Information and facts relate to each other in a hierarchical way, often illustrated by the Data-Information-Knowledge hierarchy. A fact can be a unit of information, but information is typically processed, organized, or contextualized data/facts.

AspectFactInformation
DefinitionA specific, verifiable, and objective datum or reality.Processed, organized, or structured data/facts that convey context and meaning.
ContextLacks inherent context on its own.Provides context and answers "who, what, where, and when."
RelationshipRaw building blocks; a single verifiable data point.A meaningful collection and presentation of facts.

Examples

CategoryFact (Raw Data)Information (Contextualized Facts)
Measurement37.5 (A number)The patient's temperature is , which is normal. (Fact + context)
Sales1,000 units (A number)Sales increased by 1,000 units in the second quarter due to the new marketing campaign. (Fact + context + analysis)
Location40.7128N,74.0060W(Raw coordinates)The accident occurred in New York City at the intersection of two major streets. (Facts + meaning)



翻耕歷史:英國城市配地能否解決住房危機


翻耕歷史:英國城市配地能否解決住房危機?


英國政府承諾建造 150萬套新房以解決國家住房危機,這是一項艱鉅的任務。當政策制定者們在全國範圍內尋找合適的用地時——從棕地重建到有爭議的綠化帶提案——一個關於效率的問題籠罩著大量未充分利用的城市空間:為什麼不在市中心的配地上建房?這些地塊,通常位於交通便利的黃金地段,是過去時代的遺產。對它們的用途進行徹底重新評估,可能是為大量家庭提供住房的最快、最便宜的途徑,並有可能加速實現宏偉的住房目標。


配地的歷史用途

現代英國配地的起源深深植根於解決貧困和食品安全問題。在 18 和 19 世紀的圈地法案剝奪了許多農村工人耕種公共土地的傳統權利後,該制度開始盛行。

1845 年《通用圈地法案》是一個關鍵時刻,它要求撥出土地供無地窮人使用,創建「田園」,供他們為家人種植食物。這種以需求為導向的規定在 1908 年《小農場和配地法案》中被正式確定,該法案賦予地方當局在存在需求時提供配地的法定責任。配地在世界大戰期間達到了頂峰,通過「為勝利而挖掘」(Dig for Victory)運動,將未使用的土地變成了重要的糧食生產中心。


配地真的過時了嗎?當前的爭論

在戰後全球化食品市場中,配地的最初、基本目的——為城市貧民提供食物——已基本減弱。今天,支持者認為它們的價值不在於自給自足的耕作,而在於社會、環境和福祉效益。它們作為重要的城市綠地,促進社區凝聚力、心理健康、生物多樣性和健康生活。

然而,務實的觀點突顯了現代土地利用中固有的衝突。儘管一些調查稱有高達 174,000 人在排隊等候地塊,表明需求量很大,但主要立法仍然過時。對這些地塊的法定保護——通常要求在開發前提供替代土地——是一個重大的立法障礙,反映了 19 世紀的關注點,而不是 21 世紀的住房壓力。

儘管存在情感和社會上的爭論,但事實仍然是,一小塊為一個家庭種植蔬菜的土地,佔用了寶貴的、交通便利的城市空間,而這些空間可以為數十個家庭提供住房。這就是重新優先考慮的論點開始的地方。


住房潛力:徹底的重新構想

關注主要城市中心附近配地的土地面積,揭示了驚人的住房潛力。最近的研究表明,英格蘭所有配地面積總計約為 4440 萬平方米,理論上可以為約 60 萬套新房提供土地。

讓我們看看主要的城市熱點地區:

  • 大倫敦就有超過 700 萬平方米的配地。如果將其開發成公寓樓——例如,五層高,這是一種高效的城市棕地密度——它可能帶來大約 95,000 套新房

  • 泰恩威爾(超過 38,000 套住房)和西米德蘭茲(超過 35,000 套住房)等其他主要城市地區也顯示出類似的潛力。

通過擺脫低密度住房,採用中層公寓樓(四到五層),每個家庭所需的土地面積會更小。此外,這些地塊:

