BSH

[翻譯] 遊戲專案為何成功系列之二:如何打造有效率的團隊


The Game Outcomes Project, Part 2: Building Effective Teams
遊戲專案為何成功系列之二:如何打造有效率的團隊
網誌版:http://wp.me/pBAPd-q9
撰文:Paul Tozour
繁體中文翻譯:NDark
20150106
譯按:本文是一篇統計學專業文章,若有翻譯不正確的文句,請以原文為主。

This article is the second in a 4-part series.

Part 1 is available here: (Gamasutra) (BlogSpot) (LinkedIn) (traditional Chinese 中國語文)

Parts 3 and 4 will be released at 1-week intervals in January 2015.

For extended notes on our survey methodology and our analytical methods, see our Methodology blog page (link).

The Game Outcomes Project team includes Paul Tozour, David Wegbreit, Lucien Parsons, Zhenghua “Z” Yang, NDark Teng, Eric Byron, Julianna Pillemer, Ben Weber, and Karen Buro.

本文是系列四篇中的第二篇。
第一篇請連以下文章 (Gamasutra) (BlogSpot) (LinkedIn) (traditional Chinese 繁體中文)
第三,第四篇將以一周為周期在2015年一月釋出。
想要知道問卷的方法論,請參閱部落格頁面 “Game Outcomes Project Methodology":http://intelligenceengine.blogspot.com/2014/11/game-outcomes-project-methodology-in.html

“遊戲專案為何成功"團隊成員包含Paul Tozour,David WegbreitLucien ParsonsZhenghua “Z” YangNDark TengEric ByronJulianna PillemerBen Weber,及Karen Buro。

The Game Outcomes Project, Part 2: Building Effective Teams

遊戲專案為何成功系列之二:如何打造有效率的團隊

As developers, we all spend many years and unfathomable amounts of effort building game projects, from tiny indie teams to massive, sprawling, decades-long development efforts with teams of dozens to hundreds of developers.  And yet, we have no good way of knowing with certainty which of our efforts will pay off.

我們身為開發者,不論獨立團隊或大型超過百人的案子,或長時間開發的專案,我們費時費力打造遊戲,但我們一直不知道使用哪一種方法真的能夠真的做到有效率。

In a certain sense, game development is like poker: there’s an unavoidable element of chance.  Sometimes, tasks take far longer than expected, technology breaks down, and design decisions that seemed brilliant on paper just don’t work out in practice.  Sometimes external events affect the outcome – your parent company shutters without warning, or your promised marketing budget disappears.  And sometimes, fickle consumer tastes blow one way or the other, and an unknown indie developer can suddenly find that the app he made in a two days reached the top of the app charts overnight.

遊戲開發有點像是玩撲克牌:充滿了不確定性。有時是工作總是會超過預估,技術總是不適用,遊戲機制只在文件時期看起來有用。有時是外部的事件造成影響-母公司無預警關閉,或是合約中的行銷預算被挪做他用。更有時候,消費者的口味不按常理地劇變,默默無名的某個開發者,一夜之間突然變成榜上金雞。

But good poker players accept that risk is part of the game, and there are no guaranteed outcomes.  Smart poker players don’t beat themselves up over a risk that didn’t work out; they know that a good decision remains a good decision even if luck interfered with the outcome of one particular hand.

但即使是在賭博,優秀的賭客願意接受可能失敗的風險,懂得評估失敗的可能性;也就是依賴一種優秀的決策系統,甚至包含運氣,來計算一手的勝率。

But some teams clearly know how to give themselves better odds.  Some teams seem consistently able to craft world-class games, grow their audience, and give themselves better odds year after year.

但某些團隊似乎總是有辦法骰出豹子。有些團隊似乎能夠每年持續製造出世界級的遊戲,持續與社群成長。

It’s a well-known statistic that the best programmers are 10 times as productive as mediocre ones; it seems obvious to anyone who has worked on more than a few teams that there must be similarly broad differences between teams (especially if these teams include the 10x-more-productive programmers!)

