[连载]SEPG行为指南(这事我做,会有什么不同呢)

一啸长天

VIII.        
Wrong-headed about “resistance”

Right up there with inappropriate borrowing from psychology is the construct of resistance to change. I have commented, above, that at the SEI we believed that any person who resisted our forceful sales job on soft¬ware process improvement had a bad character, and was disloyal, unpatriotic.  I have come to learn that some of the resistance was appropriate, and some was about the mortgage.

知道有从心理学（这是当前的状况）里不适当的引用用以变革。我已发出评论，上面提到过，就是在SEI里，我们相信任何一个阻碍我们在软件过程改进方面强劲的销售工作的人有着比较坏的个性，并且不忠诚，不爱国。我逐渐了解到有些阻力是合理的，有些则是精神负担。

The “mortgage” angle is simply this: if you reduce my ability to meet my mortgage payments then expect me to respond – negatively, as you might imagine. The application to SPI is simple: if software process im¬provement will make me look stupid, incompetent, or otherwise less powerful than the position I have strug¬gled lo these many years to earn, then you can count me as against it. Does this mean that the person in question, and incidentally, in authority, is resistant? I don’t think so, I think the person is acting appropriately to proximately protect his/her mortgage payments.

从按揭角度简单的讲：如果你削减我对我的按揭支付能力，然后又期待着我给予响应——这是不可能的，你也想得到的。对于SPI的应用是简单的：如果软件过程改进使得我烦起来很傻帽、无能、或已这些年的经验也无法应对，那么你可以想得到我是一定会反对它的。这意味着此人有问题吗，顺便说一句，因为实在权威领域，所以是阻力吗？我不这么认为，我倒认为此人正在近似完美化他的按揭。

A. Competency-enhancing vs. competency-destroying
A．能力提升 VS 能力消亡

How did I come to this line of reasoning? One brick is (Tushman & Anderson, Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments, September 1986). In this seminal article, the authors investigate how it is that some firms make technological changes and thrive, and others do not and perish. They find that at least in part it’s the technology! They classify the technologies – and this is their contribution – as either compe¬tency-enhancing or competency-destroying. Competency-enhancing technology performs functions you do today, just better, cheaper, and/or faster. Competency-destroying technology performs functions you have probably never performed, such as object-oriented design or Java programming or, well, software process improvement. The authors found that those firms that   m a d e   successful technological transitions time and time-again differentiated how they implemented competency-enhancing technology vs. competency-destroying. For competency-enhancing, a few hours of instruction ( a t   most) may be sufficient, as are on-line help, FAQs, and tutorials. For competency-destroying technologies, though, an entirely different approach needs to be taken, else those affected will try to protect their mortgages (not quite the way they put it) and will not learn the new stuff.

为何我会这样推理？这得提及（Tushman & Anderson, Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments, September 1986）。在这个有生命力的文章里，一些公司如何做出技术上的改变并且兴旺起来，而另一些没有这样做，以至于最后落得衰败的下场。他们发现这至少是技术！他们见这些技术分类——这就是他们的贡献——或者能力提升，或者能力消亡。能力提升的技术执行着你如今做的、仅是更好、更便宜、以及或更快速的功能。能力消亡的技术执行着你也许永远都不会用到的、就像面向对象设计或Java编程或，软件过程改进。那些作者发现：那些能成功的进行一次又一次的技术过渡区别于那些能力消亡的是他们执行能力提升的技术。对于能力提升，几小时的指导业余就已足够，因为都是一些在线帮助、FAQs 及指导。对于能力消亡的技术，尽管、一个完全不同的方法需要被执行，或许这些影响会试着保护他们的按揭（也不完全是他们放出的）而且不会学习新的东西。

It bears mentioning that the world advances by competency-destroying technologies, so we need to learn how to implement them. Tushman has   m a d e   something of a career of exploring this, beginning with his dis¬covery in his first article, above, through to his latest book, (Tushman & O'Reilly III, Winning Through Innova¬tion: a Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal, 1997). For those who are patience-impaired, that book is well-redacted in (Tushman, Anderson, & O'Reilly, Levers for Organizational Renewal: Innovation Streams, Ambidextrous Organizations, and Strategic Change, 1998). If one follows the writings of Tushman through his odyssey, one will see a transformation of his. He has come to see that in order to be effective, organizations have to be equally adroit at (discovering and) implementing competency-enhancing and competency-destroying technologies simultaneously.  He sees cycles of rapid change where discontinuous, competency-destroying innovation is prevalent, followed by relatively stable epochs of incremental improvement and competency-enhancing technologies, followed by the tumult of discontinuous change and its white-water characteristics, and so on.

不得不提及一点：我们的世界就是靠这些能力消亡的技术得以提升的，因此我们不得不学习如何实现他们。Tushman已经对此进行了职业探索，是以他的第一篇论文而开始的，如上，贯穿于他最新的书中（Tushman & O'Reilly III, Winning Through Innova¬tion: a Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal, 1997）。因为那些都是病态的修复，这本（Tushman, Anderson, & O'Reilly, Levers for Organizational Renewal: Innovation Streams, Ambidextrous Organizations, and Strategic Change, 1998）对此作出了很好的编辑。如果有人能跟着Tushman 进场其研究所写的不发前进，他将会看见一个质的变化。他会慢慢明白什么是有效的，组织不得不同时同样熟于执行能力提升和能力消技术。他会看到断断续续得快数周期性变化，能力消亡创新是很普遍的，接着就是步改善及能力提升的技术的稳定期，再就是不连续改变的骚动期及他的把开水似的特性，等等。

B. Life cycles  B.生命周期

The idea that organizations have life cycles and that different skills might be appropriate and required during each one is most prominently due to (Quinn, Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance, 1988). Quinn posits that every organization goes through four sequential cycles:

1. Innovating, inventing whatever the new enterprise’s value proposition will be.
2. Discovering that people are its most important assets.
3. Integrating robust processes into its business life so that it can repeatably address the issues of the mar¬ketplace.
4. Developing a strategy that will insure that the enterprise will survive and flourish.
This work, incidentally, is an application of Parson’s General Theory of Action; the insightful student will be able to identify the AGIL framework, in order!

其思想就是：组织都是有生命周期的并且不同的技能可能在每一个阶段适用并且需要，这得归因于（Quinn, Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance, 1988）Quinn指出每一个组织都有这四个连续的周期：

1. 创新、发明那些只要是企业提出的新提议
2. 发现人才是最重要的资产
3. 集成健壮的过程到商业活动中，以此可重复的抓住市场的脉搏。
4. 研制出一种策略来确保企业存活并兴旺。
这个工作，顺便提一句，是Parson的普遍行为理论；有洞察力的学者能够鉴别AGIL构架，如按顺序的话！

Quinn posits, in addition, that for each phase a different set of skills are appropriate and the expression of them is a kind of balancing among competing values. The SPI angle is that we typically act as though we are in the third phase when there’s a ¾ chance that we are not! We have to learn how to act in the other three phases and Quinn’s book is an excellent guide. For more detailed guidance one can consult (Quinn, Becom¬ing a Master Manager: a Competency Framework, 1990).

Quinn提出，附加一点，为每一个阶段设立不同的技能是比较合适的而且它们的表述是一种介于计算价值的平衡。SPI的观点是如果我们按照典型的进行，那么即使我们处于第三阶段，我们那时也不会有3/4的机会！我们必须学会如何处理好其它3各阶段，Quinn的书是一个不错的指南。想要得到更具体的指导可以查阅（Quinn, Becom¬ ing a Master Manager: a Competency Framework, 1990）。

Therefore, the existence of life cycles also implies another reason that the concept of “resistance” may be wrong-headed: SPI may be inappropriate in several of the phases, or at least less valuable than in the third, when it would be wildly important.

