history

2025年10月7日星期二

The 5-Step Method for Mindful Photography

Step 1: Slow Down to Spot the Subject (The Pause)

Before you even lift the camera, take a conscious pause.

Put away the phone: Commit to using your camera (or camera app) exclusively for photography; avoid all other notifications.
Walk at 50% speed: Choose a location, but intentionally move at half your normal pace. This physical deceleration forces your brain to catch up with your environment.
Anchor your breath: Take three slow, deep breaths, noticing the feeling of your feet on the ground.
The Intent: Your goal in this step is not to find a subject, but to notice what your subconscious ignores. Ask: What shapes, textures, or colors are demanding my attention right now?

Step 2: Engage the Senses (The Non-Judgmental Observation)

Once something catches your eye, stop completely and use all your senses to observe the subject—not just your vision. This is where you fully enter the present moment.

Sight: Observe the light. Is it harsh or soft? What are the shadows doing? Look past the whole object to see its individual components.
Touch: If possible, touch the object (a rough tree trunk, a smooth stone) and feel its texture, temperature, and weight.
Sound: What sounds surround your subject? Are they loud or distant? How does the soundscape inform the scene?
Feeling: Notice the feeling of the air on your skin. Is it cool, humid, or breezy?
The Intent: Fully describe the moment to yourself using sensory language, without classifying the subject as "good," "bad," or "worth a photo." Simply observe its existence.

Step 3: Frame the Moment (The Focused Attention)

Now, and only now, lift your camera. The act of framing becomes a discipline in eliminating distractions.

Isolate the essence: Use the viewfinder (or screen) to intentionally exclude anything that pulls your attention away from the subject. Move your feet, not just the lens.
Adjust manually: Instead of using automatic settings, manually adjust a setting like focus or exposure compensation. This deliberate physical interaction keeps your mind locked onto the task.
Check the edges: Mindfully scan all four edges of the frame. Ask: Did I intentionally include or exclude everything I see here? This simple check prevents accidental background clutter and forces complete attention on the composition.
The Intent: The frame is a window to your attention. Make sure the only thing within the frame is the moment you chose to be present for.

Step 4: Press the Shutter (The Mindful Click)

The moment of pressing the shutter should be the culmination of the process, not the beginning of it.

Inhale, Hold, Click: Take a deep breath in, gently hold it, and then press the shutter button slowly and deliberately. Holding the breath momentarily stabilizes your body and focuses your last bit of energy on the click.
Notice the release: Immediately after the click, notice the slight physical movement of the camera and the sound of the shutter (if any).
Resist the urge to check: Do not immediately look at the screen to review the photo. Let the image reside in your memory for a moment longer.
The Intent: Release the expectation of the result. The picture is now done; the mindfulness is in the action itself.

Step 5: Let Go and Move On (The Non-Attachment)

This step closes the loop, practicing non-attachment, which is central to mindfulness.

Observe without judging: Now you can briefly look at the image on your screen. Do not criticize the photo or yourself. Simply note what the image captured versus what you remember feeling in the moment.
Delete the failures (if necessary): If the photo is a technical failure (out of focus, terribly exposed), delete it immediately. This physical act removes clutter and frees you from the attachment to a poor outcome.
Return to the Pause: Lower your camera. Take another deep breath and repeat the entire cycle for a new subject. Do not carry the emotions, expectations, or judgment from the last shot into the next one.
The Intent: Recognize that the quality of the photograph is separate from the quality of the mindful experience. The moment has passed; the next moment awaits.

Melangkaui '5 Mengapa': Bagaimana Deduksi Saintifik Menyelesaikan Masalah Paling Kronik Syarikat Anda

Dunia perniagaan sering berdepan dengan masalah kronik atau "masalah rumit" (wicked problems): isu yang berterusan walaupun usaha berulang kali untuk menyelesaikannya telah dilakukan. Contohnya termasuk jualan yang mendatar, pertikaian inventori yang tidak berkesudahan, atau kesilapan kualiti yang berulang.

Kaedah penyelesaian masalah tradisional, seperti Rajah Tulang Ikan (Fishbone Diagram) atau 5 Mengapa (5 Whys), sering gagal menangani isu-isu kompleks ini. Ia cenderung menghasilkan pendapat yang bercanggah dan berat sebelah—jualan menyalahkan operasi, operasi menyalahkan peramalan—dan mudah dimanipulasi oleh data terpilih.

