Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Recently, the leadership team of an American supermarket chain

    譯者: Regina Chu 審譯者: Marssi Draw

  • decided that their business needed to get a lot more efficient.

    最近,美國某連鎖超市的領導團隊

  • So they embraced their digital transformation with zeal.

    決定要讓他們的企業更有效率。

  • Out went the teams supervising meat, veg, bakery,

    所以他們火熱擁抱數位化轉型。

  • and in came an algorithmic task allocator.

    團隊出去監看肉品、 蔬果及麵包部門,

  • Now, instead of people working together,

    回來的時候想出了一套 任務分配演算法。

  • each employee went, clocked in, got assigned a task, did it,

    現在,員工不再一同工作,

  • came back for more.

    而是每個員工自己去打卡, 拿分配的任務,做完,

  • This was scientific management on steroids,

    然後再去領更多的任務。

  • standardizing and allocating work.

    這是科學管理大補丸,

  • It was super efficient.

    標準化及分配每個工作。

  • Well, not quite,

    超有效率。

  • because the task allocator didn't know

    才怪。

  • when a customer was going to drop a box of eggs,

    因為任務分配法不知道

  • couldn't predict when some crazy kid was going to knock over a display,

    什麼時候顧客會打破一盒蛋,

  • or when the local high school decided

    不能預測什麼時候哪來的小鬼 會打翻陳列的商品,

  • that everybody needed to bring in coconuts the next day.

    或什麼時候當地某高中會突然決定

  • (Laughter)

    學生隔天通通要帶椰子去學校。

  • Efficiency works really well

    (笑聲)

  • when you can predict exactly what you're going to need.

    效率要在你能準確預估

  • But when the anomalous or unexpected comes along --

    你到底需要什麼的時候才會有用。

  • kids, customers, coconuts --

    如果有任何異常 或無預警的情況發生──

  • well, then efficiency is no longer your friend.

    小孩、顧客、椰子──

  • This has become a really crucial issue,

    那效率就不再是你的朋友。

  • this ability to deal with the unexpected,

    這件事已經變成非常重要的問題,

  • because the unexpected is becoming the norm.

    就是處理意外的能力,

  • It's why experts and forecasters are reluctant to predict anything

    因為意外變得愈來愈正常。

  • more than 400 days out.

    這就是為什麼專家及預測人員

  • Why?

    很不願意預測四百天後的情況。

  • Because over the last 20 or 30 years,

    為什麼?

  • much of the world has gone from being complicated

    因為在過去二三十年,

  • to being complex --

    世界上的大部分地區從複雜

  • which means that yes, there are patterns,

    轉變到複合式的複雜。

  • but they don't repeat themselves regularly.

    也就是說是的,的確有模式存在,

  • It means that very small changes can make a disproportionate impact.

    但是這些模式並不經常重複。

  • And it means that expertise won't always suffice,

    也就是說非常小的變化 就會造成不成比例的衝擊,

  • because the system just keeps changing too fast.

    這也代表著專業知識 不見得永遠夠用,

  • So what that means

    因為系統總是變化太快。

  • is that there's a huge amount in the world

    這就意味著

  • that kind of defies forecasting now.

    這個世界有很大一片地方,

  • It's why the Bank of England will say yes, there will be another crash,

    現在可以說不符合預測。

  • but we don't know why or when.

    這就是為什麼英國央行會說, 是,的確會有下一波的崩盤,

  • We know that climate change is real,

    但是我們不知道為什麼 或什麼時候發生。

  • but we can't predict where forest fires will break out,

    我們知道氣候變遷是真的,

  • and we don't know which factories are going to flood.