  1. 擁有現成的基礎設施: 配地通常靠近道路、公共交通和現有的公用設施連接(水、污水、電力),這顯著降低了在偏遠綠化帶地區安裝基礎設施的成本和時間

  2. 避免綠化帶爭議: 儘管配地是綠地,但它們通常不被歸類為綠化帶,使得政治鬥爭不如開發受保護的周邊土地那樣激烈。

  3. 交付速度更快: 較少的監管和基礎設施障礙意味著住房交付可以明顯加快,提供急需的庫存,以幫助政府更快實現 150 萬套住房的目標。

儘管「抹去」一個受人喜愛的機構的情感成本是真實存在的,但住房危機的道德要求——為數十萬家庭提供安全、負擔得起的住房——必須放在首位。一項整合和重新安置部分現有配地,或許將新的、更小的公共花園區整合到新公寓樓設計中的政策,可以提供一種折衷方案,但如果將這塊黃金城市土地視為解決國家緊急情況的方案而置之不理,那將是城市規劃的失敗。

Plowing Over the Past: Could Urban Allotments Solve the UK Housing Crisis?

 

Plowing Over the Past: Could Urban Allotments Solve the UK Housing Crisis?


The UK government's commitment to building 1.5 million new homes to address the nation's housing crisis is a monumental task.1 As policymakers scour the land for suitable sites—from brownfield regeneration to controversial Green Belt proposals—a question of efficiency hangs over swathes of underutilised urban space: why not build on city-centre allotments? These plots of land, often in prime locations with existing transport links, are a legacy of a bygone era. A radical re-evaluation of their purpose could be the fastest, cheapest path to housing a significant number of families, potentially accelerating the drive to hit the ambitious housing target.


The Historical Purpose of the Allotment

The origins of the modern UK allotment are deeply rooted in addressing poverty and food security.2 The system gained traction following the Enclosure Acts of the 18th and 19th centuries, which stripped many rural workers of their traditional rights to cultivate common land.3

The General Inclosure Act 1845 was a pivotal moment, requiring land to be set aside for the landless poor, creating 'field gardens' where they could grow food for their families.4 This necessity-driven provision was formalised with the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1908, which placed a statutory duty on local authorities to provide allotments where demand existed.5 Allotments reached their peak during the World Wars with the "Dig for Victory" campaigns, transforming unused land into vital food production hubs.6


Are Allotments Truly Outdated? The Current Debate

The original, essential purpose of allotments—to feed the urban poor—has largely diminished in a post-war, globalised food market.7 Today, proponents argue their value lies not in subsistence farming but in social, environmental, and wellbeing benefits.8 They serve as essential urban green spaces, promoting community cohesion, mental health, biodiversity, and healthy living.9

However, a pragmatic view highlights an inherent conflict in modern land use. While some surveys cite waiting lists of up to 174,000 people for plots, indicating high demand, the primary legislation remains antiquated.10The statutory protection for these sites, often requiring alternative land to be offered before development, is a significant legislative hurdle that reflects 19th-century concerns, not 21st-century housing pressures.

Despite the sentimental and social arguments, the fact remains that a small patch of land growing vegetables for one family occupies valuable, well-connected urban space that could provide homes for dozens. This is where the argument for re-prioritisation begins.


The Housing Potential: A Radical Re-Vision

Focusing on the land area of allotments near major urban centres reveals a startling housing potential. Recent research suggests that the total estimated allotment space across England—approximately 44.4 million square metres—could theoretically provide land for around 600,000 new homes.11

Let's consider the prime urban hotspots:

  • Greater London alone has over 7 million square metres of allotment land.12 If this was developed into apartment blocks—say, five stories high, which is an efficient density for urban brownfield sites—it could facilitate approximately 95,000 new homes.13

  • Other major urban areas like Tyne and Wear (38,000+ homes) and the West Midlands (35,000+ homes) show similar potential.14

By moving away from low-density housing and embracing medium-rise apartment blocks (four to five stories), a smaller land footprint is required per family. Furthermore, these sites:

  1. Possess Ready Infrastructure: Allotments are typically close to roads, public transport, and existing utility connections (water, sewage, electricity), dramatically reducing the cost and time associated with installing infrastructure on remote Green Belt sites.

