Chapter 7 7

Decisions are judgments.It is a choice among several different feasible solutions.The choice we are talking about, in general, does not mean the choice between "yes" and "no", at best it is a choice between "probably right" and "maybe wrong".What is often encountered is often just a choice between two different courses of action.Between the two, it's hard to say which is more correct than the other. Most books on decision-making say this: "Get the truth first." But.Effective decision-makers know that the decision-making process often begins not with the truth, but with the idea.Since these ideas have not been tested in practice, they are often just hypotheses, so they are not of any value.In order to judge what is the truth, it is first necessary to determine the relevant standards, especially to determine the appropriate measuring standard.This is arguably the plank of effective decision-making, and it is often the most contentious place.

In the end, effective decision-making does not come from a consensus view of truth, as many textbooks make it out to be.On the contrary, the awareness of correct decision-making is produced in the conflict and contradiction of different opinions, and is a result of careful consideration of the courses of action of opposing parties. Getting to the truth first is hard to do.Because there is no relevant standard, it is impossible to find any truth.The events themselves are not the truth. In physics, knowing how matter tastes is not knowing how things are.Until recently, knowing the color of an object was not the same as knowing the truth.As far as cooking is concerned, taste is an absolutely important truth; when it comes to painting, color is the first important truth.Physics, "cooking and painting both consider related things from their own needs, so they will recognize different things as the truth."

Effective managers also understand that there is nothing wrong with people starting with ideas rather than truth.When people have experienced an event, they will inevitably have some thoughts.If you have experienced life in a certain field for a long time without generating ideas, it means that this person has no keen observation ability and a dull mind. Therefore, people already have ideas first, and then take action.It is not advisable to force them to find out the truth first and then take action.That would make them, like everyone else, seek the so-called truth to fit their own conclusions.Now that the conclusion has been drawn, there will be no difficulty in finding some so-called facts to illustrate it.People who are good at statistics know this truth, so they often have little trust in statistics.

The only rigorous method, the only method that will help us to test our ideas in practice, is "think first, then act", which is the way we should take when considering decisions.Only then can others see that our decisions start from untested assumptions, which are the only starting points for decision-making or scientific research.We know what to do with assumptions, we don't argue about them, we test them.Testing reveals which assumptions hold true and therefore deserve serious consideration, and which assumptions are untenable and must be discarded. Effective managers encourage people to think differently.He also insists, however, that when people come up with ideas, they must think carefully about how they can be validated practically.So the effective manager asks questions like, "What do we need to know in order to test our hypothesis?" Get into the habit of figuring out and figuring out what things need to be observed, studied, and tested.He also insists that those who come up with ideas also have a responsibility to say what truths they can and should expect and seek.

Perhaps the most critical question is: "What are the relevant criteria?" To answer this question, we still have to go back to the test methods related to the problem in question or the decision to be made.As long as we carefully analyze the process of making correct and effective decisions, it is not difficult for people to find that a lot of work and thinking are spent on finding corresponding testing methods. That's why Theodore Vail was right in his decision that service is Bell's number one purpose. Effective decision makers will feel that traditional testing standards are not the right way to test, otherwise, there is usually no need to make decisions, at most only need to make some adjustments.The traditional approach to testing reflects "yesterday" decisions.If it is necessary to make new decisions, it just means that the original testing methods are outdated.

The U.S. military has many problems with its munitions procurement and inventory policies. This is a well-known fact since the Korean War.The military has made numerous investigations and studies on this.But the situation is not only not improving, but getting worse.After Robert McNamara became Secretary of Defense.He challenged the traditional approach to testing munitions stocks.Traditional testing methods are based on the total dollar amount of purchases and inventories and the total number of items.However, McNamara changed this traditional approach. He divided several projects that only accounted for 4% of the total number of projects. Although the number of these projects is not large, their sum accounts for more than 90% of the total amount. .Using the same method, he divided out those items that accounted for only 4% of the total number of items but accounted for 90% of the total combat readiness materials.Since some of the items are repeated in the two lists, the final key items, no matter in terms of the total amount or the total number of items, only account for 5% to 6% of the total number of items.McNamara believes that each of these items must be carefully handled separately; while the remaining 95% of the items, since they occupy a small amount of funds, will not affect the combat capability of the troops , he adopted a method called "management by exception", which is to manage these projects through probability and average methods.This new approach to testing finally helped McNamara make a fruitful decision to change the face of U.S. military procurement and inventory management and logistics.