    但是我們無法預測 森林大火會在哪裡發生,

  • It's why companies are blindsided

    我們也不知道哪個工廠會淹水。

  • when plastic straws and bags and bottled water

    這也就是為什麼 製造公司會完全看不到

  • go from staples to rejects overnight,

    塑膠吸管、塑膠袋和瓶裝水

  • and baffled when a change in social mores

    會在一夕之間從生活必需品 變成人人喊打,

  • turns stars into pariahs and colleagues into outcasts:

    也不懂什麼時候社會民德改變,

  • ineradicable uncertainty.

    讓巨星隕落成賤民,同僚被放逐;

  • In an environment that defies so much forecasting,

    根深蒂固的不確定性。

  • efficiency won't just not help us,

    在一個經常無可預測的環境內,

  • it specifically undermines and erodes our capacity to adapt and respond.

    效率不但不能幫助我們,

  • So if efficiency is no longer our guiding principle,

    還特別會破壞並磨掉 我們適應及反應的能力。

  • how should we address the future?

    如果效率不再是我們的 最高指導原則,

  • What kind of thinking is really going to help us?

    那我們未來要怎麼做呢?

  • What sort of talents must we be sure to defend?

    什麼樣的思維才能真正幫助我們?

  • I think that, where in the past we used to think a lot about just in time management,

    什麼樣的人才是我們一定要保住的?

  • now we have to start thinking about just in case,

    我想,過去我們 只著重「及時」管理,

  • preparing for events that are generally certain

    現在我們必須開始思考「萬一」,

  • but specifically remain ambiguous.

    準備應付還算有把握,

  • One example of this is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, CEPI.

    但某些項目仍不能完全掌控的情況。

  • We know there will be more epidemics in future,

    流行病預防聯盟 CEPI 就是這方面的例子。

  • but we don't know where or when or what.

    我們知道未來會有更多流行病,

  • So we can't plan.

    但是我們不知道何時、 何地或何種會發生。

  • But we can prepare.

    所以我們不能事先計畫。

  • So CEPI's developing multiple vaccines for multiple diseases,

    但是我們可以事先準備。

  • knowing that they can't predict which vaccines are going to work

    所以流行病預防聯盟 為多種疾病開發出多種疫苗,

  • or which diseases will break out.

    因為他們知道他們無法預測 哪種疫苗會有效,

  • So some of those vaccines will never be used.

    或哪種疾病會爆發,

  • That's inefficient.

    所以某些開發出的疫苗 就會永遠用不到。

  • But it's robust,

    這很沒效率。

  • because it provides more options,

    卻很萬全,

  • and it means that we don't depend on a single technological solution.

    因為這提供了更多選擇,

  • Epidemic responsiveness also depends hugely

    也意味著我們不需要依賴 單一技術解決方案。

  • on people who know and trust each other.

    流行病應變很大程度也取決於

  • But those relationships take time to develop,

    相互了解和信任的人。

  • time that is always in short supply when an epidemic breaks out.

    但是這種關係需要時間來培養,

  • So CEPI is developing relationships, friendships, alliances now

    流行病爆發時,時間永遠不夠用。

  • knowing that some of those may never be used.

    所以流行病預防聯盟 現在就培養關係、友誼、結盟,

  • That's inefficient, a waste of time, perhaps,

    即使知道這些關係 可能永遠都用不上。

  • but it's robust.

    這很沒效率,也可以說是浪費時間,

  • You can see robust thinking in financial services, too.

    但這很萬全。

  • In the past, banks used to hold much less capital

    萬全的想法在金融服務業也看的到。

  • than they're required to today,

    過去,銀行的資本要求

  • because holding so little capital, being too efficient with it,

    比現在少很多,

  • is what made the banks so fragile in the first place.

    因為持有那麼少的資金 雖然效率超高,

  • Now, holding more capital looks and is inefficient.

    卻讓銀行一開始就非常脆弱。

  • But it's robust, because it protects the financial system against surprises.

    現在,資本要求變高乍看 ──也的確──很沒效率,

  • Countries that are really serious about climate change

    但是很萬全,

  • know that they have to adopt multiple solutions,

    因為這樣能保護金融系統免受驚嚇。

  • multiple forms of renewable energy,

    極為看重氣候變遷的國家

  • not just one.