Untuk mendiagnosis dan menyelesaikan masalah yang berlarutan ini dengan berkesan, pengurusan perlu mengadaptasi ketegasan metodologi sains, khususnya meminjam teknik dari Sains Bidang Sejarah (Historical Field Sciences), seperti penyiasatan forensik atau paleontologi: Kaedah Deduktif Hipotetikal (Hypothetical Deductive Method - HDM).

Tiga Langkah Deduksi Hipotetikal

HDM berfungsi berdasarkan prinsip bahawa satu punca akan sentiasa menghasilkan pelbagai kesan yang berbeza. Dengan memerhati satu kesan dan menyimpulkan kesan lain yang secara logiknya mesti wujud, pengurus boleh menguji kesahihan andaian awal mereka tanpa bergantung pada data yang berpotensi berat sebelah.

Perhatikan Kesan dan Hipotesis Punca: Mulakan dengan masalah yang jelas (Kesan A), seperti "Penghantaran adalah isu yang diketahui." Hipotesis punca utama (Punca X), contohnya "Loji beroperasi tidak cekap."
Ramalkan Kesan Lain: Jika Punca X adalah sebab yang sebenar, simpulkan secara logik kesan-kesan lain yang kurang jelas (Kesan B, C, D) yang mesti hadir. Contohnya, jika penghantaran teruk, anda juga perlu menjangka:
- Kadar permintaan pelanggan untuk menjadualkan semula pesanan yang tinggi.
- Pincangan besar dalam penghantaran yang tertumpu pada hujung bulan atau hujung suku tahun.
Sahkan Secara Empirikal Kesan yang Diramalkan: Periksa organisasi untuk Kesan B, C, dan D. Jika ia wujud, punca yang dihipotesiskan berkemungkinan betul. Jika data menunjukkan penghantaran lancar dan tiada permintaan penjadualan semula, maka hipotesis asal—bahawa loji beroperasi tidak cekap—adalah salah, tidak kira apa yang dicadangkan oleh data awal.

Metodologi ini menyediakan rangka kerja yang ketat untuk menembusi bias organisasi dan menentukan akar masalah yang sebenar.

Tiga Garis Panduan untuk Ketegasan Saintifik

Untuk mengaplikasikan HDM secara berkesan dan memastikan diagnosis tidak berdasarkan generalisasi yang samar-samar, tiga garis panduan ketat mesti diikuti:

1. Tuntut Ketepatan dan Bahasa Literal

Elakkan menggunakan istilah yang luas, metafora, atau subjektif seperti "tidak cekap," "kurang motivasi," atau "budaya buruk." Semasa mendiagnosis, setiap perkataan mesti mempunyai definisi literal yang tepat. Contohnya, jika sesebuah pasukan mengatakan kesilapan adalah disebabkan "ketidakcekapan," anda mesti menentukan dengan tepat maksudnya. Jika kesilapan turut berlaku pada prosedur mudah yang didokumenkan dengan baik, maka definisi punca (kecekapan) anda adalah salah.

2. Tanya "Mengapa" dan "Bagaimana" untuk Mencari Mekanisme

Tidak cukup hanya mengetahui mengapa masalah wujud; anda mesti memahami bagaimana punca itu mencipta kesan. Ini mendedahkan mekanisme sebab-akibat dan meningkatkan keupayaan ramalan.

Dalam perniagaan, memahami mekanisme sebab-akibat di sebalik kesilapan makmal mungkin mendedahkan bahawa isu itu bukan kecekapan, tetapi penganalisis dibebani dengan pelbagai tugasan. Mekanismenya ialah bebanan ini membebankan memori jangka pendek mereka, yang membawa kepada kecuaian. Menemui bagaimana ini membawa kepada penyelesaian yang jauh lebih berkesan (mengurangkan beban kerja) daripada hanya menangani mengapa (latihan semula).

3. Jangan Sesekali Menyalahkan Masalah pada "Kekurangan Penyelesaian"

Jangan mentakrifkan masalah dengan penyelesaian yang anda tidak miliki. Elakkan penaakulan seperti: "Produktiviti jualan saya rendah kerana saya tidak mempunyai perisian CRM" atau "Pembangunan produk lambat kerana kami tidak mempunyai bajet R&D yang mencukupi."