  2. Avoid Green Belt Controversy: While allotments are green space, they are generally not classified as Green Belt, making the political fight less intense than developing protected peripheral land.

  3. Are Faster to Deliver: Fewer regulatory and infrastructural hurdles mean housing delivery could be significantly quicker, providing a much-needed injection of stock to help the government reach its 1.5 million target faster.

While the emotional cost of "cementing over" a cherished institution is real, the moral imperative of the housing crisis—providing safe, affordable homes for hundreds of thousands of families—must take precedence. A policy of consolidating and relocating a fraction of the current allotment land, perhaps integrating new, smaller communal gardening areas into the design of new apartment blocks, could offer a compromise, but to ignore this prime urban land as a solution to a national emergency would be a failure of urban planning.

2025年10月4日 星期六

From Products to T-Generators: Redefining the Roles of Operations, Marketing, and R&D

 

From Products to T-Generators: Redefining the Roles of Operations, Marketing, and R&D

One of Eli Schragenheim’s most thought-provoking insights is the distinction between what operations and marketing truly deliver. Operations, he argued, produce products. Marketing, on the other hand, sells t-generators—the tangible or intangible entities that generate throughput.

This distinction opens the door to a deeper rethinking of organizational roles. If marketing is not merely about pushing existing products, but about shaping and selling throughput generators, then the function of R&D cannot remain confined to “product development.” R&D must be integrated into marketing’s mission of designing and evolving t-generators—whether they take the form of products, services, or even innovative business models.

The Redefinition of Roles

  1. Operations: Builders of Capability
    Operations’ role is clear and stable. They are responsible for transforming resources into reliable outputs—whether physical products, digital deliverables, or service executions. Their success lies in efficiency, quality, and dependability. Operations are the foundation on which throughput potential rests.

  2. Marketing (including R&D): Designers and Multipliers of Throughput
    Marketing’s mission is not simply to promote what operations produce. It is to define and develop the t-generatorsthat maximize the organization’s throughput. This means understanding customer needs, market dynamics, and competitive landscapes to identify what kind of t-generators can create sustainable streams of value.

    R&D belongs here, not as a separate silo. Its task is not just to “invent” or “improve” products, but to co-create with marketing new and more effective throughput generators—be they subscription models, service packages, ecosystems, or platforms. This reframing aligns R&D’s creativity with the ultimate economic engine: throughput.

  3. KPI Realignment
    Traditional KPIs often measure marketing by sales volume and R&D by the number of new products launched. This misses the point. If marketing plus R&D is truly about generating throughput, their KPI must reflect the net throughput potential created by the portfolio of t-generators.

    • Not “How many products did we launch?” but “How much throughput capacity have we created?”

    • Not “How many leads were generated?” but “How effectively are our t-generators sustaining throughput growth?”

Why This Matters

Most organizations unintentionally limit R&D by tethering it to operations. The result is incremental product improvements that do not necessarily translate into stronger t-generators. By placing R&D under marketing, innovation becomes market-driven, strategically aligned, and directly linked to throughput.

This redefinition also clarifies the boundaries:

  • Operations excel at execution.

  • Marketing (with R&D) excels at conception and value creation.

  • Together, they form a coherent system where throughput is not left to chance but is deliberately designed and reliably delivered.

Conclusion

Organizations that adopt this perspective will unlock a sharper division of labor, a more focused set of KPIs, and above all, a deeper alignment with the fundamental goal of business: to maximize sustainable throughput.

When marketing and R&D unite around the design of t-generators, and operations delivers them with excellence, the organization as a whole achieves clarity of purpose and strength of execution.


2025年10月3日 星期五

荷蘭式勇氣」:一個關於侮辱與酒精的歷史源流

 

「荷蘭式勇氣」:一個關於侮辱與酒精的歷史源流


在英語中,「Dutch courage」(荷蘭式勇氣)是一個廣為人知、但帶點酸溜溜的詞彙。它指的只不過是藉酒壯膽,並非真正的勇氣。然而,這只是眾多歷史上以「Dutch」(荷蘭)一詞來嘲諷、貶低或侮辱的英語慣用語之一。問題是:英國人為何單單挑選荷蘭人來進行這種語言上的冷嘲熱諷?而現代的荷蘭人又如何回應這個長達數世紀、奇特的傳統?