    知道他們必須多管齊下,

  • The countries that are most advanced have been working for years now,

    採用多種可再生能源,

  • changing their water and food supply and healthcare systems,

    而非只有一種。

  • because they recognize that by the time they have certain prediction,

    進展好的國家已經實行了很多年,

  • that information may very well come too late.

    改變他們的水源 及食物來源及健保系統,

  • You can take the same approach to trade wars, and many countries do.

    因為他們意識到就算他們預測到了,

  • Instead of depending on a single huge trading partner,

    到那個時候資訊 也可能已經來得太晚。

  • they try to be everybody's friends,

    同樣的方法也可以用在貿易戰上, 許多國家都這樣做。

  • because they know they can't predict

    與其倚靠一個超強貿易夥伴,

  • which markets might suddenly become unstable.

    還不如試著跟大家都交朋友,

  • It's time-consuming and expensive, negotiating all these deals,

    因為他們知道他們不能預測

  • but it's robust

    哪個市場可能會突然崩盤。

  • because it makes their whole economy better defended against shocks.

    這很花時間也很花金錢, 要協商各式交易,

  • It's particularly a strategy adopted by small countries

    但這很萬全,

  • that know they'll never have the market muscle to call the shots,

    因為這讓他們的整個經濟 更能防禦衝擊。

  • so it's just better to have too many friends.

    這種策略特別受小國青睞,

  • But if you're stuck in one of these organizations

    因為他們知道他們的市場 永遠不能做主,

  • that's still kind of captured by the efficiency myth,

    所以最好擁有非常多朋友。

  • how do you start to change it?

    但是如果你待的組織,

  • Try some experiments.

    還卡在效率這樣的迷思裡,

  • In the Netherlands,

    你要怎麼開始做出改變?

  • home care nursing used to be run pretty much like the supermarket:

    嘗試一些實驗。

  • standardized and prescribed work

    在荷蘭,

  • to the minute:

    以前居家護理師的調配 還用很像超市的做法:

  • nine minutes on Monday, seven minutes on Wednesday,

    標準化及指定化的工作——

  • eight minutes on Friday.

    以分鐘計:

  • The nurses hated it.

    星期一做九分鐘,星期三做七分鐘,

  • So one of them, Jos de Blok,

    星期五做八分鐘。

  • proposed an experiment.

    護理師恨死了!

  • Since every patient is different,

    所以護理師勃洛克

  • and we don't quite know exactly what they'll need,

    就提出一個實驗。

  • why don't we just leave it to the nurses to decide?

    既然每個病人的情況都不一樣,

  • Sound reckless?

    我們根本無從得知他們到底要什麼,

  • (Laughter)

    那我們為什麼不讓護士自己判斷呢?

  • (Applause)

    聽起來有欠考慮喔?

  • In his experiment, Jos found the patients got better

    (笑聲)

  • in half the time,

    (掌聲)

  • and costs fell by 30 percent.

    勃洛克在他的實驗中發現

  • When I asked Jos what had surprised him about his experiment,

    病人只要原本一半的時間就好轉,

  • he just kind of laughed and he said,

    花費下降了 30% 。

  • "Well, I had no idea it could be so easy

    我問勃洛克他的實驗裡 哪個部分最讓他驚訝,

  • to find such a huge improvement,

    他只笑了一下說:

  • because this isn't the kind of thing you can know or predict

    「嗯,我真的不知道這麼簡單

  • sitting at a desk or staring at a computer screen."

    就能有這麼大的改進,

  • So now this form of nursing has proliferated across the Netherlands

    因為這不是你坐在書桌前 或盯著電腦螢幕

  • and around the world.

    就能知道或預測的。」

  • But in every new country it still starts with experiments,

    所以現在這樣的照護系統

  • because each place is slightly and unpredictably different.