The best way to find the corresponding testing method is to go out and see for yourself what "feedback" we mentioned earlier. Of course, the "feedback" mentioned here refers to the "feedback" before decision-making. For example, most personnel issues are usually measured by averages.For example, the average number of downtime accidents per 100 employees, absenteeism rate, number of sick days, etc.If you go out and have a look often, the manager will soon find that what he really needs is not this kind of testing method.This method of testing averages is only suitable for the needs of insurance companies, and for making personnel decisions, this method is not only worthless, but also sometimes easy to lead people astray.

Most accidents tend to occur in only one or two departments of the factory, and the absenteeism rate is the same.Even sick leave cannot be averaged because it is limited to a small segment of the workforce.such as young unmarried women.If personnel actions are taken on the basis of this average number, such as the safety mobilization of the whole plant, it will definitely not produce the expected effect, and may even make things worse. In the same way, failing to see it in person is also the main reason why the automobile industry cannot understand the importance of safety design of automobiles in time.Auto companies measure the safety performance of their vehicles using traditional fractions, such as the average number of accidents per vehicle or mile.If they could get out and take a look, they'd see that there was also a need to measure the severity of the injuries suffered from the accident.Only then will they know to take further safety measures to mitigate the extent of injury that an accident might cause.This is to improve the safety design of the car.

therefore.Finding the corresponding test method is not as easy as doing math problems. It is a judgment process full of risks. He must have options to choose from when he needs to make judgments.If you only ask him to say "yes" or "no", it is not a judgment.Only under the premise of sufficient choices can he really understand the actual risks. Therefore, the effective manager will insist that there are various testing methods for him to choose from, so that he can figure out the corresponding one. In the case of a capital investment proposal, there are generally several different ways to test it. One is to focus on the period of investment recovery, the other is concerned with the rate of return on investment, and the second is to emphasize the current profits that investment can bring.Effective managers will not be satisfied with any traditional testing method for the first time.Although the financial department will strongly recommend a certain standard to him as the most "scientific".He knew from his own experience that each different approach to analysis led him to see a different side of the investment decision.Only after he has considered all aspects of investment decision-making will he know which analysis and testing methods are most important for making scientific decisions.Although doing so would piss off accountants, effective managers test their investment decisions in the three different ways described above.After finishing the test, he will say with confidence: "This kind of test standard is the corresponding standard for investment decisions."

If the management test does not take into account various alternative test standards, then his thinking will be very blocked. What's more interesting is that effective decision makers often do not seek consensus, but like to listen to different ideas, which is exactly the opposite of the general textbook principles of decision-making. Such a decision cannot be made amid cheers.Managers can make such decisions only through confrontation of opposing viewpoints, dialogue of differing perspectives, and a choice among alternative judgments.Therefore, the first rule of decision-making is: different opinions must be heard, otherwise managers cannot make decisions at all.