刻薄的起源:嘲諷競爭對手

這些「荷蘭」式侮辱的根源,深深植根於大航海時代的動盪時期,以及隨後對全球海權和貿易主導權的爭奪戰中。當時的主要對手並非英國與法國,而是英國與荷蘭

這場激烈的競爭升級為英荷戰爭(主要在十七世紀中葉),這是一系列為爭奪貿易路線和海上霸權而發生的殘酷海戰。據歷史學家稱,正是在這段時期,以「刻薄」聞名於世的英國人開始將語言武器化。他們創造出各種短語來嘲笑他們的經濟和軍事對手,將他們描繪成小氣、刻薄、醉酒或混亂的人。

Dutch courage」這個慣用語,據信正是在這些戰爭期間起源的。一個理論認為它與荷蘭士兵和水手在戰前飲用jenever(荷蘭氈酒,即荷蘭杜松子酒)有關——英國人將這種「鎮定神經」的嘗試,斥為只是單純的醉酒,而非真正的英勇。

「荷蘭」式刻薄語錄

「Dutch courage」絕非唯一的例子。其他常見的歷史性諷刺語包括:

  • Dutch Uncle(荷蘭叔叔):指一位過於嚴厲、苛刻,只會嚴厲訓斥或批評,從不讚揚的人。

  • Dutch comfort(荷蘭式安慰):這是一種拐彎抹角的「安慰」,意思是「你本來可以更慘的」,但表達方式毫無幫助,甚至帶點嘲諷(例如:「你應該慶幸你只是丟了錢包,而不是丟了工作!」)。

  • Dutch concert(荷蘭式演奏會):形容一片嘈雜,一個混亂的音樂表演,每個樂手都演奏著不同的曲子,代表一團混亂。

就連我們非常熟悉的「Go Dutch」(各付各的,即每人支付自己的份額)也來自更古老、同樣帶有貶義的詞彙「Dutch treat」(荷蘭式招待)或「Dutch lunch」(荷蘭式午餐)。雖然現在已被廣泛接受為一種標準的餐飲方式,但其起源是對荷蘭人被認為「吝嗇」的嘲諷——意指「荷蘭式招待」是一種糟糕的待客之道,主人竟然期望所有人都自己付錢。

傳播與延續

這些慣用語在英語詞彙中持續了數個世紀,主要通過口頭傳統,後來通過文學和新聞傳播。它們是文化遺跡,代代相傳,但大多數現代使用者甚至沒有意識到它們歷史上帶有貶義的根源。

今天,儘管英荷之間的競爭早已結束(兩國現在是親密的盟友),這些短語仍然作為語言怪癖而倖存。「Go Dutch」已經完全失去了諷刺意味,而雖然「Dutch courage」保留了其嘲諷的含義,但許多使用者並不知道它特定的反荷蘭歷史。

現代荷蘭人的反應:聳聳肩,笑一笑

荷蘭人如何回應這些針對他們祖先的、古怪的英語侮辱呢?簡而言之:他們帶著好笑、輕微的不滿,以及普遍的漠不關心

大多數荷蘭人都知道「Dutch courage」,也常常知道「Go Dutch」(儘管他們實際上稱之為 apart betalen 或 ieder voor zich,意為「分開支付」或「各人顧自己」)。對許多人來說,這些短語被視為一種好奇的、非常「英式」的習慣——兩個海事國家之間長達數世紀爭吵所遺留下來的過時產物。

這些語言上的侮辱,有時反而讓荷蘭人感到一種微妙的文化自豪感。英國人所嘲笑的那些特點——「Go Dutch」的實用主義,或「Dutch courage」所暗示的魯莽——有時反而被視為荷蘭民族性格的一部分:直接、務實,有點固執。