    已經通行荷蘭及全世界。

  • Of course, not all experiments work.

    但是在每個新國家 都還是要以實驗開始,

  • Jos tried a similar approach to the fire service

    因為每個地方都不太一樣, 這種不同也很難預測。

  • and found it didn't work because the service is just too centralized.

    當然,不是每個實驗都會成功。

  • Failed experiments look inefficient,

    勃洛克把類似的方法用在消防隊上,

  • but they're often the only way you can figure out

    發現沒有用,

  • how the real world works.

    因為消防隊實在非常集中派工。

  • So now he's trying teachers.

    失敗的實驗看起來很沒效率,

  • Experiments like that require creativity

    但這經常是你能找出實際情況

  • and not a little bravery.

    如何運作的唯一的方法。

  • In England --

    所以現在他去試試看老師這行。

  • I was about to say in the UK, but in England --

    像這樣的實驗需要創造力

  • (Laughter)

    和不只一點點的勇氣。

  • (Applause)

    在英格蘭,

  • In England, the leading rugby team, or one of the leading rugby teams,

    我本來要說英國,但是在英格蘭,

  • is Saracens.

    (笑聲)

  • The manager and the coach there realized that all the physical training they do

    (掌聲)

  • and the data-driven conditioning that they do

    在英格蘭,稱霸的橄欖球隊, 或說稱霸的橄欖球隊之一,

  • has become generic;

    就是薩拉森人隊。

  • really, all the teams do exactly the same thing.

    球隊經理及教練意識到 他們所做的體格訓練

  • So they risked an experiment.

    及數據導向的體能訓練

  • They took the whole team away, even in match season,

    都變成通用的,

  • on ski trips

    真的,所有的隊伍 都在做一模一樣的事。

  • and to look at social projects in Chicago.

    所以他們放手一搏做了個實驗。

  • This was expensive,

    他們把整個隊伍調開, 即使在賽季中,

  • it was time-consuming,

    也跑去滑雪,

  • and it could be a little risky

    去芝加哥當義工。

  • putting a whole bunch of rugby players on a ski slope, right?

    這很貴,

  • (Laughter)

    這很花時間,

  • But what they found was that the players came back

    而且還有點小風險,

  • with renewed bonds of loyalty and solidarity.

    你想,把整隊的橄欖球員 拉去滑雪欸?

  • And now when they're on the pitch under incredible pressure,

    (笑聲)

  • they manifest what the manager calls "poise" --

    但是他們發現球員回去時,

  • an unflinching, unwavering dedication

    他們彼此之間的忠誠度 及團結度都更新了。

  • to each other.

    現在他們在球場上 面對極大的壓力時,

  • Their opponents are in awe of this,

    他們表現出經理說的「沉穩」——

  • but still too in thrall to efficiency to try it.

    一種堅定不移的彼此奉獻。

  • At a London tech company, Verve,

    他們的敵隊都對此敬畏無比,

  • the CEO measures just about everything that moves,

    但還是被效率束縛而不敢嘗試。

  • but she couldn't find anything that made any difference

    在倫敦有家科技公司叫 Verve,

  • to the company's productivity.

    只要是會動的東西, 他們的執行長都要算一算,

  • So she devised an experiment that she calls "Love Week":

    但是她找不出任何東西

  • a whole week where each employee has to look for really clever,

    對公司的生產力有影響。

  • helpful, imaginative things

    所以她設計了一個實驗, 她稱為「愛情週」:

  • that a counterpart does,

    整整一週的時間, 每個員工都要尋找真正高明、

  • call it out and celebrate it.

    有幫助、有想像力的東西,

  • It takes a huge amount of time and effort;

    是他們的對手做的,

  • lots of people would call it distracting.

    找出來並慶祝一下。

  • But it really energizes the business

    這要花很多時間和努力,

  • and makes the whole company more productive.