Alfred Sloan is said to have said at a meeting of the senior management committee: "Gentlemen, as far as I know there is complete agreement on this decision." The attendees nodded in agreement. "However," continued Mr. Sloan, "I propose to defer further discussion of this decision until the next meeting. In the meantime, we may give full consideration to the different views, as this is the only way to help us Gain a better understanding of this decision.” Sloan never relied on "gut feelings" to make decisions, and he always emphasized the need to test opinions with facts.He objected to jumping to a conclusion first and then looking for facts to support that conclusion.He understands that correct decisions must be based on full discussion of different opinions. Every effective president in the history of the United States has its own set of ways to stimulate dissent in order to help them make effective decisions.Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman each had his own way, and each was able to elicit the dissent he needed to deepen his understanding of decision-making.We know that President Washington hated conflict and controversy, and he wanted a unified cabinet.However, on important issues.He did consult both Hamilton and Jefferson, so that he could hear the necessary dissent. President Franklin D. Roosevelt perhaps understood most deeply how to listen to organized dissent.Whenever he needed to make a decision on some important matter, he would find an assistant and say to him: "I want you to help me think about this issue, but please don't say anything." (Actually, Roosevelt knew it well, Even if he had said that, the news would have spread all over Washington immediately.) Then he got several assistants who had disagreed with this issue from the beginning, assigned them the same task, and asked them to do the same. "Absolutely confidential."In this way he can be sure that every important aspect of the matter will be considered and brought up.He can also be sure so he won't be swayed by someone's preconceived ideas. Roosevelt's approach had been severely criticized by Interior Secretary Harold Ikes, the "professional manager" in his cabinet.In Harold's diary, accusations such as "lack of meticulous style", "reckless recklessness", "breach of trust" and other accusations of the president can be seen everywhere.However, Roosevelt knew in his heart that the primary task of the American president is not administrative management, but policy formulation and accurate decision-making.The best way to do this is to adopt the "opponent competition method" commonly used in courts, and learn the truth through court debates, so that all aspects of the case can be brought to the table. Dissenting views must be heard persistently for three main reasons: First, it is the only measure that protects decision makers from being swayed by institutional perceptions.Each wants to influence decision makers with his or her point of view, and each is a specialized lobbyist who wants decisions to be in line with his or her own ideas (although often sincerely).This is true whether the decision maker is the President of the United States or a fledgling engineer tinkering with a design. The only way to free the decision-maker from such idiosyncratic voices and preconceived ideas is to debate the different opinions before making a decision, and let the different opinions provide their own arguments. Only then can managers fully consider the different opinions . Second, different opinions can provide various options for decision-making.Without ample options, decision-making becomes an all-or-nothing adventure, no matter how carefully one thinks about it.Decisions will sometimes turn out to be wrong, and this possibility can happen at any time, either because the decision has gone wrong in the first place, or because external circumstances have changed.If the manager has considered various alternatives in the decision-making process.Then when the situation changes, the manager can be prepared because he has some options that have been thought out, researched, and deeply understood by him.Without such leeway, he will feel helpless if he finds that the decision is difficult to implement. In the last chapter we mentioned the Schlieffen Plan of the German Army General Staff and President Franklin D. Saffron's implementation of the economic recovery plan.Both plans went awry at critical moments of execution.The German army has never recovered since, because the German army never conceived of other strategic concepts, so it had to make ad hoc bad decisions again and again.In fact, this is also inevitable. In