Logik yang cacat ini membawa kepada pelaksanaan produk dan alatan IT yang mahal tanpa pernah memberikan hasil penuh. Sebaliknya, fokus pada apa yang anda lakukan dengan apa yang sudah anda miliki. Dengan mendalami proses dan sumber sedia ada, anda pasti akan menemui pandangan sebenar yang diperlukan untuk menyelesaikan masalah kronik.

Gabungan Pemikiran Saintifik yang ketat (HDM) dan Pemikiran Holistik (memahami bagaimana semua masalah rumit saling berkaitan) adalah satu-satunya jalan yang boleh dipercayai untuk menyelesaikan cabaran perniagaan yang paling berterusan.

Khoa Học Quản Trị: Dùng Phương Pháp Suy Luận Giả Thuyết Để Giải Quyết Các Vấn Đề "Nan Giải" Mạn Tính Của Công Ty

Thế giới kinh doanh đầy rẫy các vấn đề mạn tính hay còn gọi là "vấn đề nan giải": những trục trặc cứ lặp đi lặp lại dù đã tốn nhiều công sức để giải quyết, ví dụ như doanh số trì trệ, mâu thuẫn tồn kho không hồi kết, hoặc lỗi chất lượng tái diễn.

Các phương pháp giải quyết vấn đề truyền thống, như Sơ đồ Xương Cá (Fishbone Diagram) hay 5 Tại Sao (5 Whys), thường thất bại trong việc xử lý những vấn đề phức tạp này. Chúng dễ dẫn đến những ý kiến mâu thuẫn, thiên vị—bộ phận bán hàng đổ lỗi cho vận hành, vận hành đổ lỗi cho dự báo—và dễ bị thao túng bởi dữ liệu chọn lọc.

Để thực sự chẩn đoán và giải quyết những vấn đề dai dẳng này, ban quản lý cần áp dụng sự chặt chẽ về phương pháp luận của khoa học tự nhiên, cụ thể là mượn một kỹ thuật từ Khoa học Lịch sử Hiện trường (như điều tra pháp y hoặc cổ sinh vật học): Phương pháp Suy luận Giả thuyết (Hypothetical Deductive Method - HDM).

Ba Bước Của Suy Luận Giả Thuyết

HDM hoạt động dựa trên nguyên tắc: một nguyên nhân duy nhất sẽ luôn tạo ra nhiều hệ quả khác nhau. Bằng cách quan sát một hệ quả và suy luận những hệ quả khác nào phải tồn tại một cách hợp lý, nhà quản lý có thể kiểm tra tính đúng đắn của giả định ban đầu mà không phụ thuộc vào dữ liệu có khả năng thiên vị.

Quan sát Hệ quả và Đưa ra Giả thuyết Nguyên nhân: Bắt đầu bằng vấn đề rõ ràng (Hệ quả A), chẳng hạn như "Việc giao hàng có vấn đề." Đưa ra một nguyên nhân chính (Nguyên nhân X), ví dụ "Nhà máy đang hoạt động kém hiệu quả."
Dự đoán các Hệ quả Khác: Nếu Nguyên nhân X là nguyên nhân thực sự, hãy suy luận hợp lý các hệ quả khác, ít rõ ràng hơn (Hệ quả B, C, D), mà buộc phải tồn tại. Ví dụ, nếu việc giao hàng kém, bạn cũng phải kỳ vọng thấy:
- Tỷ lệ yêu cầu đổi lịch giao hàng từ khách hàng cao.
- Sự mất cân đối lớn trong việc xuất hàng dồn vào cuối tháng hoặc cuối quý.
Xác minh Thực nghiệm các Hệ quả Đã Dự đoán: Kiểm tra tổ chức để tìm kiếm các Hệ quả B, C và D. Nếu chúng tồn tại, nguyên nhân giả định có khả năng là đúng. Nếu dữ liệu cho thấy việc xuất hàng rất đều và không có yêu cầu đổi lịch, thì giả thuyết ban đầu—rằng nhà máy hoạt động kém hiệu quả—là sai, bất kể dữ liệu ban đầu gợi ý điều gì.

Phương pháp này cung cấp một khuôn khổ nghiêm ngặt để cắt xuyên qua những thiên vị tổ chức và xác định căn nguyên thực sự của vấn đề.

