管理的能與不能

管理的能與不能

這篇想寫很久了。

因為常常有人跟我聊到導入專案管理的績效。 有些是客戶有些是朋友,他們都會很挫折的跟我反應說不知道怎麼證明專案管理的成效,或是他的老闆覺得「做這件事情似乎沒有價值」。

我就覺得奇怪,如果是個原本毫無管理的公司,導入任何規則最少都能減少混亂。 就算無法量化的舉證,最少不會讓老闆毫無感覺啊? 細問之後才發現,很多老闆以「專案最後還是沒有賺錢」作為論斷基礎。 覺得既然做這件事情沒能等同讓案子賺錢,這件事情應該就是沒有成效。

但這恐怕有點過度把問題簡化了。

從我的觀點而言「管理」當然能賺錢。 因為管理就是為了把經營的不確定性降低,並盡量排除人的依賴 - 讓原本需要高度人治的環境能降低人的因素。 換言之,管理是透過科學分析的方法建立一個可長可久的「系統」。 套句羅伯特清崎在富爸爸窮爸爸一書的說法,就是讓S象限的事業能穩定在B象限。

比方說,麵包店有個好的管理制度,麵包並不會變得更加好吃。 若只是想在街角開個小店,那確實有沒有好的管理感覺都不明顯,反正所有該知道的經營者自己都很清楚。 可是若店裡有個吳寶春,你又想建立個連鎖的麵包帝國,那有沒有好的管理制度就有很大差異了。 沒有,永遠是自己一手包,店也擴展不大;有,才真的是在經營一個企業。

要把經營技能轉成經營企業,就必須讓價值傳遞到顧客手中的整個過程能效率最大化,並盡量分工出去,而不用受限於老師傅。 比方說重新設計工作,讓新人也能負擔一部分工作,進而讓產能增加,風險降低。 或比方說改善收銀的流程,加快收營機制、避免排隊、降低算錯錢的可能性、或是排除人為侵占的機率。 再比方說標準化服務的準則、統一客訴的處理原則,這些都能提升效率、增加客戶滿意度,並讓這生意可以擴展、並可以可長可久。

雖然做這些事情並不會讓麵包好吃,但效率提升卻能以間接的方式提升營收。 像之前新聞不是有報,阿基師去學校看畢業展時把學生罵一頓。 因為發現很多可以重複使用的材料被丟棄了,這些事情也都是管理機制要來控制與調整的。 當成本降低、浪費減少、效率增加、錯誤避免,當然是能帶來正面的結果。 所以管理提升能否讓公司賺錢,這答案當然會是「Yes」的。

但這議題在專案的世界中卻變得稍微有些複雜。 因為專案要靠管理機制提升獲利,除了負責的經理人要有相關訓練外,老闆自己對此的Sense也一樣重要。 換言之,專案管理必須是從整體來提升的一件事。

這是因為專案通常是為了一個特定目的而執行的事項,這不像麵包店的管理提升是建立在「產品已經有市場」的前提下。 麵包店只要產品順利做出來,放在台子上就有人買;若能改善中間過程,無論是提升產能也好、降低成本也好、改善人治也好,更多的麵包或更高的效率都會看到更多的回報。 所以提升整個流程中的任何一塊,回報都會很明顯。

但專案比較像客人來訂做生日蛋糕。 人家要Hello Kitty,你若做成小叮噹,那就完啦。 雖然都是貓的造型、也都是蛋糕、可能也都很好吃,但兩者就是不一樣的東西。 就算過程毫無浪費、時間正常達成、人力材料投入精準,也不表示客人會乖乖付錢。 這就有可能出現一個管理很好,但無法賺錢的案子

這也是為何我前面提到,公司想提升專案管理的能力,除了把責任壓在PM身上外,老闆也負擔另一半的責任。

為何呢?

因為麵包師傅或店長再怎麼厲害,老闆若在外面承諾蛋糕內要含魚子醬,成本就怎麼樣也不可能壓低。 流程設計的再怎麼精確,若老闆堅持內餡要包芥末,最後很可能也賣不出去。 標準程序的成本能很精簡,但主管總在蛋糕烤好後告訴你說內餡要改用別的材料,最後專案實際成本也可能爆表。 當然更包含前面提到客戶要Hello Kitty,但卻被要求做成小叮噹,一定也會讓專案失敗。

要做任何的管理改善,要思考的永遠是價值從頭到尾如何優化的問題。 也要把責任壓在有足夠權限的人身上(或是給負責任的人足夠權限)。 就像工廠要做品質提升,不會請產線的作業員去主導。 畢竟生產流程超過作業員個人的權限範圍。 必須從進料到最後包裝的程序都以整體的角度檢驗與改善,才能真正落實這件事。 專案管理也是一樣,它可不僅只是PM一個人的事情,而是整個公司的事情。