the past 25 years, the German General Staff, in addition to the "Schlieffen Plan".No other plan was ever considered.They poured all their military talents into this brilliant plan.When the plan went wrong, there was no option to fall back. Although these generals have received strict strategic planning training, they can only make some temporary emergency decisions, which means that they have to do this for a while, and do that for a while, but they can't explain why they have to do this or that. Another incident in 1914 illustrates how dangerous it is to have no choice.After the Russians mobilized for war, the Tsar suddenly wanted to change his mind.He summoned the Chief of Staff of the Russian Army and asked him to immediately lift the mobilization order.But the general replied: "Your Majesty, this is impossible. The mobilization has already begun, and we have no practical plan to stop it now." I don't think that if the Russians really had stopped their war machine and World War I could have been avoided.But that was, after all, the last chance to try to replace mad war with sensible action. In contrast, President Roosevelt was different.In the first few months of taking office, he has put forward the slogan of economic orthodoxy.At the same time, he also had a group of consultants who were later called "think tanks" to formulate a policy for him in case the economic reform could not be carried out in the future.That was a radical policy, based on some of the ideas of the old "Progressives".It was a radical policy aimed at large-scale social and economic transformation.Then the world financial system collapsed and Roosevelt's orthodox economic reform program couldn't go any further, so he was immediately able to take another option because he already had a policy. If there is no such prepared retreat, then Roosevelt will suddenly appear at a loss like the German General Staff or the Russian Tsar.In his presidency, Roosevelt was to implement traditional nineteenth-century international economic theory.However, during the period between his election in November 1932 and his swearing-in in the second March, the U.S. economy, like the international economy, collapsed. Roosevelt naturally noticed this, but out of lack of Alternative countermeasures, he can only take a headache to treat the head, and a foot to treat the foot.A president as shrewd and capable as Roosevelt, who suddenly found himself in a thick fog, had to grope his way, waver from one extreme to the other, or listen to quack economic theories. At the mercy of the guests, he was asked to take measures to devalue the dollar for a while, and to re-implement the silver standard for a while. In fact, these measures were far-fetched and could not solve the problems at that time. There is another example that is more illustrative. After Roosevelt won the second round of the presidential election in 1936, he wanted to "reorganize" the Supreme Court.His plan met with strong opposition in Congress.He thought he had complete control of Congress, so he wasn't even prepared for any alternatives if the plan didn't pass.As a result, not only did his plan to reform the Supreme Court come to naught, but his own influence on the American political arena was also lost, although his popularity and approval ratings were still quite high at the time. Finally, dissent helps to stimulate one's imagination.If you are looking for a solution to a problem, imagination is of course not of much help; if you are solving a mathematical problem, imagination is of value.However, what managers have to deal with is some really unpredictable things, whether political, economic, social or military, which require "creative" solutions, otherwise it is difficult to create new situations.From this perspective, managers need to be imaginative, because it is impossible for managers who lack imagination to observe and understand problems from a different and new perspective. I have to admit that there are not too many people with rich imaginations, but they are not as rare as people think.Imagination needs to be stimulated before it can be fully exerted, otherwise it can only be a latent, untapped ability.Dissenting opinions, especially those that have been carefully deduced and reconsidered, and well-founded, are the most effective factors for stimulating the imagination. Few could imagine so many outlandish things before breakfast as Humpty Dumpty.As for the creator of this character, the imagination of Lewis Carroll, the author of "Alice in Wonderland" is even more unmatched.However, even very young children will have enough imagination to enjoy Alice's story.As Jerrome S. Bruner pointed out, even an 8-year-old child can clearly point out in a day: Although 4 × 6 is equal to 6 × 4, but " A blind Venetian is by no means the same as a "Venetian blind." This is high-level imaginative insight.However, when many adults make decisions, they often base their thinking on the guess that "Hainnis blind" must be equal to "venetian blinds". There is an old legend about a man who lived on Southsea Island in Victorian times.He went to the west once, and when he came back, he told the islanders that there was no water in the homes of the westerners.On their island, water is brought into the home through sunken wood chips, so it can be seen from day to day.In western cities, water is brought in through the pipes, and the water only flows out of the pipes when someone turns on the switch.It was a pity that no one had ever explained to him about the water pipes. Every time I hear this story, it reminds me of the problem of imagination.Only when the "switch" of imagination is turned on, can imagination flow out continuously like running water.And the "switch" of the imagination is nothing but the orderly debate of different opinions, Consequently, cost-conscious decision makers know how to encourage dissent.Drawing nutrition from different opinions can help him identify those specious one-sided views, so that he has a wider range of considerations and choices when making decisions.In case there are problems or mistakes are found in the process of decision-making, he will not become at a loss.Disagreement also stimulates the imagination of decision makers and their colleagues, turning plausible opinions into correct ones, and then correct opinions into good decisions. Effective decision makers cannot start with a preconceived idea that only one suggestion is right and all others must be wrong.Nor can he start out thinking, "I'm right and he's wrong." Decision makers must be determined from the start to understand why people disagree. Effective managers also know, of course, that there will always be fools and tattletales.However, they never think that those who disagree are either stupid or cunning.They also understand that unless there is solid evidence that someone has ulterior motives, dissenters should be considered sane and unbiased.If he came to an obviously wrong conclusion, it was because he was concerned and saw another side of the problem.The effective manager asks himself, "What do we need to tell him to make his point stand?" The effective manager is concerned first with understanding and then with questions of who is right and who is wrong . In a good law firm, newcomers who have just graduated from law school are often first assigned to draft difficult defenses for the client of the opposing lawyer.It is a very sensible arrangement to do such a job first before sitting down to seriously prepare one's own defense. <After all, a lawyer should consider that the opposing lawyer is not incompetent either. = This is a good training for young lawyers, it can prevent him from thinking that his side of the case is right from the beginning.Doing so can also help him get acquainted with what the other party will discover, what situations he has learned, and what arguments he will have.To do so is to ask him to do some research on the facts of the case of both parties.Only when this is done, will he truly understand how to handle his case.Only in this way can he make a strong statement of his own reasons in court, so that the court can accept his point of view, There is no doubt that there are not too many people who can do this, whether they are managers or ordinary staff.Most people think about problems from their own side.Their logic is: since they see the problem this way, others must also see the problem in the same way. The giants of the U.S. steel industry have always loved to grab this—question: "Why do union people get so jumpy whenever we mention 'overemployment'?" Why do the management of the steel industry always make a big fuss about "overemployment", but they are so cautious in actual actions? So both sides desperately want to prove the other is wrong. If both sides can try to understand the other's true ideas, it will be of great benefit to both sides, and the labor relations in the US steel industry will become more harmonious and healthy. No matter how strong his own feelings are, no matter how sure he is that the other party is untenable, a manager who wants to make the right decision must force himself to understand different opinions, because different opinions are the basis for him to consider various alternatives. necessary tool for the approach.With this tool, decision makers can ensure that all major aspects of an issue are carefully considered. Perhaps the last question an effective decision maker asks is "Is the decision really necessary?" Because there is an alternative to making no decision at all. Decision-making is like performing a surgical operation. It is an intervention and intervention in the original system, so there is always a risk of shock.If you don't have to, you don't need to make any decisions at all.This is like a good surgeon who never does unnecessary operations.Different decision makers will have different work styles.Some are more radical, some tend to be conservative, but generally speaking, they all abide by certain work rules. When the situation is expected to deteriorate without further action, new decisions must be made.If the opportunity comes, it should also make a decision without losing the opportunity.If the opportunity is significant and may be fleeting, it must be acted on now, even if it involves drastic change. Contemporaries of Theodore Weir must have agreed with Weir on the issue of preventing a government takeover.But they just want to fight the government on a case-by-case basis, like opposing this or that proposal in Congress, opposing one candidate, supporting another, and so on.Only Weir realized that this approach was not very effective.Even if we can win a small battle, it will not change the whole situation.Weil felt that only by taking big steps could a new situation be created.Because he has seen clearly: private enterprises can avoid being taken over by the government only if they regard "public management" as an effective choice. Under certain conditions, it is indeed possible not to make a decision.For example, things can go wrong without intervention.One question can help us identify: "What will happen if no action is taken?" If the answer is "Nothing will go wrong," then there is no need to intervene at all.In addition, if the situation is indeed a bit of a headache, but the matter itself is not very important and will not cause any substantive consequences, then there is no need to intervene. There are not too many managers who can understand this truth.A company is facing a financial crisis, and its chief financial officer strongly advocates reducing costs.Therefore, he is likely to cling to certain glitches, although overcoming them will not change the current situation.For example, when he knew that the cost of the sales and storage and transportation departments greatly exceeded the predetermined target, he worked hard to help these two departments try to control costs.But not long after, he did another thing that would blacken his face.He was overly concerned with the "unnecessary" hiring of a few more senior staff in a certain department.At that time, there was a saying that dismissing these old employees who were about to receive pensions would not solve the problem of the company's profitability.However, he criticized the narrative and fired the veteran workers.He defended himself: "Other people are making sacrifices, why can the people in the factory not talk about efficiency?" When things are over.Everyone has long forgotten that he saved the business.All they remember was the brutality with which he dealt with the three poor old fellows.In fact, as early as 2,000 years ago, a law of the Romans had already said: "It is not appropriate for the chief executive to consider trivial matters." Guan Ding, it seems that many managers today still need to make up a lesson . And the vast majority of situations are between the need to make a decision and the need not to make a decision.Although some problems cannot be solved by themselves, they will not develop to the point of being incurable.For this kind of problem, usually only need to make some improvements, but not to make any substantive changes or innovations.Between these two extremes, this is the case for the vast majority.In other words, even if little action is taken, things can still be maintained.Of course, if action is taken.Things might get better. In this case, the fruitful decision-making test should be compared. Is the risk of taking action greater or the risk of not taking action? On this issue, there is no formula to help him make the right decision, but still There are two principles that can be used as a guide, so making decisions on specific issues should not be difficult.These two principles are: First, take action if the benefits of taking action greatly outweigh the costs and risks; second.Action or no action, no ambiguity, no compromise. If a surgeon removes only half a tonsil or half an appendix from a patient, the patient's risk of infection is not reduced.The doctor doesn't solve the patient's problem, and the patient's condition will be even worse than before.A surgeon can either operate or not, and there can be no compromise in such matters.The same is true for an effective decision maker, he either takes action or he doesn't take action, he must never take action and then give up halfway.It is absolutely wrong to give up halfway, because it cannot meet the minimum requirements for decision-making and cannot reach the lowest boundary conditions. After a thorough consideration of the requirements of the decision, a discussion of the different options, and a trade-off of the pros and cons of the decision, the decision becomes a matter of course.At this point, all the situations are known in the heart, and it is naturally obvious what kind of decision to take. However, at this time, most of the decisions were aborted.This is because suddenly the truth is revealed, and the original decision was unpleasant, less popular than thought, and less easy to implement.Clearly, times like these call not only for good judgment but for great courage.We don't have good reason to say that all medicines should be bitter, but good medicines usually are.By the same token, we dare not say that all decisions are unpleasant, but the most effective decisions are often unpleasant when executed. At such times, there is one thing that an effective manager must never do.He couldn't give in to outside pressure, let alone say, "Let's do some research." To do so would be cowardly.A coward may die a thousand times, but a brave man dies only once.Faced with the call for "re-research and research", effective managers will ask: "Is it possible to discuss new content by doing another research? Even if new content is researched, will it be related to the decisions we have to make? Is it relevant?" If the answer is no, then the management voice should not do any further research.Never waste other people's time because of your own indecision. Of course, decisions should not be made hastily unless you have a good idea of ​​the situation.Generally, adults with certain experience have learned to listen to a voice called the "patron saint" by the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates.It is a voice from the heart that whispers softly in the decision-maker's ear: "Be careful." If the decision is right, it is only because it will be difficult to execute or cause dissatisfaction. , or the consequences may be dire, then there is no reason why the decision-maker should not stick to the decision.However, if you feel an inexplicable feeling of uneasiness, annoyance and being troubled in your heart, then it is best not to take action immediately, it is better to delay for a while.A friend I know who is good at decision-making said to me: "When I feel that my mind is overwhelming, I will suspend any decision-making." Nine times out of ten this uneasiness is centered on some insignificant detail.But on the tenth time, he suddenly realized that he had overlooked a most important fact, made a fundamental mistake, and thus biased his judgment.It is as if Sherlock Holmes, in a well-known detective story, suddenly remembered "the most important thing, that the Hound of the Baskervilles did not bark when the murderer appeared." However, efficient decision makers will not wait too long, usually a few days, at most a few weeks.If by that time his Patronus has not spoken to him, then, whether he likes it or not, he should act now and implement the decision. Someone doesn't hire a manager to do something he likes to do.The manager's responsibility is to do what needs to be done well, specifically, to make effective decisions. 今天我们有了电脑，那么关于决策的这些原则是否仍然管用?有人正在告诉我们：电脑将会取代决策者．至少在中层管理部门是这样。几年后，电脑将代替人们作各种经营方面的决策．要不了多久．电脑还可以代替人们来作战略性的决策。 实际上，管理者今天正在作的往往只是一些就地适应性的变动，而电脑的出现将会迫使他们将今天正在采取的这些适应性变动提高到真正决策的高度。电脑将会把许多传统上只喜欢“奉命行事”的管理者改变成真正含义上的管理者，改变成真正的决策者。 电脑是管理者的有效工具。它就像是锤子或钳子，但却与汽车或锯子这样的工具不同，人没法做的事，电脑也做不来。不过它能代替人做加减法，其速度要比人快不知多少倍。电脑作为工具，它对工作从来不会感到厌倦，永远不会感到疲劳，加班也不需要付加班费。像其他所有能帮人把事情做得更好的工具一样，电脑可以使人的能力成百上千倍地增长。可是电脑也像其他所有的工具一样，能做的事情总是有限的，具有它自己的局限性。电脑的这种局限性将使我们的管理者不得不自己承担起做真正决策的责任，并可将目前这种适应性变动的做法提高到真正决策的水平上来。 电脑的长处在于它是—架逻辑机器。它能按照输入的程序进行精确的运算，可以说是又快又准。正由于这样，它也是白痴，因为逻辑基本上是无知觉的。它只能进行推理。相比之下，人类不是逻辑机器，而是有感觉的动物，因此有时会马马虎虎，反应也不够快。但是人有洞察力，会根据现场的情况作出灵活反应。这就是说，人也可以根据少量的信息来推断事物的全貌，即使是一点信息也没有，人照样可以作出类似的臆测。人不需要任何程序就能记住大量的事情。 一位典型的传统的经理经常会遇到的便是关于库存和运输方面的决策。而他做决策时．通常采用的办法是根据当时现场情况采取相应的措施。一位典型的地区销售经理虽然不能确切了解情况，但对下列事情他心中却十分有数：客户A的工厂严格按照生产计划进行运转，如果已经答应的供货不能按时到达．将会引起很大的问题；另一位客户B通常手头总会保留一些库存备件，因此就是供应晚了几天，问题也不大；第三位客户c对本公司已心怀不满，正在寻找适当的借口，以便另找商家购货。他还了解在本公司的制造厂里，只要他对这位或那位负责人说点好话，他就有可能会得到某些额外供应。就在这些经验的基础上，典型的销售经理就会根据当时的具体情况作出一些适应性的决策。 而电脑却无法了解这些情况。或者可以这么说，如果别人不明确地告诉电脑公司对某个客户或某种产品已有了哪些政策的话，那么电脑是无法了解这些情况的。电脑能做的只是对输入的程序和指令作出反应。 如果公司想用电脑来管理库存，那么它必须先制订一套库存的规则和政策。在这过程中，公司又发现关于库存的基本决策实际上不仅仅是库存决策，它竟成了风险极高的企业决策。库存其实只是平衡各种风险的一种手段，这些风险包括：客户对供货和服务是否满意；产品生产的能力是否稳定；将资金积压在商品上，而商品可能会变坏、过时或失去价值。 传统式的陈词滥调并不能给电脑帮上多大的忙。比如，一个典型的说法便是，“我们的目标是要为90％的客户完成90％的交货承诺。”如果将这一条改编成循序渐进的电脑逻辑时，就会发现这句话其实毫无意义。这是不是说所有客户只能得到90％的订单?这是否意味着对关系的确良好的客户应该如期交货?那么我们又应该如何来定义“关系良好的客户”呢7这是否是说我们的目标是要使各项产品都能如期供货?或者仅仅只是主要产品能够如期供货?那么还有好几百种其不上是重要的产品是否也应该有一项政策?这些产品对公司来说也许不算重要，但对前来订货的客户来说，也许就相当重要。 解决上述每一个问题，都需要有一项充满风险的决策，特别是需要有一项原则性的决策。只有做出这些决策之后，才能盼望电脑来管理库存。由于这些决策都带有不确定性，因此不太容易给有关事项以明确的定义，但这些定义却是运用电脑所必不可少的。 为了使电脑能按照人的要求平稳地运行，对有关的事件作出预期的反应(不管这些事件是装载着核弹头的敌方导弹的突然出现，还是炼油厂里的原油中发现超乎寻常的硫化物)，那就必须对决策进行周密细致的考虑，而且还要使决策有一定的预见性。做这种决策不可以随心所欲，也不能走一步看一步摸着石头过河，它必须是一项原则性的决策。 出现这种情况，原因并不在电脑。电脑作为一项工具，它不可能成为任何问题的原因。它只不过是将正在发生的情况明白无误地摆到了人们的眼前。其实，这种从琐碎的适应性变动到原则性决策的这一转变过程的出现已有相当一段时间了，特别是在第二次世界大战期间及战后，这种趋向在军队内部早巳变得愈加明显。由于作战巳成为一种大规模的、相互依存的行动，它要求有为各战区、各部队服务的后勤支援系统，所以中层指挥官们就越来越有必要了解战略决策的大概情况．否则他们就难以发挥应有的作用。他们越来越需要做出真正的决策，而不 再是只结合自己的实际情况贯彻上级的命令。一些级别稍低的将军，其中德国的隆美尔、美国的布雷德利、苏联的朱可夫等，后来都成了二战中了不起的军事战略家，但在当时他们还只是“中层领导”，他们善于思考真正的决策，与过去战争中那些只知冲锋陷阵的马背将军们完全不同。 这样一来，决策不再是最高层中少数人的事。在现代机构户，几乎每个知识工作者或多或少都已成为决策者，要不至少也得在决策的过程个发挥着积极的、主动的和令人大开眼界的作用。在过去，决策是一件高度专业化的工作，它是由极少数人和专业部门来做的。而对其他部门来说，只是按照某种习惯的模式贯彻执行这些决策罢了。可是在当前那些规模较大的知识机构中，决策正在变成一种常规工作．尽管目前尚未达到日常工作的程度。进行有效决策的能力．现在已越来越成为知识工作者工作能力强弱的一种表现，至少对那些想提高工作效率、负有一定责任的知识工作者更是如此。 电脑新技术的出现．迫使我们在决策上进行转变，在这方面的一个典型例子就是人们常常谈起的“计划评估及审查技术”(PERT)。这种技术可在高度复杂的程序中(比如研制和生产航天飞船)为我们提供完成关键任务所需的路径。它是一种控制程序的技术、它能对一项任务中的每件工作进行顶先计划和定义，确定它们之间的先后次序和相互关系，并能估汁出每件工作完成的最后期限、从而使整个任务能按照要求如期完成。这样一来，可以大大削减作临时适应性决策的必要性，取而代之的却是高风险的决策。当然，刚开始使用这—技术时，操作人员还得印出—张计划评估及审查计划表，而表上对每项工作的判断都会有些错误，这是因为他们仍旧想采用临时适应性决策的办法来解决只有系统的风险决策才能解次的问题。 电脑对战略决策也有着同样的作用。电脑当然不可能代替人们来作战略决策。但是只要人们对心中尚不太有数的未来作出了某些设想，那么电脑就能推理出这些设想将会产生哪些结果；或者倒过来说，电脑可以推理出在某些行动方案的背后是由哪些设想在起作用。电脑做这些事，主要还是依靠运算。为了便于运算，电脑需要人们为它准备好思路清晰的分析，特别是对决策必须达到的界限条件有极为明确的陈述。这就要求人们必须先做出重要的、但却带着风险性的判断。 电脑当然还可以用于决策的其他方面。比如，只要使用适当，电脑可以帮助高级管理者从繁杂的事务中解脱出来。由于缺乏可靠的信息，他们往往不得不埋头于那些事务之中。有了电脑后，管理者就会有更多的机会走到外界去看一看，因为只有外界才是企业效益的真正根源。 电脑还有可能会改变决策过程中常犯的一个错误的性质。从传统上来说，我们过去常常容易将一般性的情况当作特殊事件来加以处理，因为我们习惯于按表面的症状来进行诊断。但电脑只能处理一般性的情况，因为电脑里的逻辑只能识别一般性的情况。因此，在未来，我们很可能会犯另一种错误．那就是会将有些独持的、例外的情况当作一般性的情况来加以对待。 因为电脑有这种倾向，于是人们开始抱怨说，在军事决策上，决不应该让电脑来取代那些经过考验的军事人员的判断。我们不向该把这种抱怨仅仅当成一些高级将领们的牢骚。反对军事决策标准化的最为有力的论据来自一位杰出的“管理科学家”索利*朱克曼。他是英国一位著名的生物学家、是英国国防部的科学顾问。他在开发电脑分析和运用研究的工作中发挥过重要的作用。 电脑带给我们的最大冲击，恰恰在于其自身的局限性。这种局限性将会迫使我们去做更多的决策，特别是迫使中层经理们从决策的执行者转变为管理人员和决策者。 其实，事情早就应该如此了。像通用汽车公司这样的企业．还有诸如德军总参谋部这样的军事决策单位，他们早就把一些具体的操作事项当成了真正的决策了。这是他们的一大长处。 业务经理们若能早点学会通过对风险和不可知因素的研究和判断的方法来进行决策的话，那么我们就有望克服目前大企业里存在的一种通病——对上层管理人员的决策能力缺乏培训和测试。如果在日常工作中，我们总是可以通过临时凑合的办法，而不必进行仔细思考来处理事务的话，如果我们总是可以跟着自己的“感觉”定，而不必借助知识与分析来处理事务的话，那么不管是政府部门、军队内部还是企业界里的操作人员将永远不可能得到应有的培训。不可能受到磨练，他们的决策能力也不可能得到测试。而这些人当他们被提升到高级管理职务时，将会面临非要作出战略抉择的考验。 当然，电脑也不可能把普通职员都变成决策者，这就好像计算尺不可能把一个高中生变成数学家一样。但是电脑将迫使我们早早作出选择；是当一名普通职员呢，还是当一名潜在的决策者?电脑将为潜在的决策者提供目标明确、讲究效果的决策学习机会。不过他必须敢于去操作．并把它操作好，否则的话电脑是不会自行运转的。 的确有充分的理由可以说明，电脑的出现已激起了人们对决策的新兴趣。但这并不是说电脑将会“取代”人来进行决策。电脑真正的好处是它可以代替人进行复杂的运算，从而使机构内的各层管理人员有更多的时间可以学习如何当好管理者，如何做出卓有成效的决策。