Ba Nguyên Tắc Để Chẩn Đoán Khoa Học

Để áp dụng HDM một cách hiệu quả và đảm bảo chẩn đoán không dựa trên những khái quát mơ hồ, cần tuân thủ ba nguyên tắc chặt chẽ:

1. Yêu cầu Độ Chính Xác và Ngôn Ngữ Theo Nghĩa Đen

Tránh sử dụng các thuật ngữ rộng, ẩn dụ hoặc chủ quan như "thiếu năng lực," "thiếu động lực," hay "văn hóa tồi."Khi chẩn đoán, mỗi từ phải có một định nghĩa theo nghĩa đen, chính xác. Ví dụ, nếu một nhóm nói lỗi là do "thiếu năng lực," bạn phải xác định chính xác ý nghĩa của nó. Nếu lỗi xảy ra ngay cả trong các quy trình đơn giản, có tài liệu rõ ràng, thì định nghĩa nguyên nhân (năng lực) của bạn là sai.

2. Hỏi "Tại Sao" và "Bằng Cách Nào" để Tìm Cơ Chế

Không đủ chỉ biết tại sao vấn đề tồn tại; bạn phải hiểu bằng cách nào nguyên nhân tạo ra hệ quả. Điều này tiết lộ cơ chế nhân quả và cải thiện đáng kể khả năng dự đoán.

Trong kinh doanh, hiểu cơ chế nhân quả đằng sau lỗi phòng thí nghiệm có thể cho thấy vấn đề không phải là năng lực, mà là do các nhà phân tích bị quá tải với nhiều nhiệm vụ. Cơ chế là sự quá tải này làm căng thẳng bộ nhớ ngắn hạn của họ, dẫn đến việc bỏ sót. Tìm ra bằng cách nào này sẽ dẫn đến một giải pháp hiệu quả hơn nhiều (giảm tải công việc) so với việc chỉ nói tại sao (tái đào tạo).

3. Không Bao Giờ Đổ Lỗi Vấn Đề Cho Việc "Thiếu Giải Pháp"

Đừng định nghĩa vấn đề bằng giải pháp bạn không có. Tránh lý luận kiểu: "Năng suất bán hàng thấp vì tôi không có phần mềm CRM" hay "Phát triển sản phẩm chậm vì chúng tôi không có đủ ngân sách R&D."

Lối suy luận sai lầm này dẫn đến việc triển khai các sản phẩm và công cụ CNTT đắt đỏ nhưng không bao giờ mang lại kết quả đầy đủ. Thay vào đó, hãy tập trung vào những gì bạn đang làm với những gì bạn đã có. Bằng cách đào sâu vào các quy trình và nguồn lực hiện có, bạn sẽ tìm thấy những hiểu biết sâu sắc thực sự cần thiết để giải quyết vấn đề mạn tính.

Việc kết hợp Tư duy Khoa học nghiêm ngặt (HDM) và Tư duy Toàn diện (hiểu sự liên kết giữa tất cả các vấn đề nan giải) là con đường đáng tin cậy duy nhất để giải quyết các thách thức kinh doanh dai dẳng nhất.

讓科學家來當偵探：用「假設－演繹法」揪出公司慢性病的真兇

一、別再讓數據和爭吵模糊了焦點！

在企業裡，有些問題就像**「慢性病」或「爛攤子」**一樣，怎麼治都治不好：業務停滯、庫存老是出錯、品質老是抓不到原因。

傳統的管理方法，像是畫魚骨圖或問**「五個為什麼」**，往往只會讓情況更糟。因為：

意見矛盾： 銷售部門怪營運部門，營運部門怪預測部門，你根本分不清誰說的是事實，誰只是在推卸責任。
數據誤導： 數據常常是片面的、不完整的，甚至會被用來證明各種立場偏見，讓大家各說各話，問題始終無解。

為了解決這些棘手的問題，我們必須放下老方法，像偵探或古生物學家一樣思考，運用一套來自嚴謹科學的推理方法：假設－演繹法（Hypothetical Deductive Method, HDM）。

二、科學偵探三部曲：用「預測效應」驗證真相

假設－演繹法的核心精神很簡單：一個真正的原因，必然會帶來一系列的連鎖反應。我們觀察到一個結果（A），然後大膽猜測一個原因（X），接著最重要的一步是：根據這個原因（X），預測出其他必定會發生的連帶結果（B、C、D）。

如果這些被預測的結果（B、C、D）不存在，那你的原因（X）就是錯的！

【實戰範例】

觀察與假設： 你的問題是**「交貨老是出問題」（結果 A）。你猜測原因是「工廠運作效率太差」**（原因 X）。
預測連帶結果： 如果工廠效率真的太差，那麼你一定會看到（預測 B、C、D）：
- B：客戶每天打電話要求改期（大量重排訂單請求）。
- C：出貨量極度不平均（八成以上的貨都擠在月底出）。
驗證真相： 假設你發現，客戶幾乎沒有要求改期，且出貨時間分散得很平均。這表示你的假設「工廠效率太差」是錯誤的！

透過這種方法，你根本不需要去翻閱那些混亂的工廠效率報告，就能直接鎖定：問題不在工廠效率本身，而在於你對「交貨問題」的定義或「效率數據」的計算方式有誤。

三、三個原則，讓你的診斷精準無比

為了讓「假設－演繹法」有效運作，你的思考和語言必須極度嚴謹：

1. 語言必須精確，遠離空泛的比喻

永遠不要使用模糊、主觀或帶有情緒的詞彙來定義問題。

例如，部門主管說問題是「員工能力不足」。你必須追問：「能力不足具體是什麼意思？」如果「能力不足」是指缺乏書面程序，那麼錯誤只會發生在需要經驗的複雜工作上。如果連簡單的、有明確 SOP 的工作都出錯，則證明能力不足並非真正的原因。

2. 追問「為什麼」也要追問「如何發生」

光知道為什麼還不夠，你必須理解機制。找出「原因」和「結果」之間是如何運作的（How），這才能讓你做出精準的預測。

例如：你知道太陽從東邊升起（Why），因為你知道地球是從西向東自轉（How）。理解這個機制後，你就能預測：在一個反向自轉的星球上，太陽就會從西邊升起。

在企業裡，你發現實驗室錯誤頻傳，不只是「為什麼」要再訓練，而是要找出「如何」出錯的機制。你可能會發現，原因是分析師被超載的多重任務打斷，導致短期記憶超負荷，而不是能力問題。找到這個「機制」，才能對症下藥。

3. 絕不將「缺乏解方」當作問題的原因

不要將問題歸咎於你沒有的東西。

錯誤的邏輯是：「我的銷售效率低，因為我們沒有 CRM 軟體」或「我瘦不下來，因為家裡沒有跑步機」。

這種思維會讓你花大錢買一堆無效的軟體或設備。正確的思維應該是：**你如何利用你「已經擁有」的資源和流程？**專注於現有資源，才能真正找出問題的根本洞察。

唯有將這種嚴謹的科學思維與整體思維（理解所有問題間的連動關係）結合起來，你才能真正解決企業中那些久治不癒的頑強慢性病。

How Scientific Deduction Solves Your Company's Most Chronic Problems

Beyond the 5 Whys: How Scientific Deduction Solves Your Company's Most Chronic Problems

The business world is plagued by "wicked" or chronic problems: issues that persist despite repeated efforts to solve them. Think of flat sales, endless inventory disputes, or recurring quality errors. Traditional problem-solving methods, such as the famous Fishbone Diagram or the 5 Whys, often fail to resolve these complex issues. They tend to produce contradictory, biased opinions—sales blames operations, operations blames sales—and can be easily manipulated by selective data.

To truly diagnose and solve these sticky problems, management must adopt the methodological rigor of a hard science, specifically borrowing a technique from Historical Field Sciences, like forensic investigation or paleontology.

The Problem with Business Diagnosis

Unlike laboratory sciences, management cannot easily run controlled experiments. A company can't change its pricing to observe the demand impact while simultaneously guaranteeing that competitors will remain static. This lack of control and the polarization of data mean a better approach is needed to sort fact from fiction.

The solution lies in the Hypothetical Deductive Method (HDM).

The Three Steps of Hypothetical Deduction

HDM works on the principle that a single cause will always produce multiple effects. By observing one effect and deducing what other effects must logically exist, managers can test the validity of their initial assumptions without relying on potentially biased data.

Observe the Effect and Hypothesize the Cause: Start with the obvious problem (Effect A), such as "Delivery is a known issue." Hypothesize a primary cause (Cause X), such as "The plant is running inefficiently."
Predict Other Effects: If Cause X is the true reason, logically deduce other, less obvious effects (Effect B, C, D) that must be present. For example, if the plant is inefficient, you should also expect:
- High rates of customer requests to reschedule orders.
- A massive skew in dispatches toward the month-end or quarter-end.
Empirically Verify the Predicted Effects: Check the organization for Effects B, C, and D. If they exist, the hypothesized cause is likely correct. If the data shows dispatches are perfectly smooth and there are no rescheduling requests, then the original hypothesis—that the plant is running inefficiently—is false, regardless of what the initial data suggested.

This methodology provides a rigorous framework to cut through organizational bias and pinpoint the genuine root of the problem.

Three Guidelines for Scientific Rigor

To apply HDM effectively and ensure the diagnosis is not based on vague generalities, three strict guidelines must be followed:

1. Demand Precision and Literal Language

Avoid using broad, metaphorical, or subjective terms like "incompetent," "lack of motivation," or "bad culture." When diagnosing a problem, every word must have a precise, literal definition. For example, if a team says errors are due to "incompetency," you must precisely define what that means. If it means "lack of written procedures," then you should only see errors on complex tests where tacit knowledge is required. If errors are also happening on simple, well-documented tests, your definition of the cause (competency) is wrong.

2. Ask "Why" and "How" to Find the Mechanism

It's not enough to know why a problem exists; you must understand how the cause creates the effect. This reveals the causal mechanism and greatly improves predictability. For instance, knowing the Sun rises in the East because of the Earth's west-to-east rotation (the how) allows you to predict that on a planet with an opposite rotation, the Sun would rise in the West.

In business, understanding the causal mechanism behind lab errors may reveal that the issue isn't competence, but that analysts are overloaded with multiple work-fronts. The mechanism is that this overload taxes their short-term memory, leading to skips and misses on detailed tasks. Finding this how leads to a far more effective solution (reducing workload) than the superficial why (retraining).

3. Never Blame the Problem on a "Lack of Solution"

Do not define a problem by the solution you don't have. Avoid reasoning like: "My sales team has low productivity because I don't have CRM software" or "Our product development is slow because we don't have enough R&D budget."

This faulty logic leads to expensive IT products and tools being implemented without ever delivering full results. Instead, focus on what you are doing with what you already have. By diving deeper into existing processes and resources, you will invariably find the genuine insights needed to resolve the chronic problem.

The combination of rigorous Scientific Thinking (HDM) and Holistic Thinking (understanding how all wicked problems are interlinked) is the only reliable path to solving the most persistent business challenges.

系統思考真功夫：用「抓流程」解決公司裡所有「搞不定」的爛攤子

一、別再說公司太複雜了

很多老闆或主管遇到問題時，總愛歎氣說：「我們公司部門太多、結構太複雜了，問題當然難解！」他們認為公司越大，問題就越像一團亂麻。這句話常常變成專案失敗時的藉口。

但真正厲害的管理心法告訴我們：公司一點都不複雜！它只是被錯誤地連接起來了。

把你的公司想像成一個人體：身體裡有消化系統、循環系統、呼吸系統，它們各自負責一塊，但都連在一起，為了一個共同目標——讓你活著。公司裡的各個部門（採購、生產、銷售）也是一樣的一套系統。

二、血流不順，全身都痛

要了解這套系統，我們得看中間流動的介質。

就像人體裡流的是血液一樣，公司裡流動的是什麼呢？在工廠裡是物料；在設計部門是圖紙；在專案公司是工作進度；在行銷部門是客戶詢問。

當這條「血路」在某個環節被卡住或扭曲了，問題就產生了。

舉個最常見的例子：採購部門為了省錢，決定「嚴格控管」物料庫存（這就是一個卡點）。結果呢？

生產線常常缺料停工（利用率下降）。
訂單交不出去，成品積壓（影響出貨）。
為了救火，大家開始跨部門吵架。

一個採購部門的小小決策，瞬間讓整個公司從生產到銷售都亂了套。流程被扭曲後，影響會像漣漪一樣，傳遍整個組織。

三、抓出流程圖上的「波浪」

要知道問題出在哪裡，光看報表沒用，要畫出這條「血路」的流程圖。

我們把每週或每個月的物料/訂單/工作量畫出來，如果曲線像波浪一樣上上下下，就代表流程已經嚴重扭曲了。這些波浪（或「流程干擾」）會帶來實實在在的損失：

流程太滿時（波峰）：
- 部門忙到爆炸，狂加班，成本飆高。
- 主管會誤以為「人手或設備不夠」，結果亂花錢投資（錯誤的資本支出）。
流程太空時（波谷）：
- 線體或員工閒得發慌，產能浪費。
- 之前投入的設備和人力都在空轉，浪費了投資。

這些額外花費，就是流程扭曲給公司帶來的「隱性病痛」。

四、找到「震源」：問題到底從哪裡來？

解決問題的關鍵，就是要確認這個「流程扭曲」的震源在哪裡。我們需要檢驗兩個可能性：

禍從天降（非局部性原因）： 流程圖上這個部門的扭曲，其實是上一個或更上一個部門的錯誤行為傳染過來的。
自己人搞鬼（局部性原因）： 扭曲就是這個部門自己的錯誤決策造成的，然後它再把問題傳染給下一個部門。

很多主管往往會搞錯。例如，他們看到鑄造廠模具裂開，就馬上認定是砂的品質有問題（認定是上游的禍）。但經過科學分析後才發現，問題根本出在鑄造線設備本身對不齊（問題其實在自己部門）。

因此，解決問題的兩大步驟就是：

先畫出所有部門的流程圖。
再交叉比對，確定那個「因果影響」是從哪裡開始流出的。

只要能精準地鎖定源頭，就能用一套方案，解決掉一大堆部門的問題。公司並不是「許多部門的集合」，而是「許多部門的連接」。當你把這個連接點修好，所有難題都會迎刃而解。

Beyond Symptoms: Using Flow Analysis to Demystify Organizational Complexity

Systems Thinking: How Flow Analysis Identifies the Single Root Cause of Chronic Business Problems

Many organizations incorrectly define their complexity by the sheer number of departments, divisions, or resources they possess. This perception—that "larger equals more complex"—often serves as an excuse when improvement initiatives fail. However, a systems-thinking approach argues that complexity is not inherent, but rather a function of systemic connections and distorted flow.

Just as the human body is a system of interconnected organs (respiratory, digestive, circulatory), a business is a system of connected entities (departments and functions) that work in tandem toward a common goal.

The Analogy of Flow and Disruption

To understand systemic connections, consider the flow of a crucial medium through the system. In the human body, the medium is blood. If the blood flow is restricted—a constriction in a vessel—the resulting disruption travels throughout the entire body, leading to effects like increased blood pressure, organ damage, or heart failure.

In a business or supply chain, the flowing medium could be material (in manufacturing), drawings (in engineering and design), work (in project management), or sales inquiries (in marketing). When a constraint or action in one department disrupts this flow, the distortion travels across the entire organization.

For instance, a seemingly isolated decision by the procurement department to tightly control material inventory can disrupt the flow of material, consequently affecting:

The utilization of production lines.
The dispatches of finished goods.
The inventory levels across the supply chain.

A localized constriction can thus cause widespread problems across all departments.

Peaks, Troughs, and Financial Implications

Organizations can diagnose these flow disruptions by mapping the flow pattern of the core medium over a certain time horizon (ee.g., weekly). If the resulting pattern is wavy or curvy, it indicates a flow distortion with significant financial consequences:

Peaks (Overload): When flow peaks, the department experiences an overload, leading to:
- High overtime costs.
- Deployment of additional manpower.
- Increased freight and expediting expenses.
- A false perception of capacity shortage, potentially resulting in unnecessary capital expenditure (capex).
Troughs (Underload): When flow hits a trough, the department experiences underload, leading to:
- Productivity loss.
- Starvation of production lines and resources.
- Wasted investment due to underutilized assets.

These effects travel through the system even though the departments may not be physically connected. The material itself is the carrier of the causal influence.

Locating the Root Cause: Local vs. Non-Local

The key to solving a problem is invalidating the wrong hypothesis about the cause's location:

Non-Local Cause: The distortion observed in a department was caused by a disturbance that traveled from another place.
Local Cause (Epicenter): The distortion was caused by an action or issue within the department itself, which then creates shockwaves that travel to other areas.

Managers often incorrectly assume the cause is local (e.g., blaming poor mold cracking on the sand quality), when the true cause might be non-local (a process issue earlier in the flow) or vice versa (as in the case where mold cracking was due to equipment misalignment, making the cause local).

The systematic approach is a two-step process: first, map the flow patterns across all departments; second, determine where the causal influence is truly flowing from by evaluating the two hypotheses. This pinpoints the single location of the root cause, demystifying complexity and simplifying the problem-solving effort. The organization should realize it is not a collection of entities, but a connection of entities.

訂閱：意見 (Atom)

2025年10月7日 星期二