專案管理的提升,包含前段的篩選制度、組織架構的改變,更包含其他支援流程的改變,比方說HR的人力評估方式、財務面稽核的制度、變更管理制度、甚至激勵措施的變動(看整體而非看個工作)。 不然PM雖然受過專業訓練而事事戒慎恐懼,可是專案目標遙不可及,或是其他部門只顧自己,或是關鍵資源總不受控制,或是員工績效制度牴觸專案績效,這些一樣會造成專案失敗。

所以,專案管理要嘛就別做,大家土法煉鋼;真要做,就該有人從大局的角度好好地做。 比方說有專人重頭到尾的監督與規劃,有站在高位的人理解與支持,更需要有人從前到後每個執行流程都順過一遍。 甚至工具、方法論的選擇也得小心。 因為各方法論其實都有產業適用性的問題,以我的經驗,大部分都還得根據組織文化調整(除非組織願意完全遵照所有規則)。

這些若都到位了,專案管理絕對是個能提升長遠競爭力的東西。 因為一個好的專案管理文化,其實會讓整個組織面臨變動環境的對應態度大幅上升。 我甚至一直認為,專案管理的能力,可是接下來台灣面對製造業轉換成服務業、研發、與知識產業最重要的一個核心競爭力。 有辦法設計好的管理機制並有專案與營運全貌觀念的人,恐怕會是之後企業的瑰寶。

覺得這篇文章好嗎? 請分享給您的朋友
歡迎「讚」一下我們的粉絲專頁,接收最新文章!
張國洋 Joe Chang

現為識博管理顧問執行長,也在台灣百大上市櫃公司擔任管理講師與專案顧問。歷年客戶包含工研院、台積電、廣達、富智康、光寶集團、台灣大哥大、遠傳電信、中鼎工程、建國工程、台橡公司、大同公司、三陽工業、TVBS、特力屋集團、城邦集團、誠品集團等。 為了對抗雙魚座的感性,一直在努力強化理性思維與邏輯思考。 相信邏輯發展能解構任何事物,並讓我們找到合宜的人生策略與方向。

Joe G+ ICON Joe LInkin ICON

14 則讀友回應

  1. taylor shieh 2012-03-17 09:39:16 第 14 則

    Implementing anything new in a human system unavoidably involves overcoming the resistance to change. TOC and its Thinking Processes are ideally suited to the challenge. In fact, a process for how to induce people to change is a foundational part of TOC. The 6 Layers of Resistance, also known as the "6 Steps to Buy-In," encompass that process. Note: A "pre" layer has been added to the original 6, and in order not to disturb the numbering, it is referred to as Layer Zero.

    LAYER 0. "We/I don't have a problem."
    When the change agent is talking to someone who feels there is no problem, why would she/he listen?

    ...Once she/he agrees there is a problem, she/he may say, "Ok, I see we/I have a problem, but..."

    LAYER 1. "You don't understand my/our problem(s)."
    When problem solvers start by presenting the solution they are almost always in big trouble because they have failed to satisfy layer 1. Why should they listen to you when they don't have faith that you understand their problem(s). Sure, your solution has worked to solve the problems at other companies, but you don't understand the situation here!

    The generic cloud and current reality tree are the TOC Thinking Processes tools generally used to address this layer of resistance.

    ...Once you succeed, the person may then say, "OK, you do understand my problem(s), but..."

    LAYER 2. "...we don't agree on the direction of the solution."
    The current reality is often not particularly enlightening to the client. They say, 'Well of course; we already knew that.' So you still can't proceed with your solution until you get agreement on the direction the solution should go. For example, in a production environment, it is common to think that the solution is to hire more people or buy more or newer equipment. TOC practitioners believe the true solution lies in a different direction: identify the bottleneck and figure out how to get more production out of it and subordinate everything else to that decision. Until you both agree on the proper direction of the solution, you will face high levels of resistance.

    The evaporating cloud is the TOC Thinking Processes tool generally used to determine and sell the direction of the solution.

    ...Once you succeed there, the person may say, "OK, you understand our problem and we agree on the direction of the solution, but..."

    LAYER 3. "...your solution can't possibly produce the level of results you say it can."
    You must be able to show that the changes you propose will directly and unavoidably cause the negatives identified in Layer 1 to turn to positives. The future reality tree is the TOC Thinking Processes tool used to show that the injections (changes) you propose will actually address the negative problems they agreed exist.

    ...Once you succeed there, the person may say, "OK, you understand our problem and we agree on the direction of the solution, and we see how powerfully this solution can change our undesirable circumstances into desirable ones, but..."