因此生命周期的存在也暗示另外一个原因，那就是“阻力”这一概念也许是错误的：SPI也许不适合这三个阶段，或者与第三个相比较起来没什么价值，当它很重要的时候。

C. Strategy   C. 战略

And here is just a quick reminder about a point   m a d e   in section V. Sometimes it is appropriate to “resist” the proposed changes because they are inconsistent with the organizational strategy. In the case of SPI, the CMM is targeted at operational excellence. If your organization’s strategy is either product innovativeness or customer intimacy, then you’d better use the CMM to bring up the organization to a threshold of operational excellence. Any more than that should be resisted on strategy grounds.

并且要有一个迅速的提醒，是关于在第五章提出的一点。有时这比较适用于“抵制”被提议的改变，因为它们不符合企业的战略。在SPI的一个案例中，CMM致力于操作上的卓越。如果你的组织的战略或者是产品创新或者是客户亲密度，那么你最好使用CMM来帮助提升组织卓越操作的阀值。除此之外的应该受制于战略范围。

D. Institutionalization  D. 制度化

One of the life cycles of change used by the SEI uses the term “institutionalization” in it and the SEI adopted that term for the CMMs. The term institutionalization has, unfortunately for the SEI, numerous meanings, including:

1. Civil confinement of individuals for mental health or community safety reasons.
2. The habit of an organization to repeat what it knows and to imitate others it admires.
The SEI means it in the sense of adoption, as in section VI.A, the way Ev Rogers defined it as “regular usage.”

由SEI使用的一种生命周期的变化是用术语“制度化”在其中，并且SEI是基于CMMs而采用这个术语的。
1. 有礼貌的个人限制是为了精神健康或社区安全的原因。
2. 组织的习惯是重复他已经知道的并且模仿那些它们所钦佩的。
SEI意味着从采纳的用意上看，在VI.A中提到过，Ev Rogers 定义它为“有规律的使用”

But institutionalization as sociologists use the term (2., above) is important, too. Just look at the title of the seminal article on the subject, (DiMaggio & Powell, The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, April 1983). “The Iron Cage”! Iron cage is the literary term for prison. Max Weber, one of the most famous sociologists, wrote: "… the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the ‘saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.’ But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage."  DiMaggio and Powell write that by this Weber warned that rationalism had ushered in an era in which capitalism and its off-spring, bureauc¬racy, had become an iron cage for humanity (p. 147). The authors note the strong resemblance of organiza¬tional structure from one organization to another, not withstanding their disparate market orienta¬tions, such as Microsoft and Ford Motor Company, for example. That is, the organization charts of those two firms are nearly identical at some scale.

但是作为社会学家使用社会化这个术语（上面第二点）也是很重要的。只是看看基于这一主题的有着生命力的文章的标题，（DiMaggio & Powell, The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields, April 1983）“铁笼”！铁笼是监狱的文学术语。Max Weber,最著名的社会学家之一，曾写到：“……想要保护外部的商品应该仅能依靠像‘轻轻的外衣,可以随时被甩到一边的圣徒’。但是命运的判决使得这件外衣可能变为铁笼。”DiMaggio 和Powell 写道，通过Weber的警告，理想主义 己经在一个在官僚主义及其后期的纪元里占领风骚，这就对人类来说已经变为一个铁笼。一些作者发现在组织之间有强烈的相似之处，这里不是来对比它们在市场面向上的不同，举个例子，就像微软和福特汽车公司。也就是说，这两家公司的组织图表在某种范围内是极其相似的。

What accounts for the lack of diversity in organizational life when organizations themselves – from the standpoint of the diversity of the people in them and the diversity of their markets and market disciplines – seem so diverse? It’s that organizations copy one another and there is great pressure to look and act alike, the authors show. They use the sociologist’s term for this pressure: institutionalization. The main point of the lit¬erature on institutionalization is what a strong, pervasive, and latent force it is. Organizations may not so much resist change, rather they conform to very large, powerful norms.

是什么原因导致组织生命里如此缺乏多样性，当组织它们自己——从在他们看来的人们多样化的立场及它们市场的多样化和市场规则——看似如此多样化？这是那些组织对另外一个的拷贝，就有很大的压力（因为所观察及行为上都很相似），那些作家指出。他们使用社会学家的述语来阐述这种压力：制度化。基于制度化的最主要的一点是什么是强大的、普遍的、潜在的力量。那些组织可能不怎么强烈抵制变革，这使得它们更符合大型的、强劲的代名词。

E. What can be changed    E. 什么能被改变

While I do not like using psychological constructs, it might be instructive to look at a few, and leave as an open question about whether organizations act like people in this regard. First, the addiction literature notes that back-sliding (that is, failing to make a permanent change, called “relapse” in the model) is normal and part of the life cycle of improvement (see esp. (Miller & Rollnick, Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior, 1991), p. 15, Fig. 2.1, citing the six stages of change by (Prochaska & DiClemente, Transtheoretical Therapy: Toward a More Integrative Model of Change, 1982)). Second, (Seligman, What You Can Change & What You Can't: the Complete Guide to Successful Self-Improvement, 1994), summarizes his 250-page synopsis of psychology by listing behaviors and correspondingly the chance of changing. The list goes from curable, through mild or moderate relief, to unchangeable. The pattern that emerges from the list is that what can change is a function of how deep the behavior is. Depth is elusive and difficult to define, but intuitively ranges from biological “destiny,” which is the hardest to change, to how strongly we believe something, which is the easiest to change because, in some circumstances we can apply logic (or cognitive therapy, which is currently popular).

当我不喜欢使用心理学的构想时,可能有些得益于看了一点,这就留给我们一个开放性的问题:在所关心的事物的层面上,组织的行为和人们的是相似的。第一，成瘾文学中指出，倒退（也就是，没能成功做出持久化改变，在模型里称之为“旧病复发”）是正常的，并且改进的生命周期里的部分也是如此（see esp.（Miller & Rollnick, Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior, 1991），第15页，图2.1引证了变革的六个阶段（Prochaska & DiClemente, Transtheoretical Therapy: Toward a More Integrative Model of Change, 1982））。第二，（Seligman, What You Can Change & What You Can't: the Complete Guide to Successful Self-Improvement,1994），概括了他的250页心理学的大意，通过列举出一些行为和相应的变革和机会。这份表单遵循的是可治愈的,从温和的、适量的减轻，到完全没有变化。从这份表单出浮现的模式是什么能被改变是一个如何深化行为的功能点。深化是难以理解的也很难定义，但是直观的从生物学的“定数”（就是那种最难改变的东西）来看，如何强化我们对某些东西的信念，这是最容易改变的，因为在某些特定环境下，我们应用推理的方法（或者认知论，这是当前流行的。）

(Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1992) generalizes the psychology literature and theorizes that organizational “culture” is manifest on three levels:

1. Artifacts – things that we can see and read, the surface, visible.
2. Espoused values – what is said to be believed, such as strategies, goals, philosophies.
3. Basic underlying assumptions – latent, not spoken, understood, unconscious, taken for granted, the ultimate source of values and actions.
The order is from easiest to change to most difficult.

（Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1992）概括了心理学文献和理论，组织“文化”主要体现在三个级别上：

1. 人工制品——一些我们能看到、阅读、表负，可视。
2. 信奉价值——可以相信些什么，就像战略、目标、哲学
3. 基本的一些潜在的假设——潜在的、不能言表的、可理解、未发觉的、想当然、价值和行动的最终来源。
这里的顺序是从最容易的到最难的。

Is a person or organization being resistant if it is asked to change that which is very difficult to change? Do we even have a right to ask for such a change? Do we know where software process improvement is in the spectrum of what is possible to change?

如果被要求变革，有人或组织就会抵制吗，这会很艰难的变革吗？我们甚至会有权限来要求做出这样的变革吗？我们知道在什么样的范围里可能进行软件过程改进吗？

F. Language as inhibitor or accelerator   语言就像刹车或加速器

Along the lines of cognitive therapy are the ideas in (Kegan & Lahey, How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work: Seven Languages for Transformation, 2001), redacted in (Kegan & Lahey, The Real Reason People Won't Change, November 2001). The distinguished authors note that we construct our own iron cage with the language we use for change. They take us step-by-step away from the language that silently removes change from our consideration and towards language that commits us to consider change. The work is artful in that we are not   m a d e   aware of the deep psychological basis for our antipathy towards change, but are led to learn a new way to frame the choice to change that appears to be as natural as the one to avoid it.

按照认知疗法的思想很多都有在（Kegan & Lahey, How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work: Seven Languages for Transformation, 2001），也存在于（Kegan & Lahey, The Real Reason People Won't Change, November 2001）。一些著名的作者指出我们为了变革使用语言，自己创建了铁笼。他们引领我们一步一步地远离将潜移默化地从我们变革的考虑移除的语言并且朝向能帮助我们变革的语言走去。这项工作是很技巧性的，因为我们反感变革

G. Change is harder than we think  变革比我们相像中难得多

To me, this section, along with other information, implies that change is more difficult than we think. In fact, it might be a lot more difficult than we think. After all, how is change measured? We don’t have a change effort metric and there is virtually nothing written about how difficult it is quantitatively for a person or an organization to change. I take this to mean that we know very little about the effort it takes to change and whether that energy is justified, so it is cheap to require change, as we have done at the SEI for a long time.

对我来说，这一部分，加上其它的一些信息，暗示了变革是比我们相像中难得多。事实上，它可能比我们相像的难上许多。毕竟，变革如何被度量的？我们还没有一个变革的有交度量标准，并且几乎没有书面性的东西来说明它对于一个组织或个人进行变革在分量上有多难。说这些是为了指出对于它能带来的变革我们所知甚微，并且这种能力是不是合理的，因此这对需要变革来说是比较廉价的，正如我们在SEI里花了那么长时间所做的工作一样。

---------------------------------------------------
译者权归“思步网（www.step365.com）”及版主“一啸长天”共同所有，未经许可，请勿转载

漂在生活

连载结束了吗？

LittleFrank

请问有没有电子版（全集）啊？谢谢！

LittleFrank

顶，期待电子版（全集），谢谢！

思步

回复 19# LittleFrank

连载完成后，会整理成电子书籍。

一啸长天

IX.Insufficient pointers for engineers entering new subject areas

There is a wealth of information about social systems that may appeal to us engineers that we were unaware of when we wrote the Guide. This collection can roughly be divided into a view of social systems as systems of (usually non-linear) differential equations, and those that rebut the view of social systems as billiard balls. The approach to characterizing social systems as a set of non-linear differential equations is simulation, sometimes by numerical integration and sometimes by discrete events that push tokens h a s a surrogate for work) around a network. And there is a red herring in the mix: chaos theory, which at this point is a meta¬phor when applied to social systems but is a set of non-linear differential equations when applied to selected physical, biological, and economic systems.

IX 引领工程师们进入新的领域指导不足

  存在一种有价值的信息，关于社会体制方面的，这可能会吸引我们的工程师们，而这一信息当我们在写这个指南的时候并未注意到。所收集到的信息大体上可以分为：社会体制的视图就像微分方程系统（通常是非线性的），和那些反驳将社会视图比作台球。来赋予一个社会体制类似于非线性微分方程的集合的特色，这是一种模仿。有时通过数值积分，有时候通过离散事件推动令牌（就像工作中的代理）环网。就像那里有一只处于迷惑中的红鲱鱼：混沌理论，它在这一点上是一种隐喻，当被应用于社会体制时；但是，当应用于选定的物理、生物及经济体制时，就是一个非线性微分方程的集合了。

One counterforce at the SEI was a group of people who had studied the liberal arts and had a distaste for engineers ( a  t  the Software Engineering Institute), saying that we engineers were never going to be extro¬verted enough, in touch with people enough, to understand change and organizations. They created an atmosphere that was antagonistic to my learning about social systems because I was genetically not up to the material, I was told. They, on the other hand, had a difficult job dealing with us insensitive, untreatable dolts, but someone had to it.

在SEI里有一股反对势力，他们是一组曾经是学文科的并且很讨厌软件工程师们（在软件工程研究署的），说什么我们这些工程师永远都不够外向（没有充分的和他人进行沟通）以明白变革和组织。他们弄出了一种氛围，那就是对我学习关于社会学的反对了，因为我说过，从基因遗传上说，我还达不到那个水平。换句话说，他们对于我们这些反应迟钝的、无药可效的人展开工作实为举步为艰，但是还是得有人来做这个。

I was pleased to learn that there are entry points into the study of social systems that do not depend upon extroversion or intuition about people. In fact, mathematics, engineering, and the hard sciences would better equip the learner for the access points below.

我很乐意研究进入社会体制的切入，这种不需要依赖于什么人们的外向性或者直觉。事实上，数学、工程学及硬科学会更适合下面所论及的一些切入点：

A.        Burton and Obel

Perhaps the most interesting work in organizational behavior and organizational design has been performed by this team of researchers. They are the epitome of “management science” meets “organizational science.” The first contribution I want to note is (Burton & Obel, Designing Efficient Organizations : Modelling and Experimentation, 1984), where the authors ask whether there is an optimal organizational structure, an opti¬mal organization chart. Until these authors, organizational design used heuristics and every book you read would have a different, idiosyncratic set. It was very much art, with a little science (based on very selectively introducing the results of field research). Burton and Obel came to see the problem as one of optimization: what is the arrangement of entities on a chart that either maximizes or minimizes some mathematical func¬tion that I can compute? If the arrangement can be reduced to constraints and the function to be maximized (such as profit) or minimized (such as decision speed or communication noise) can be actually stated, then the problem of finding an/the optimal arrangement is a typical linear programming problem.

也许在组织行学和组织设计里最有趣的工作己经被这个小组里的研究者们执行过了。它们是“管理科学”和“组织科学”的缩影。我想指出最初的贡献是：（Burton & Obel, Designing Efficient
Organizations : Modelling and Experimentation, 1984），这本书面，作者们问及是否存在一种最佳的组织结构，一个最佳的组强图表。直到这些作者，使用启发式的组织设计和你所读的每一本书会有所不同，特殊的规定。这是非常艺术的，夹杂着一点点科学在其中（基于非常有选择性地引入领域研究的一些成果）。Burton 和Obel 就将这种问题 视为最佳化的一种：基于一个图表（或者最大化或者最小化一些我们能计算的数学函数），什么才是实体的约定？如果这种约定减小以受到一些约束并且这个能被最大化（就像利润）或者最小化（就像临界速度或通信噪音）的函数能被精确地说明，那么找出一个最优的约定的问题就是一个典型的线性规划问题了。

To make an interesting story short, Burton and Obel invented a way to transform the question of organization design into the computation of an optimal arrangement. I used it on a consulting engagement and it created an organization chart no one had never seen before, one ideally suited to the particular and peculiar con¬straints of the situation.

来讲一个有意思的简短的故事吧:Burton和Obel 发明了一种方法来将组织设计的问题转化到一个最优安排的计算。我在一个咨询约会上用上了它，它创建出了一个组织图表，这个图表不曾有人见过，一个理想的适合于特殊且罕见的条件约束。

Later Burton and Obel wondered if enough is known about contingency theory to help an actual organiza¬tional designer diagnose and design particular organizations. Remember, contingency theory asks the ques¬tion “What is the best way to organize?” and answers with “It depends – upon many factors that have been shown empirically to make a difference.” So Burton and Obel read everything written on contingency theory and extracted rules from the studies and arranged them into an expert system, the Organizational Consultant, OrgCon. It is on a CD ROM included with their encyclopedic treatment of all of contingency theory, (Burton & Obel, Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: Developing Theory for Application, 1998). OrgCon can take as input and existing organization and produce a diagnosis of “misfits” that bear investigation and possibly remediation, or it can take as input a proposed organization to produce the same type of report so that the potential arrangement can be tuned on paper before being implemented in practice.

随后Burton 和Obel 有点疑惑是否足够了解权变理论以帮助一个实际的组设计诊断及设计特殊的组织。记住，权变理论所发出的问题“组织的最佳方式是什么？”并且答案就是“视情况而定——它受很多因素（我们前面己展示过，就是凭经验来做一些改变）的影响”。因此，Burton和Obel 翻阅了基于权变理论的所有己成文的记载，并且从研究中提取出一点规则，再安排它们到专家系统中，组织顾问（OrgCon）。这是在一张CD上面，它民囊括了他们的权理理论所有的百科全书似的解决方案（Burton & Obel, Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: Developing Theory for Application, 1998）OrgCon可以视为输入和现有的组织，并且产生一个“不适应”的诊断从而经受调查以进行可能的补救，或者它可以视为输入一个提议的组织来产生同样类型的报告，因此潜在的安排能够在实践中执行之前以书面形式进行调整。

I use OrgCon to diagnose the structure of my clients because I want to know the extent to which organiza¬tional problems contribute to problems implementing SPI. And then I use OrgCon to propose an arrangement that will accelerate SPI. And I do all of this using a practitioner-independent, repeatable process – without resort to art.
我利用OrgCon来诊断我的客户的结构，因为我想知道哪些组织的问题对实施SPI的问题有所帮助的范围 。其后，我利用OrgCon来计划一个约定来加速SPI。并且我做的所有这些使用了一个可独立执行、可复用的过程——而不诉诸于艺术。

I use the example of this Burton and Obel book for another purpose: organizational stuff is accessible to us engineers. I am proud to be acknowledged by the authors in the second edition because I went through the first one and noted what I thought were discrepancies in how I understood contingency theory. I think this is evidence that there is room for us engineering-types to substantively contribute to the understanding of organizations.

我用Burton 和 Obel 书中的一个例子是另有目的：组织的一些东西容易影响我们的工程师们。我很自豪于在第二版里被这此作者肯定，因为我经历了第一次并且注意到我所想的在我如何理解权变理论里存在着一些矛盾。我想这就是一个证据，说明对于我们工程类的存在一个空间来帮助我们对组织的了解。

一啸长天

B. Vité

Vité is a Stanford University start-up that has developed a method of answering the questions, “What is the best way to arrange my people on this project?” and “What is the best way to arrange the work of this pro¬ject?” The answer is that they inter-depend; for a particular project, the optimal arrangement of people depends upon the arrangement of the tasks, and vice versa. This is new news.

Vite 是斯坦福大学启动的一个项目，它己开发出一种回答以下这些问题的方法。“在项目中安排我的人最好的方式是什么？”和“什么是对于安排项目工作的最佳方式？”答案就是他们是相互依存的；对于一个特殊的项目，最优的人力安排取决于任务的安排，反之亦然。这是一个新信息。

The start-up, based on twenty years of research in the Civil Engineering Department, offers a product, Sim¬Project,  that takes as input the organization chart of a project, a Gantt chart of the tasks and their dependen¬cies, and the connection between the organization chart and the task network, that is, who is going to perform which work in the project plan. SimProject then simulates work coursing through the network, consuming worker’s time, generating exceptions (errors) and rework, meeting, and answering the phone and e-mail. The output of SimProject is a set of displays that show how far this arrangement of people and work is going to be from the duration predicted by the Critical Path Method that is present in every project management soft¬ware package, how much each person gets backlogged and bottlenecked and when, and the extent to which the work is productive, rework, coordination, or waiting. Using the displays one is led to rearrange the work and organization to seek an optimum (e.g., shortest duration, highest quality).

这个启动项目基于土木工程署近20年的研究，提供一个产品，SimProject，用于输入一个项目的组织图表，那些任务的甘特图和它们所依赖的一些事物，在组织图表和任务网之间的关系 就是 在项目计划中谁将执行哪项工作。SimProject然后模拟了网络、消耗员工时间、产生异常（错误）及重做、会议和回复电话及E-mail之间的交叉关系。SimProject的产出是一些显示的集合，它们显示出人力和工作的安排从靠最短路径法（这是目前在每一个项目管理软件包中）所期待的待续时间能够推进到什么程度，每个人会堆积多少工作和推延，哪项工作是多产的、重做、协调、或者等待的程度。使用这些显示，是用于引导再安排工作和组织以寻求最优方案（例：最短周期，最高品质）。

More detail is available in (Rifkin, When the Project Absolutely Must Get Done: Marrying the Organization Chart With the Precedence Diagram, 2000), including the observation by the creators of SimProject that the project management literature gave them no insight at all into how knowledge work (such as civil engineer¬ing design and software engineering) can be modeled and predicted.

更多的细节可以在（Rifkin, When the Project Absolutely Must Get Done: Marrying the Organization Chart With the Precedence Diagram, 2000）一书中找到，包含SimProject的创建者们的一些观察，那就是项目管理文献所给出的东西让他们无法了解知识工作（就像土木工程设计和软件工程）是如何能被建模和预测的。

C.        Implementation Management Associates  C.实施管理协定

At the SEI we sought the best provider of training and consulting on how to plan and manage technological change. I don’t think we expected to find The Best, but rather a short list of providers that we could recom¬mend to the SEI’s constituency. But we did find The Best: Implementation Management Associates (IMA). The SEI went on to license IMA’s material and deliver its own version of the popular entry level course. IMA went on to steadily improve its materials.

在SEI里，我们寻求基于如何计划和管理技术变革方面的培训和咨询的最好供应者。我认为我们不是期待找到最好的，但是我们能够推荐给SEI的支粉丝们一些供应者的简短名单表。但是我们又却实找到的最好的：实施管理协定（IMA）。SEI着手授权IMA的资料，提供他们自己的受欢迎的入门级课程的版本。IMA也在继续稳步改进它的相关文档。

IMA materials are tailor-made to us engineers and computer professionals in a number of ways. First, no intuition about people or groups is required. The whole point of the IMA approach is to make its adherents consciously competent, in distinction to our gifted, people-oriented colleagues who are unconsciously com¬petent. The IMA method is based on Plan-Do-Check-Act, the cornerstone of our SPI quality approach. And the IMA method is data-based: every one of its ten steps is based on collecting data about the environment into which we are trying to introduce change. In sum, the method is algorithmic without being a cookbook. It requires training, practice, and judgment, just like everything else in software process improvement.

IMA的那些资料都是在多方面为我们的工程师和计算机专业人员们量身定制的。首先，不需要什么关于人们和团队的直觉。IMA方法的整体宗旨是倡导它的拥护者们有意识胜任的，以区别于我们的有天赋的、以人为本的同事们（他们是那种无意识胜任的）。IMA方法是基于Plan-Do-Check-Act（我们的SPI质量方法的基石）的。IMA方法是基于数据的：它十步里的每一步是基于收集相关环境的数据到我们正在尝试介绍的变革。总之，这个方法是一种没有食谱的算法。它需要培训、实践、评审，就像软件过程改进中其它的事情一样。

One of IMA’s principals, Byron Fiman, has made a specialty of addressing CMM-based SPI. He has helped introduce change in many organizations and has tuned the IMA materials, case studies, and examples to SPI. See http://www.imaworldwide.com

IMA的负责人之一，Byron Fiman，针对讨论基于CMM的SPI己经做了专门研究。他帮助了引进变革到相当多的组织并且己经调整了IMAge的各种资料，案例研究及与SPI相关的例子。见：http://www.imaworldwide.com

D.        System dynamics   D.系统动态

Jay Forrester at MIT has come to understand human systems as systems of non-linear differential equations. If you have ever worked with such systems of equations you know how difficult it is to solve them, to make inferences from them because the interactions among the variables, even for something as small as three equations, is very difficult to understand and characterize. Forrester invented a way to visualize the effect of the system of equations by introducing a graphic language of icons that indicate “stores” (the static part of the system, the structure) and “flows” (the dynamic, time-varying part). Then his graphic depiction is simu¬lated by numerical integration.

麻省理工学院的Jay Forrester 己开始将人体系统理解为非线性微分方程系统。如果你曾使用过这样一套方和系统，你就会知道去解决那些问题有多难，以它们来做出推理，因为在那些变量之间的互交（甚至只为解决像仅有三个方程那样小的问题）是非常难以理解和表现的。Forrester 发明了一种方法来可视化方程系统的效果（通过引进一种符号的图形语言，它来指明那些“状态”【系统的表态部分，结构体】和“流”【动态，随时间而变化的部分】）。那么他拉图形描绘用数值积分来进行模拟。

If one can create the equations, then his approach, called system dynamics, is a powerful method of making inferences about how structure and results interact. System dynamics has become a compelling method of understanding the effects of (public) policy in such diverse areas as zero population growth and heroin nee¬dle exchange programs. General references are too numerous, as there is a whole department at MIT and other universities focusing on system dynamics. The best current book on the general subject is (Sterman, Busi¬ness Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, 2000). See also http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/
如果有人能建立起这样一套方程（那么他的方法可以之称为系统动态），是一种强大的关于结构和结果互样的可以进行推理的方法。系统动态己成为一种能理解（公共）策略影响的引人注目的方法在如此之不同的领域间像零人口增长和海洛因刺激交换程序。一般性的参考太多了，就像在MIT里有一整个部分 及 其它一些大学也专注于系统动态。时下最好的基于一般主题的书有（Sterman, Busi¬ness
Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, 2000）。也可见：http://www.albany.edu/cpr/sds/
One of the more fruitful streamlining of the system dynamics approach to the solution of systems of non-lin¬ear differential equations has been made in by one of Forrester’s students in (Senge, The Fifth Discipline: the Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, 1990), a popular approach to explaining the deep structure of organizations and organizational behavior. Without meaning to be pejorative, Senge uses a redaction or dumbing-down of Forrester’s stocks and flows – called causal loop diagrams (CLDs) – to make inferences about conditions in human systems that are present due to the structure of the actors and actions, not by chance or choice. Causal loop diagrams cannot be “solved” directly, so they are a precursor to systems of differential equations.  The purpose of CLDs is understanding, inference. There is an interesting field of study called qualitative modeling that tries to model without using numbers and CLDs fall into that category. Also, (Moberg, Diagnosing System States: Beyond Senge's Archetypes, 2001) describes some lessons learned, some generalizations, based on field use of Senge’s descriptions of how systems work.

其中一个最卓有成效的精简版的系统动态接近于非线性微分方程的解决方案己由Forrester的一个学生给出（Senge, The Fifth Discipline: the Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, 1990），一种流行的方法来解释那些组织和组织行为的深层结构。没有贬低任何人的意思，Senge使用了Forrester的存贮和流动（称为因果环路图，CLDs）的修订本——来做出关于在人类系统（这在当前取决于行为者和行为的结构）中的条件的推理，而非靠机会或选择。因果否路图不能直接被“解决”，因此它们是微分方程系统的先导。CLDs的上的是理解和推理。有一个有趣的研究领域称为定性模型，它尝试不使用数学和CLDs来建模属于这一类。并且，（Moberg, Diagnosing System States: Beyond Senge's Archetypes, 2001）描述了一些学习的课程，一些概括，基于使用Senge的如何使系统工作的描述的领域。

(Abdel-Hamid & Madnick, Software Project Dynamics: an Integrated Approach, 1991), in what is essen¬tially Abdel-Hamid’s MIT doctoral dissertation, applied traditional system dynamics to software develop¬ment and management. He examined the truth in Brooks’ Law (adding people to a late project make it later), whether independent validation and verification are worth it, and why actuals always seem to exceed esti¬mates. Jim Hart is writing a book applying systems dynamics to software process improvement.

（Abdel-Hamid & Madnick, Software Project Dynamics: an Integrated Approach, 1991），在Abdel-Hamid的MIT博士论文里说什么是本质的，应用于传统系统动态到软件开发和管理。他以Brooks法则（在工程期添加人手会导致它延期交付）检验真实性，是否非独立的审定和核查都受益于它，并且为什么实际的东西永远都好像会超出估计。Jim Hart 正在写一本书将系统动态应用于软件过程改进。

一啸长天

E.        Chaos theory, complex adaptive systems En.混沌理论，复杂适应系统

There is a relatively new field, chaos theory and its synonym complex adaptive systems, like its predecessor catastrophe theory, that models systems as systems of non-linear differential equations (beginning to sound familiar?!). Most of the breakthroughs in chaos theory have centered around attractors and phase space. An attractor is simply a solution to the system of equations characterizing the mechanics in question. It appears that nature tends towards a solution, so as the value of variables change, the system of equations is drawn towards solutions, that the trajectory of the variables appears to be attracted, as if my some sort of magnet¬ism, in a certain direction (towards a solution) or away from a certain direction (away from a solution).

有一个相对较新的领域，混沌理论和它的同义词复杂适应系统，像它的前驱突变理论，这些模型系统类似于非线性微分方程系统（开始听起来耳熟了吧？！）。混沌理论里面大多数的突破己围绕着吸子和相空间。一个吸子仅仅是一个在问题中系统方程描述力学的解决方案。看来这种性质趋于一种解决方法，只要变量的值发现改变，系统方程就会趋于某些解决方法，那些变量的轨迹像是被吸引着， 犹如我的某种吸引力，朝着一个特定的方向（向着一个解决方法）或远离一个特定方向（远离解决方法）

This is often illustrated by drawing the functions in a phase space. A phase space, in the sense used here, is the variable vs. its derivative. Some trajectories that look random in the space of the variable look very regular and orderly in phase space. This has given rise to expressions such as “order out of chaos,” which is a way of looking at irregular phenomena and seeing a pattern – that was always there if only we knew how to see it.

通常是通过在拓补空间里绘出这个功能来说明问题。一个拓补空间，在这里使用的意义，是变量VS它的导数。有些轨迹（它在变量的拓补空间里看起来毫无规律可言）在拓补空间看起来正规有序。

The idea of seeing order out of chaos has attracted writers of management literature, and even a few software methods and tools vendors. Many of them lack any mathematical background at all, so they miss the impor¬tant point that for organizations chaos theory is a metaphor, not a computational reality. Perhaps you have seen the completely awful book, (Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization From an Orderly Universe, 1992). The author confounds so much it is difficult to know where to start to straighten out the content. One of the most frustrating aspects is that she did not pay attention to scale. She uses quantum physics to try to explain organizational behavior, yet the rest of us know that at any other scale most of the findings at the quantum scale do not apply. And she does the same thing at the cosmological scale. And she, and many other authors, invite us to apply the findings of chaos theory to organizations. They miss the fundamentals, among them that the systems of non-linear equations that characterize chaos are drawn from physics, usually the conservation of energy. The equations equate one form of energy to another or to mass. What is the analog of conservation of energy in human/social systems? What is conserved? Surely it’s not energy, as there is no limit on the amount of human intellectual energy, especially if we think of it manifested as ideas. What, then, is the source of the equations that exhibit non-random trajectories? What variables in social systems would we graph vs. their derivatives to find out? What is time (that is, dt) in social systems?

看到混沌无序的思想己吸引了众多的管理文献的作者们，并且甚至有少量的软件方法和工具供应商。他们中的许多缺乏任何一种数学背景，因此他们错过了最重要的点，它对于组织混沌理论来说是一中象征，而非计算现实。也许你己经看过完整地可怕的书（Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization From an Orderly Universe, 1992 ），此书作者写得如此混乱以至于我们不知道从哪里开始来理清内容。让人最受不了的一个方面就是她没有观注范围。她使用量子物理学来尝试解释组织行为，然而我们其他人都知道在任意其它的范围里，在量子学范围里发现的东西并不适用。并且她在宙宇范围内也做了同样的事情。她，还有其他许许多多的作者，邀请我们应用己知的混沌理论到组织中。他们弄错了基础，在他们之间，非线性方程系统代表混沌，都是以物理学角度来看的，通常是能量守恒定律。这种平衡是从一种能量转化为另一种能量或质量。在人类/社会系统中什么是能量守恒的模拟？什么是守恒的？当然这不是能量，因为没有限制在人类智慧能量的大小上，尤其是如果我们认为它是做为一种思想表现。那么，什么是方程（陈现非随机性的轨迹）的来源？在社会系统中什么变量应该使我们用图表来表示 VS 它们的衍生物来找出什么？在社会系统中什么是时间？

One good introduction to chaos theory is (Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science, 1987); (Nicolis & Prigog¬ine, Exploring Complexity: an Introduction, 1989) and (Prigogine & Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialog With Nature, 1984) started the whole thing, mostly in chemistry; (Goldstein, The Unshackled Organization: Facing the Challenge of Unpredictability Through Spontaneous Reorganization, 1994) and (Guastello, Chaos, Catastrophe, and Human Affairs: Applications of Nonlinear Dynamics to Work, Organi¬zations, and Social Evolution, 1995) thoughtfully apply chaos theory to human systems, noting carefully the usefulness (or not) of the metaphor; if you like binary then you will love (Kauffman, The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution, 1993) and (Kauffman, At Home in the Universe: the Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, 1995); and (Cohen & Stewart, The Collapse of Chaos: Discover¬ing Simplicity in a Complex World, 1994) offer a thought-provoking counter to chaos theory, arguing that some forces in nature are not entropic (that is, gain entropy, go towards disorder = chaos), but rather oscillate between chaos and order. And (Olson, Exploiting Chaos: Cashing in on the Realities of Software Develop¬ment, 1993) missed the bit about chaos being a metaphor.

不错的介绍混沌理论的书有（）和（）开始了所有事情，大体上是化学方面；（）和（）将混沌理论应用到人类系统中时考虑得很周到，没有任何假如无用的东西；如果你喜欢双子星，那么你就可能喜欢（）和（）还有（），它为混沌理论提供了一个不可思议的计算工具，主张自然中的某些力量是没有熵的（那就是，增益熵，趋向于无序=混沌），而是在混沌和有序之间游离。还有（）迷失了一点，关于混沌（它是一种隐喻）。
"... despite the promise indicated by various authors within the field, complexity science has thus far failed to deliver tangible tools that might be utilized in the examination of complex systems." (Moberg, Diagnosing System States: Beyond Senge's Archetypes, 2001)

“…尽管这个领域的很多者作都给出了种种承诺，然而复杂的科学至今还没有提供有形工具，这可能被用于复杂系统的研究。”( )

一啸长天

F.        Quantum organizations    f.量子组织

How many different organization structures are there? How many different sizes are there? We might be tempted to say “infinite,” but research indicates that there are only a few. That reminded (Miller, Friesen, & Mintzberg, Organizations: a Quantum View, 1984) of quantum states.  Quantum states are found (only) at the sub-atomic level: electrons travel in well-defined orbits and jump from one orbit to the adjacent one, never really existing in the space between the orbits. The essence of quantum states is that some possible states are unreachable, not allowed, not found in nature.

存在着多少不同的组织结构？存在多少不同的尺寸？我们也许会说“无限”，但是研究指出很有限。这得提及（）的量子状态。量子状态在轨道间的相空间的亚原子级别被发现。量子状态的本质是某些状态是无法达到的、不允许出现的、在自然中没发现的。

Miller found that organizations only exist in certain configurations and there are not many of them. Mintz¬berg, in the same volume, reiterated what institutional theorists have known for a long time: there are only a few types of organizational structures, and very few once a certain scale is reached.

Miller发现那些组织只能以某些特定的结构存在并且这些结构也不是很多。同样，Mintzberg，反复重着体制理论家们己经老早就知道的东西：只存在着一很少的一些组织结构的类型，并且很少能一次性触及到。

The importance to implementers of SPI is that certain forms are degenerate, and we would want to know them and whether our client organization is in one of them, and what the progression from state-to-state looks like for our organization so that we can guide and anticipate such transitions.

对SPI 实施者很重要的是某些形式是退化的，我们想要了解它们及我们的客户组织是否是它们其中之一，什么样的进展从一种状态到另一种状态看起来像是为我们的组织，因此我们能指导并预测这样的转变。

Danny Miller is one of only two extant management theorists (the other is Karl Weick). He has won the Strategic Management Society Award for the most significant article published in the Strategic Management Journal from 1980-1990, and named as author of two of the ten most cited Academy of Management Journal papers in that publication’s 40 year history. I try to read everything Miller writes. And all of his critics, such as (Donaldson, For Positivist Organization Theory: Proving the Hard Core, 1996), Ch. 6, “For Cartesian¬ism: Against organization types and quantum jumps.”

Danny Miller 现在仅有的管理理论家之一（另一位是Karl Weick）。他曾1980-1990年因在战略管理杂志上发表过很多具有重要意义的文章而获得战略管理社会奖，并且其以作者命名的10篇中的两篇被管理学会杂志引载且长达40年之久。我试着去读Miller写的每一样东西。还有他所有的评论，像（）第6章，“为笛卡尔主义：反对组织类型和量子跳跃”。

一啸长天

G.        Interpretation systems, not billiard balls         G.翻译系统，无台球

My background in mathematics and engineering often tempts me to want to characterize organizations the way I do physical objects. I want to write equations and solve them! I have found much in organizations that resembles the physical world, so I try to explain organizational behavior in physics terms. That is a mistake. The mistake is clearly explained in (Daft & Weick, Toward a Model of Organizations As Interpretation Sys¬tems, 1984), which relies on (Boulding, General Systems Theory: the Skeleton of a Science, April 1956). Basi¬cally, rather than passive physical objects, like billiard balls, we humans and our collectives interpret the forces that impinge on us and decide to react or not, and that reaction is not necessarily proportionate in any sensible way to the stimulus. In fact, every response we make as a collective is a very complex action that is, in its simplest form, the sum of all stimuli and responses hitherto; we have memory, after all, and billiard balls don’t.
That we interpret our stimuli is a powerful antidote for me that prevents me from (over-) using physics analogies. Unfortunately, it does not stop others, so beware.

我在数学和工程两方面的背景总是激起我来赋予组织以特色，这就是我处理的物理实体。我想写出一些方程并解决它们！我发现在组织里有很多东西都与物理世界相类似，因此我试着以物理述语来解释组织行为。这是一个错误。这个错误在（）一书被清楚的解释了，此书依赖于另一本（）。基本上，比起被动的物理实体，像台球，我们人类及我们的集体诠释了影响我们和决定是否重做出反应的力量，并且这种反应不一定适合以任何明智的方法来激励。事实上，我们做为一个集体所做出的任何反应是一种非常复杂的行为这就是（在它最简化的形式里）至今为止激励与响应的总和；毕竟我们有钱，台球没有。
这样我们诠释我们的激励对我们来说是一种强效药，它阻止我们使用类似物理学的东西。不幸的是，它没能阻止其它人，所以小心点。

一啸长天

H. Computational & mathematical organization theory

There is an emerging field of great interest to our engineering side: computational and mathematical organi¬zation theory (CMOT). It actually started in the mid-1960s in, of all places, Carnegie Mellon University, with (Cyert & March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 1963). The field is composed of people who span the boundaries of organization study (sociology or management science), mathematics, and engineering. There is a journal from Kluwer Academic (see http://www.wkap.nl/prod/j/1381-298X), an on-line journal, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simu¬lation (http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS.html), and several foundation books: (Carley & Prietula, Computational Organization Theory, 1994), (Burton & Obel, Design Models for Hierarchical Organizations: Computation, Information, and Decentralization, 1995), (Conte, Hegselmann, & Terno, Simulating Social Phenomena, 1997), (Prietula, Carley, & Gasser, Simulating Organiza¬tions: Computational Models Institutions and Groups, 1998), and (Ilgen & Hulin, Computational Modeling of Behavior in Organizations: the Third Scientific Discipline, 2000).

H. 计算与数学组织理论

对我们工程方面有一个非常有趣的新兴领域：计算与数学组织理论（CMOT）它确切地说是起源于1960年中叶，在所有的地方，卡内基梅隆大学，（）。这个领域集结了跨越了组织研究（社会学或管理学）、数学和工程学的边界的人们。有一个来自Kluwer Academic 的杂志（见http://www.wkap.nl/prod/j/1381-298X） ，是一个在线杂志，人工社会和社会模拟的杂志（）和一些基础书：（），（），（），（）还有（）。

I. Reading list

Here is a list of articles and books that, were I starting over again to learn about social sys¬tems, I would read in this order:
1. (Daft & Weick, Toward a Model of Organizations As Interpretation Systems, 1984) – Why human sys¬tems are not like billiard balls. Best to get this out of the way early.
2. (Katz & Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, 1978) – Responsible for converting many hard scientists into social scientists. Leading early authority on the systems view of collectives.
3. (Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry; Methodology for Behavioral Science, 1964) – Written by an ex-physi¬cist who became a social scientist. Very searching and scholarly work that has influenced me greatly.
4. (Smith & Berg, Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics, 1987) – The best book on teams. It includes what you need to know about Bion, too. All the other books on groups look sophomoric by comparison.
5. (Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, 1979) – This is a small book. Beware of small books because they contain dense material. In this one, many of the sentences are or will become PhD dis¬sertations. For this reason Weick is called generative. I try to read everything Weick writes.
6. (Bluth, Parsons' General Theory of Action: a Summary of the Basic Theory, 1982) – A quick, accu¬rate introduction to Parsons.
7. (Berger & Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, 1966) – You will have to read this sooner or later. It’s about what you can know for sure regarding social systems. Kaplan prepares you for this.

I．读书列表
       这里有一些文章和书著，我开始温习关于社会系统，我会以下面的顺序来阅读：
       1.（）——为什么人类系统都不像台球。最好一开始就拿到此书。
       2.（）——用于将硬科学家转换为社会科学家。
       3.（）——由一个实验物理学家所编写，他业以成为了一名社会科学家。很强的探索和学术性的工作对我影响很大。
       4.（）——在团队里只有用的一本书。也包括你需要知道关于Bion的一些东西。所有其它的用于团队的书相比较都太幼稚而自大的
       5.（）—— 这是一本小册子。注意小册子一般都是浓缩的精华。在这一本里，很多言语正是或即将成为哲学博士论文。
                基于这个原因，Weick被称之为生力军。我     试着阅读他写的每一样东西。
       6.（）——  一个迅速、精准的介绍
       7.（）——  或早或晚你必须读一读此书。这是关于你应该知道对于社会系统应该了解的一些东西。Kaplan为你准备了这些。

一啸长天

If all of this sounds vaguely familiar, it is! (Boehm & Ross, Theory-W Software Project Management: Princi¬ples and Examples, July 1989) have translated Getting to Yes into application in software develop¬ment, and Barry Boehm has continued that elaboration through his work with Win-Win Negotiations (see http://sunset.usc.edu/research/WINWIN/)
因为这些大部分都是短小的书，所以注意咯，因为它们都是浓缩的精华噢！想要了解相关课程及更多信息，见 http://www.pon.harvard.edu/
如果所有这些听起都比较熟悉，那就成啦！（）己将Getting to Yes 转化为软件开发的应用了。Barry Boehm 也接着在他的著作 双赢协商（Win-Win Negotiations）见：
http://sunset.usc.edu/research/WINWIN/

B. How to break bad news    B.如何打破坏消息

Related to winning and losing (though, again, we are seeking all winners!) is how to tell someone that they have lost in some regard. As an engineer I have no intuition on how to do this, so I seek step-by-step meth¬ods. The best one I have found is in (Buckman, How to Break Bad News: a Guide for Health Care Profession¬als, 1992), the author of which is an oncologist who must surely have the most difficult job of all. He has tuned and developed an algorithm that is a compassionate alternative to intuition.

关系到赢与输（不过，再次，我们正在寻求所有的赢家！）是告诉某些人他们在某些方面己经输了。做为一名工程师我没有如何去做这方面事的直觉，因此我寻求按部就班的方法。我找到的最好的一个就是(),其作者是一名肿瘤学家（这肯定是所有学科里最难的工作）。他己经调整和开发出一种算法，这算得上是对于取代直觉比较有同情心的做法咯!

XI.        What we know & what we don’t  XI我们所知道的 和 我们未知的

The intent of this section is to outline something like (Asbell, What They Know About You, 1991), an encyclo¬pedic treatment of what is known about the human psyche, except about the kinds of groups we deal with as we implement SPI. It would be difficult to claim such a comprehensive treatment as Asbell’s, so con¬sider it a beginning. And it needs to contain, but does not yet, all we know about implementation. I have only listed a very few of the major findings that are infrequently referenced in SEPG conference materials.

这一部分的意图是概括某些类似（）的东东，一种己知的关于人类的百科全书似的治疗，除了我们实施SPI的团队。很难要求一个像Asbell一样的全面性的治疗，因此把它假想为一个开始。并且它需要包含一些还未有的东西，所有关于实施的我们知道的。我己经列举了需要寻找的东西里的极少的一部分，这些都在SEPG会议材料上被经常引述。

A. What is known     A 什么是知道的

1. Mutual adaptation – Implementing any technology is a process of mutual adaptation: the technology is tailored to the organization and the organization is tailored to the technology. The specific steps are messy. (Leonard-Barton, Implementation As Mutual Adaptation of Technology and Organization, Octo¬ber 1988) (This is from the SEPG Guide)
2. Waves of change – this is an original contribution by (Caputo, CMM Implementation Guide: Choreo¬graphing Software Process Improvement, 1998), Chapter 4, “Improvement cycles: dancing with the rhythms.” Kim Caputo synthesizes some disparate findings about pattern of adoption (à la Crossing the Chasm) and institutionalization (used in the adoption sense, not in the sociological sense), and then added her own SPI implementation experience to create a novel explanation of what we experi¬ence as the up’s and down’s of implementation.

3. Is my organization like yours? – And therefore, can I profitably borrow what you did? This is a solved problem, as contingency theory answers the question of what factors make two organizations alike and to what degree those factors have to agree in value. There is a sense in which this question is not asked enough; if one’s organization is unlike another, the borrowing of practices must be very selective. Little about implementation is generalizable.
   1. 相互适应——实施任何一种技术都是一种相互适应的过程：要让技术来适应于组织，同样，组织也应该适应于技术。详细的步骤是都是比较凌乱的。（）（这个来自于SEPG指南）
   2. 变革的起伏——这是（）的一个原始的贡献，在其第4章，“改善周期：跟着旋律飞舞吧”Kim Caputo 综合了一些关于采纳模式的各种各样的调查结果（零点跨越鸿沟）及制度化（以采纳角度来用，而非社会学的），然后添加她自己的SPIrit实施经验来建立一种全新的关于我们在实施过程中的兴衰跌起诠释。
   3.  我的组织与你的相像吗？——因此，我能受益地借鉴你所做的吗？这是一个己有解的问题，因为权变理论回答了哪些因素使得两个组织看起来相像及这些元素能达成一致的程度有多深。有一种说明是这个问题问得不够具体；如果一个组织不像另外一个，借鉴实践应当相当谨慎。一点关于实施的概括。

B. What is not known

1. Re-framing – There is no step-by-step method that I know. It still relies on practice and intuition.
2. Implementation success and contingency factors – We need empirical results on the relationship between implementation success and contin¬gent factors – that is, what spells success: “It depends!” Depends on what? We still have almost nothing quantitative on how long implementation takes and how many/much resources it consumes. The only study I know is (Lopata, The Cooperative Implemen¬tation of Information Technology: a Process of Mutual Adaptation, June 1993), which is diffi¬cult to obtain.

B．什么是未知的

1. 重构——不存在我所知道的按部就班的方法。我仍然依赖于实践和直觉。
2. 实施成功及突发性因素——我们需要经验的证实，它基于实施成功及突发性因素之间的关系——那就是说，什么左右着成功：“具体情况！”取决于什么？我们仍然几乎不能度量实施周期会有多长及它会消耗多少资源。我所知道的唯一的研究是（），它所论述的东西很难把握。

XII. In conclusion

We need to keep our eyes open, question authority (even or especially mine), keep asking “Why?”  When I listen to speakers at SEPG conferences I ask myself “Why is that so? Why do we have to sell SPI so hard? What’s wrong with SPI that it takes so much effort to sell?”
A lot is already known about implementation, so we need to read and classify our knowledge. We all need to relearn the lessons of the applicable aspects of sociology so that we don’t have to learn it by failure in the field.
And last, remember that even “old stuff” may be helpful: there are very few new problems under the sun!

XII．总结

   我们需要时刻保持警觉，向权威提出质疑（甚至或者尤其是我的），始终应追问“为什么呢？”当我们在SEPG会议上听演讲时，我关我自己“为什么是这样的？为什么我们销售SPI如此之艰难？是哪里出问题了，SPI需要如此之多的努力来销售？

很多关于实施的问题为人们所熟知，因此我们需要阅读并对我们的知识加以分类。我们都需要重温社会学应用方面的课程，以至于我们在这一领域不再以失败为训。
最后，记住一点，“很普通的东西”也许是有所帮助的：在阳光之下很少会出现新的问题！

一啸长天

X. Understanding negotiations  X。了解商谈

“In every change – indeed, in every system – there are winners and losers.” – Tom DeMarco

“在每次变革里——诚然，在每一个系统里——都存有胜者与败者。”——Tom Demarco

As I hope you can tell by now, I am a fan of methods that are step-by-step and do not rely on intuition. In other words, practitioner-independent repeatable processes. Such methods exist for many human-centered endeavors and more are being added every day.

我希望你现在能知道，我是一个各种脚踏实地而非靠什么直觉的方法的粉丝。换句话说，一个可独立执行、可复用的过程。这类方法是因为了很多以人为本的努力而存在的，并且每天还很增加很多。

There are many skills we engineers need to develop in order to help our clients implement the improvements they strive for. I think one of the highest priority ones is reframing, taking a problem statement in one point of view and expressing it in another, that of the listener. In other words, the skill is to listen with one set of fil¬ters, mentally translate into another, and then re-state the same problem with a different set of filters. While it cannot be taught, it can be learned.

还有很多技巧有待我们的工程师们来开发以帮助我们的客户实现他们所为之努力的改进。我认为最高优先事项之一应该是重构，在一种视图里带着一种观点并且将其转化为另外一种，即监听器。换句话说，这种技能是还有过滤器装置的监听，精神上从一种转化为另一种，然后同样的问题带着不同的过滤器来重置那些状态。

Our challenge is to frame the situation so that there are only winners. This is problem-solv¬ing in its highest form, and since most of us were attracted to engineering and computing because we are born problem-solvers, this should fit with our personalities. And it’s a solved problem!

我们的挑战是构建某种情形使之只存在赢家。这是它的最高形式问题解决方法，自从我们中大部分被工程和计算所吸引。因为我们的存在就是为了解决问题，这应该符合我们的个性。并且它是一个己解决的问题！

A. Harvard Program on Negotiation & Theory-W  A.基于商谈和W理论的哈佛项目

The Harvard Project on Negotiation, a multi-university consortium, mostly of law schools, has developed a step-by-step method of listening for what each side to a dispute wants, trying to establish a measure of fair value to any prospective solution, and then problem solving to try to create a solution that makes all parties winners. The method is called “principled negotiation.” These step-by-step methods are colorfully detailed in:

基于协商的哈佛项目，一个多所大学协会，基本上是些法律学院，己开发了一种针对每一方争论想的东西进行按步就班的方法监听，尝试着针对任何一种有可能成功的解决方案建立一种公平价值测量手段，然后问题解决来试着建立一种能让各方都受益的解决方案。这个方法称为“原则性协商”。这些按步就班的方法极其详细的在以下书中被述说：

(Fisher, Ury, & Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in, 1991)
(Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way From Confrontation to Cooperation, 1993)
(Fisher & Brown, Getting Together: Building Relationships As We Negotiate, 1988)
(Stone, Patton, & Heen, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most, 1999)

For the most part these are short books, so beware because they are dense. For courses and more information, see http://www.pon.harvard.edu/
XIII.        Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Dave Card for his many insights, he is very far ahead of his time, and to John Tittle for the engagements to support the learning and application. I thank John Maher for introducing me to the subject of planning and managing technological change, and Byron Fiman for his colleagueship and his many insights, tips, and examples. I am grateful to Dave Schwandt (George Washington University) for being such a patient and able teacher; he is a recovering physicist. I am grateful to Barry Boehm for holding the bar high and showing by example that it is possible to stand in two professions at once. I thank Watts Humphrey for starting the whole thing and being an inspiration with his energy. I thank Rich Burton (Duke) and Ray Levitt (Stanford) for being patient when my exuberance exceeded my knowledge, and for their surgical clarity.

I thank the following reviewers: Craig Beyers, Dave Card, Kim Caputo, Suzanne Garcia, Dick Kauffold, Winifred Menezes, Mark Paulk, Jacqueline Rowe, and John Title.

And I thank Jan, my wife, for giving me the time to write and for proofreading so many drafts.
XIII 感谢
  我很感谢Dave Card的很多建设性的意见，他负付了很多时间；也很感谢John Tittle 承诺提供的学习和应用……

一啸长天

XIV.        References  （略）

一啸长天

自此，若有内容都已翻译并上传。谢谢收看，嘿嘿！