最終,對於現代荷蘭人來說,這些「荷蘭」式的侮辱只不過是語言學上的一個註腳。它們是遺留下來的、關於一段被遺忘的競爭的奇怪殘餘物——是英國人「畢竟是英國人」的表現——荷蘭人對此的反應不是感到冒犯,而更多是帶有一種典型的荷蘭式聳肩和微笑


Dutch Courage": An Origin Story of Insult and Alcohol

 

"Dutch Courage": An Origin Story of Insult and Alcohol


In the English language, the term "Dutch courage" is a well-known, if somewhat acidic, phrase. It means courage derived solely from the consumption of alcohol, suggesting a false bravado rather than true bravery. But this is just one of many historical English idioms that use the word "Dutch" to mock, belittle, or insult. The question is: Why did the English single out the Dutch for such linguistic slights, and how do modern Dutch people react to this strange, centuries-old tradition?

The Sour Origins: Insulting the Competition

The roots of these "Dutch" insults are firmly planted in the tumultuous era of the Age of Exploration and the subsequent scramble for global maritime and trade dominance. The primary rivalry during this period was not between England and France, but between England and the Netherlands.

This fierce competition escalated into the Anglo-Dutch Wars (primarily in the mid-17th century), a series of brutal naval conflicts fought for control of trade routes and naval supremacy. It was during this time that, according to historians, the notoriously "cantankerous" English began to weaponize language. They created phrases to mock their economic and military rivals, painting them as cheap, mean, drunk, or chaotic.

The idiom "Dutch courage" is believed to have originated during these wars. One theory suggests it relates to the use of jenever (Dutch gin) by Dutch soldiers and sailors before battle—an attempt to steady nerves that the English dismissed as mere intoxication rather than true bravery.

A Catalogue of "Dutch" Slights

"Dutch courage" is far from the only example. Other common historical slurs include:

  • Dutch Uncle: Refers to a person, often an elder, who is overly strict, harsh, and only gives severe scolding or criticism, never praise.

  • Dutch comfort: This is a backhanded form of "consolation" that suggests, "It could have been worse," but in a way that is utterly unhelpful or even slightly mocking (i.e., "You should be glad you only lost your wallet and not your job!").

  • Dutch concert: This describes a cacophony, a disorganized musical performance where every musician is playing a different tune, representing a chaotic mess.

Even the very familiar phrase "Go Dutch" (meaning to split the cost, with each person paying their own share) comes from the older, similarly derogatory term "Dutch treat" or "Dutch lunch." While now widely accepted as a standard way to dine out, its origin was a sneer at Dutch perceived stinginess—the idea that a "Dutch treat" was a miserable form of hospitality where the "host" expected everyone to pay for themselves.

Transmission and Persistence

These idioms have persisted in the English lexicon for centuries, primarily through oral tradition and later, through literature and journalism. They are cultural relics, passed down without most modern speakers even recognizing their historical, derogatory roots.

Today, while the Anglo-Dutch rivalry is long over (the two countries are now close allies), the phrases have survived as linguistic oddities. "Go Dutch" has lost its sting entirely, and while "Dutch courage" retains its mocking meaning, many speakers are unaware of its specific anti-Dutch history.

The Modern Dutch Response: A shrug and a Smile

How do people in the Netherlands react to this odd assortment of English insults directed at their ancestors? In short: with a mixture of amusement, mild annoyance, and general indifference.

Most Dutch people are aware of "Dutch courage" and often "Go Dutch" (which they actually call apart betalenor ieder voor zich, meaning "pay separately" or "each for himself"). For many, the phrases are viewed as a curious, very English habit—an outdated result of a centuries-old spat between two maritime nations.

There's a subtle cultural pride in the resilience that might have led the English to resort to such name-calling. The very things the English mocked—the pragmatism of "Go Dutch," or the boldness implied by "Dutch courage"—can sometimes be recast as aspects of the Dutch national character: being direct, practical, and a little headstrong.

Ultimately, for the modern Dutch, these "Dutch" insults are little more than a linguistic footnote. They are a strange, vestigial remnant of a forgotten rivalry—a sign of the English being, well, English—and are met less with offense and more with a characteristic Dutch shrug and a smile.


2025年10月1日 星期三

停止全面削減成本:英國支出危機的單一系統性解決方案

 

停止全面削減成本:英國支出危機的單一系統性解決方案

對於繁忙的讀者來說,以下是解決方案:擺脫強迫所有政府部門平均削減成本的政策,可以立即解決低收入和高支出的長期財政不穩定問題。 相反,政府必須採取一種科學的、單一重點策略:找出一個或兩個關鍵瓶頸(限制因素),這些瓶頸阻礙國家交付規定的服務(公共價值),並僅向這些瓶頸傾注資源。

這可能需要接受非關鍵部門在局部層面以「低效」方式運作,但整體系統產出——每花一鎊所交付的公共價值——將會大幅提高,從而無需懲罰性加稅或放棄社會職責即可彌補財政缺口。這是一個突破性的解決方案,而非妥協。


問題:浪費的惡性循環

英國面臨著長期的財政失衡,目前政府支出超過 GDP 的 45%,遠超歷史上 37-38% 的稅收上限 。我們的政治論述陷入了持續的衝突:各黨派爭論是應該提高稅收(被認為在經濟上已達上限)還是削減基本服務(福利、醫療、教育)。

這種在社會高需求和削減預算壓力之間的搖擺,並非無能的體現,而是我們對管理思維方式存在根本缺陷的結果——這種缺陷根植於必須在所有地方追求效率的信念。

反覆出現的財政危機和持續無法履行公共職責的根源,就在於這種過時的管理思維——最大化部門各自獨立的「局部效率」(「成本世界」模式)的根深蒂固的習慣。

在政府中,這表現為:

  • 普遍削減成本: 每個部門,無論是否為瓶頸,都被要求減少其營運費用(OE)。這種不加區分的削減損害了系統交付服務的整體能力(產出),即使進行了這些削減。

  • 關注症狀: 當公共服務失敗時(例如,醫院等候名單激增,或基礎設施項目停滯),即時的、反應性的政治反應是暫時向受影響的區域投入金錢來治療症狀,但這很少能解決根本原因,導致症狀復發。

  • 績效衝突: 各部門專注於實現自己的預算目標,卻因為未能支持系統中最薄弱的環節,而無意中損害了其他關鍵服務的績效。


突破:專注於最薄弱的環節

解決方案源於將科學的因果分析(稱為思考過程)應用於複雜系統,將目標從最小化成本轉變為最大化交付公共價值的速率(產出)。

該策略基於一個簡單的常識觀察:每個系統都像一條鏈子:其整體強度僅由其最薄弱的環節(限制因素)決定。

實現財政穩定的四個步驟:

  1. 識別限制因素: 找出目前限制政府最大化產出能力的一個政策、程序或特定的產能短缺。在一個服務導向的民主社會中,這通常是一個政策限制,例如阻止病床供應的醫院出院政策,或是阻礙基礎設施交付的漫長行政處理時間。

  2. 利用限制因素: 確保這個限制性資源以最大效率運行,沒有停機時間、浪費時間或錯誤。

  3. 使其他一切服從: 至關重要的是,使所有其他部門服從於支持限制因素,即使這意味著非限制性資源必須閒置或以低於其理論效率運行。例如,如果官僚規劃是瓶頸,則注入資源是為了讓所有行政時程服從於規劃部門所能維持的最大速度。在非限制性領域花錢(例如,將非瓶頸醫生或教師的數量增加一倍)對整體系統產出幾乎沒有好處。

  4. 戰略性提升: 只有在步驟 2 和步驟 3 最大化之後,政府才應該投資於增加限制因素本身的產能。這意味著目前廣泛支出的數十億資金(例如 1,810 億英鎊的一般福利或 940 億英鎊的教育 )被重新導向,並僅優先用於能顯著提高單一瓶頸產出的解決方案,從而創造出一個巨大的槓桿點

這種方法保證了納稅人的每一鎊錢都能提供最大化的公共服務交付增長,使政府能夠在不累積嚴重債務的情況下履行其漸進式的社會職責。它用專注於根本原因的戰略行動,取代了不斷的救火——治療症狀。