    LAYER 4. "...your good solution is going to cause some bad things to happen."
    These are the inevitable unintended negative consequences. It has a simple medical analogy: cancer treatment. Sometimes the treatment has significant side effects: chemo therapy generally causes nausea, for example. It is usually the same here, and the good news is that it is the people inside the system that have the intuition necessary to foresee the negative side effects. TOC doesn't try to hush these sages as 'nay-sayers'. Rather, it values their insights as very important input and uses them to build a more robust solution.

    Negative branch reservation is the TOC Thinking Processes tool used for this purpose.

    ...Once you succeed there, the person may say, "OK, you understand our problem and we agree on the direction of the solution. We see how powerfully this solution can change our undesirable circumstances into desirable ones, and we see how you have trimmed off the potential negative side effects, but..."

    LAYER 5. "...there are some significant obstacles that prevent the implementation."
    These are things, such as, 'The changes you propose will result in productivity improvements that will probably lead management to lay off some of us— and we are going to cooperate in that.' Or, 'There isn't sufficient money in the budget.' Or, "Corporate will never approve.' Etc., etc.

    The prerequisite tree is the TOC Thinking Processes tool used to identify and map out ways around these obstacles.

    NOTE: Layers 4 and 5 usually do not emerge discreetly. Both are usually interwoven in the buy-in process. It is important to distinguish between the two because they are are distinct and are dealt with differently. The test for separating negative side effects from obstacles is really fairly simple: if the issue is, 'This idea is dead before we can even implement it because...' you are dealing with an obstacle; if the issue is, 'After this idea is implemented things will be worse because...' then you are dealing with a negative side effect.

    ...Now you are almost there. But sometimes, even though the person says, "OK, you understand our problem and we agree on the direction of the solution. We see how powerfully this solution can change our undesirable circumstances into desirable ones, and we see how you have trimmed off the potential negative side effects. And we see how to overcome the obstacles that would prevent us from implementation." But they still don't move forward with the change. This is...

    LAYER 6: Unverbalized fear.
    This is a difficult layer. No particular tool exists to overcome it. The most common cause is that the previous layers were not COMPLETELY overcome for EVERY key decision maker. It may well be a Layer 1 problem. You may have overcome the other 5 layers for everyone in the system except, say, the chief financial officer. Everyone in the operations has bought off and they have been going along with you all the way. However, that financial officer is still back in Layer 1; you haven't addressed her/his real problem(s). You may well have to back track to the beginning in order to be successful.

    There is at least one other possibility. It may be that the person at the top is just not willing to, to use a war metaphor, 'jump out of the fox hole and charge.' Goldratt strongly suggests you assess that characteristic of the person at the top before beginning this process.

    Share All..
    Refere to Ciras Website

    • Joe Chang 2012-03-17 10:46:38

      這篇真的很棒,謝大人願意順便幫大家翻譯嗎?
      我另外開文來貼?

  2. Klaus Chen 2012-03-16 16:43:23 第 13 則

    部分同意Joe的觀點。回歸到"權"與"能"上面,之所以專案承辦人沒法得到充分支持,一則是變化太快,無法有效反映現況,一則是專案一開始就是失敗的專案,專案經理只是為公司解套的代罪羔羊,反正專案要結案,專案經理也要解散,相對就比較拿不到支持.....要實現Joe的理想"專案管理"在台灣中小企業還是需要成長的時間的。

    • Joe Chang 2012-03-17 10:45:19

      我沒這麼悲觀
      長期而言,以專案導向的公司而言,老闆跟PM必須合作 才能達成最大效益
      如果老闆只是想找人當替罪羔羊,長期而言也只是自己吃虧
      最後也會反映到營收跟公司未來的....
      所以假設這推論是真的,長期而言能活下來的應該都是有Sense的老闆
      就演化角度而言,成熟度應該是會越來越提升

  3. taylor shieh 2012-03-15 22:01:13 第 12 則

    景情意/身心靈

    Project Management is a tool...

  4. Elaine 2012-03-15 20:18:53 第 11 則

    Joe 這篇文章的意思有點像是:
    只能讓上班的馬路減少出車禍出現大壅塞的狀況,或是交通警察不用一直站在馬路中央狂揮手卻無法改善堵車情況。盡量能讓馬路保持通暢,行車速度較快。縮短的是行車時間而不是路程。

    • Joe Chang 2012-03-17 10:42:08

      我的意思比較是說 : 如果一條路一開始已經畫好是一線道,再好的交通警察、或是再努力調整紅綠燈的秒數,能優化的必定有個上限。

  5. Elaine 2012-03-15 19:58:03 第 10 則

    J&B 的辦公室照片應該會看到 "兩個大男人蹲在角落玩玩具火車"的畫面吧!:D