    很多人會說這是分心。

  • Preparedness, coalition-building,

    但是這確實為企業注入了活力,

  • imagination, experiments,

    使整個公司更有生產力。

  • bravery --

    準備、結盟、

  • in an unpredictable age,

    想像、實驗、

  • these are tremendous sources of resilience and strength.

    勇氣——

  • They aren't efficient,

    在無法預測的時代,

  • but they give us limitless capacity

    這些都是韌性與力量的重大來源。

  • for adaptation, variation and invention.

    這些都沒有效率,

  • And the less we know about the future,

    但是會給我們無限的能力

  • the more we're going to need these tremendous sources

    來適應、變化及創新。

  • of human, messy, unpredictable skills.

    我們對未來所知愈少,

  • But in our growing dependence on technology,

    就愈需要這些巨大的來源,

  • we're asset-stripping those skills.

    給我們人性化、亂七八糟、 不可預測的能力。

  • Every time we use technology

    但是在我們對科技 愈來愈依賴的過程中,

  • to nudge us through a decision or a choice

    我們正以資產剝離的手法 剝奪這些能力。

  • or to interpret how somebody's feeling

    每次我們用科技

  • or to guide us through a conversation,

    推動自己做決定或做選擇,

  • we outsource to a machine what we could, can do ourselves,

    或詮釋別人的情感,

  • and it's an expensive trade-off.

    或引導我們對話,

  • The more we let machines think for us,

    我們就是把本來可以 自己做的東西外包給機器,

  • the less we can think for ourselves.

    而這是非常昂貴的交易。

  • The more --

    我們愈讓機器幫我們思考,

  • (Applause)

    我們自己就愈不會思考。

  • The more time doctors spend staring at digital medical records,

    醫師——

  • the less time they spend looking at their patients.

    (掌聲)

  • The more we use parenting apps,

    醫師盯著數位病例的時間愈多,

  • the less we know our kids.

    他們花在看病人的時間就愈少,

  • The more time we spend with people that we're predicted and programmed to like,

    我們愈常使用育兒應用程式,

  • the less we can connect with people who are different from ourselves.

    就愈不了解自己的兒女。

  • And the less compassion we need, the less compassion we have.

    我們花愈多時間

  • What all of these technologies attempt to do

    與自己預測並設計好 會喜歡的人相處,

  • is to force-fit a standardized model of a predictable reality

    就愈不會與異己之人建立關係。

  • onto a world that is infinitely surprising.

    我們需要的同情心愈來愈少, 我們的同情心就會愈來愈少。

  • What gets left out?

    這些科技企圖要做的,

  • Anything that can't be measured --

    是把可預測現實的標準化模式

  • which is just about everything that counts.

    硬塞到一個瞬息萬變的世界來用。

  • (Applause)

    這遺漏了什麼?

  • Our growing dependence on technology

    無法測量的事物,

  • risks us becoming less skilled,

    這幾乎包含了所有事物。

  • more vulnerable

    (掌聲)

  • to the deep and growing complexity

    我們愈來愈依賴科技,

  • of the real world.

    風險就是讓我們愈來愈沒有能力,

  • Now, as I was thinking about the extremes of stress and turbulence

    更無法應對

  • that we know we will have to confront,

    深不可測、日益複雜的

  • I went and I talked to a number of chief executives

    真實世界。

  • whose own businesses had gone through existential crises,

    在我思索著我們知道

  • when they teetered on the brink of collapse.

    一定會面對的極端壓力與混亂時,

  • These were frank, gut-wrenching conversations.

    我去找了幾位執行長談談,

  • Many men wept just remembering.

    他們的公司都經歷過生存危機,

  • So I asked them:

    瀕臨倒閉的窘境。

  • "What kept you going through this?"

    這些都是坦率、令人心碎的對談。

  • And they all had exactly the same answer.

    許多男士想起來就掉淚。

  • "It wasn't data or technology," they said.

    我問他們: