效率来自流程，效率来自团队。召开一个50人的会议，如果因3-5人迟到而等待半小时，50个人算起来就要浪费多少时间？
如今的职场流传着这么一句话：“把女人当男人用，把男人当牲口用。”上班族每天都感到太忙、太累。公司员工总是加班加点，老总也不轻松，每天总是日理万机，管理人员事务缠身……中国人为什么这么忙呢？
我们的工作时间长效率却不高。
有统计数字表明，中国是世界上人均工作时间最长的国家之一，一年约为2200小时。阿根廷是1903小时，巴西是1841小时，日本是1758小时，美国是1610小时，英国是1489小时，而荷兰人均工作时间最少，一年才1389小时。
中国人为什么这么忙呢？TCL收购法国汤姆逊后，发现法国人根本不加班，下班后手机关机都找不到人，上班时间则准时上班。TCL的中国管理人员很不理解，因为他们已经习惯了24小时开机，习惯了半夜被人从梦中叫醒。难道只有我们中华民族才具有勤劳的优良传统？
我们来看看不同国家的人在单位时间内创造的财富，2006年挪威名列第一，劳动力每小时平均创造财富37.9美元；美国名列第二，为35.63美元；法国人 均每小时为35.08美元，中国人均每小时为5.75美元。中国的劳动生产率提高速度很快，几乎是1980年的8倍，但人均创造的价值不到挪威的1/6。
效率低最重要的原因就是不按流程做事。流程是规范做事的程序，流程中每一个环节都有规范，按规范做事才可能提高效率。
效率问题对个人而言可能是一个小问题，但对集体来说就是个大问题。
希 望集团董事长刘永行有一次访问韩国，参观了一家面粉企业。这家面粉企业每天处理小麦1500吨，却只有66名雇员，这令刘永行惊叹不已。在中国，相同规模 的企业，日生产能力一般只有几百吨，员工却多达上百人。希望集团的效率高于国内同行业标准，日生产能力250吨的工厂，也有七八十名员工，日生产能力仅有 韩国工厂的1/6。韩国工厂的人均效率大概是中国同行业工厂人均效率的10倍。
有的中国工厂，设备比韩国工厂还要先进，一个韩国人的 效率怎么会是一个中国人的10倍呢？刘永行琢磨了几个晚上，终于找到了答案：人力效率上的差距，绝不是简单的加和关系——一个韩国人的效率是一个中国人的 1.2倍，10个韩国人就相当于12个中国人的效率。按照刘永行的理解，效率是乘积关系——一个韩国人的效率是一个中国人的1.2倍，10个人的效率大约 是6.20倍，20个人大约是38倍！
虽然中韩企业的人均效率差距事实上没这么大，但这个解释还是有一定合理性的。流水线上，一个环节效率低下，就会耽误下一个环节，一环扣一环，最后的效率自然低下。效率低下，只好通过增加工作时间来弥补……。
效率“利滚利”源于科学管理的“利滚利”。复利就是常说的利滚利。爱因斯坦说：复利的威力比原子弹还大。例如，一个人掌握了一项技能，只要教会两个人，这两个人再各自教会两个人，不出20层，就可以教会全世界所有人。
有趣的是，汉字“众”的形状正好阐述了复利的意思，它既说明一种方法由一个人传授给两个人的复制过程，也说明企业的壮大就是通过人复制有效的方法从而产生规模化的效益。
我 们曾提出这样的问题，你是像诸葛亮那样思考，还是像美国管理学家泰勒那样思考？这两个人思考问题的关键差异就在于，他们提出的方法是否具有可复制性。诸葛 亮是伟大的谋略家，但是诸如空城计、草船借箭这些妙计是不容易在企业中复制的。而泰勒总结出来的管理学规律可以在企业中不断复制，从而使企业不断壮大的。
摘自《做事的科学——细节与流程》
译文:
Why Are We So Busy?
Efficiency comes from processes, efficiency comes from teamwork. Convening a 50-attendance meeting that was delayed for half an hour due to 3 to 5 participants coming late, how much time would have been wasted with the 50 persons factored in?
Job market nowadays is circulating this saying: “Use women as men, use men as animals.” Office workers everyday think that they are too busy, too tired. Company personnel often work overtime or extra shift, and it is not easy too for the boss who has numerous matters to attend to, while managers are burdened with work……why are Chinese so busy?
Our working hours are long, but efficiency is low.
As indicated by the statistical figures, China is one of the countries in the world having the longest per capita working hours, about 2200 hours per annum. 1903 hours for Argentina, 1841 hours for Brazil, 1758 hours for Japan, 1610 hours for the US, 1489 hours for the UK, and the Dutch have the shortest per capita working hours, only 1389 per year.
Why are Chinese so busy? After acquiring France Thomson, TCL discovered that French never work overtime, they switch off the mobile after work and there is no way to find them, but they go to work on time. Chinese managers of TCL find it hard to understand why they are used to having the mobile switched on 24 hours a day, and used to being woken up from the dreams. Don’t tell me only Chinese have the fine tradition of working hard?
Let’s have a look at how people from different countries create fortunes at work place. Norway topped the list in 2006, with its workforce creating fortune of US $37.9 per hour; USA came second with US $35,63; next being French with US $35.08; while the per capita figure for Chinese was US $5.75 per hour. Chinese labour productivity increased rapidly, almost 8 times that of 1980, but the per capita value creation was less than 1/6 of Norway’s.
The most important cause of low efficiency is doing work without following the process, which is the procedure for work in accordance with standards. Every link in the procedure has standards, and the efficiency may be increased only by working according to standards.
Efficiency may be a small problem to a person, but is a big problem to a corporate.
The Hope Group’s Chairman of the Board, Mr. Liu Yongxing, once visited a flour company during his tour in South Korea，and was extremely amazed that the company processed 1500 tons of wheat everyday with only 66 workers. In China, a company of the same size would normally have only several hundred tons of production capacity per day, but the employees are more than a hundred. The efficiency of Hope Group is higher than the standards of its counterparts in the industry, and there are some 70 to 80 employees in its factory with daily production capacity of 250 tons, which is equal to only 1/6 of that of a Korean company.
Some of the Chinese companies have facilities more advanced than that of Korean companies. How can a Korean efficiency be 10 times that of a Chinese? Liu Yongxing mulled over the subject for a few nights, and finally got the answer: The disparity in manpower effectiveness is absolutely not a simple sum of addition – a Korean efficiency is 1.2 times that of a Chinese, 10 Korean would be equivalent to 12 Chinese in terms of efficiency. According to Liu Yongxing’s understanding, efficiency is about the product of multiplication – The efficiency of one Korean is 1.2 times that of a Chinese, 10 people will have approximately 6.20 times efficiency, and about 38 times for 20 people.
The per capita efficiency disparity between Chinese and Korean enterprises is actually not that pronounced, but this explanation does have its rationality. In the production line, a link having a drop in efficiency will hold up the next link, one link after another, and the final efficiency will naturally be low. The only way to compensate for low efficiency is by means of extra working hours……
The “compounding effect” of efficiency is derived from the “compound interest” of scientific management. Compound interest is the frequently stated compounding interest. Einstein said: Compound interest is more powerful than an atomic bomb. For example, if a person in possession of a skill were to teach 2 people who in turn teach 2 each, and eventually without reaching 20 levels the whole world would be taught the skill.
Interestingly, the shape of the Chinese word “众” (Translator notes: the word meaning “many” is formed by three little characters “人”meaning “person” piling up within the word ) just happens to elaborate on the meaning of interest, and explains not only the repetition process of imparting knowledge, but also that the growth of a company is achieved via people copying efficient methods thereby generating the scaled benefits.
We have raised such a question: Do you think like Zhu Geliang (Translator notes: a well known strategist in the “Three Kingdom Period” of ancient China), or like the American management scientist, Taylor? The crucial difference in the ways these two reflect on a problem is whether or not their methods can be copied. Zhu Geliang is a strategist, but the wonderful plans of his, such as “Empty Castle Plan” and “Borrowing arrows with Thathed Boat”, cannot be easily copied in the enterprises. On the other hand, the principles of management that Taylor summed up can be continuously copied in enterprises, so as to have their growth continued.
Selected from: “Working Science – Details and Processes”
[Cartoons] Living such a busy life, but what for?