有一篇討論串"優秀的程式設計師產量是其他人的十倍“大家都看過。顯然在不同團隊工作過後都會得出同樣的結論。(特別是團隊中有這種高效能的工程師)

What makes the best teams so much better than the rest?  If we could find out what makes some teams consistently able to execute more successfully, that would be extraordinarily useful, wouldn’t it?

And most importantly: are we, as an industry, actually trying to figure that out?

Are we even asking the right questions?

到底什麼要素使得優秀的團隊脫穎而出,假如我們找到那些優秀團隊的共通之處,將會貢獻良多。

而更重要的是,我們,這個產業,是否想要知道這個答案?

我們有問到正確的問題嗎?

The Game Outcomes Project was a systematic, large-scale study designed to deduce the factors that make the most effective game development teams different from the rest.  We ran a large-scale anonymous survey in October and November of 2014 and collected responses from several hundred developers.  We described the background of the survey in our first article and explained the technical details of our approach on the Methodology blog page.

“遊戲專案為何成功"這個團隊就透過有系統性地,大範圍的研究去篩選那些使得有效率團隊之所以有效率的要素。我們在2014年十月到十一月透過問卷,收集從幾百位開發者來的回饋。我們已經在我們的第一篇文章中描述了這次問卷的背景,以及在部落格解釋了我們方法論的細節。

Take a look at Figure 1 below, which illustrates some of our results.

看看這裡的第一張圖片,點出了我們的其中一個結果。

Figure 1. Correlation of our game development linear regression model (horizontal axis) with aggregate project outcome score (vertical axis).  273 data points are shown. 遊戲開發要素線性回歸模型(水平軸)對上專案產出分數(垂直軸)的關聯性。共兩百七十三份數據。

This scatter plot shows a correlation of the predictive model we created (based on roughly 30 factors) against the aggregate game development project outcome score we described in Part 1.  The model has a very strong correlation of 0.82 and a statistical p-value below 0.0001 (allowing us to interpret this as evidence against the assumption that the data is independent).

分散點圖中顯示了我們設計的預測模型共30項要素與我們第一篇文章中提到的專案產出分數的關聯性,這個模型顯示了非常強烈0.85的關聯性以及小於0.0001的統計p值。這使我們認為這就是我們原先在尋找的證據。

In other words, each point represents one game development project reported by one of our survey respondents.  The vertical axis is how successful each game was, and the horizontal axis is how successful our model predicts each game would be.

簡單來說,每個點代表一個問卷中的專案,垂直軸則是遊戲是否成功,水平軸是我們的模型是否預測它成功。

What this chart tells us is that the teams in the upper-right (green) are doing things very differently from the teams in the lower left (red), and we can all benefit from learning what those differences are.

圖表中告訴我們右上方綠色的團隊與左下方紅色的團隊行為模式的差異,而這些差異讓我們學到教訓。

Here are four more charts, shown as an animated GIF on a 4-second timer.  Only the vertical axis changes in each case.

下面則是更多圖表,以GIF圖檔四秒的周期輪播。垂直軸分別代表不同意義。

Figure 2. Correlation of the predictive model (horizontal axis) with each of the 4 outcomes from our survey: return on investment, aggregate review/MetaCritic scores, project delays, and internal satisfaction.  This is an animated GIF with a 4-second interval.  Color (from red to green) is tied to each individual outcome, and the points in between the rows are interpolated values for missing data points.我們問卷中的預測模型與不同產出分數的關聯性,分別是專案利潤,網頁評論分數,專案延遲,內部滿意度。這GIF圖檔以四秒的周期輪播。顏色從紅到綠是代表不同的產出分數,而列與列之間的數據是使用內差法計算而來。

This is the same model as in Figure 1, mapped against the four individual outcomes:

  • internal team satisfaction with the project (correlation 0.47)
  • timeliness / severity of project delays (correlation 0.55)
  • return on investment (correlation 0.52)
  • aggregate reviews/MetaCritic scores (correlation 0.69)

(All of these correlations are statistically significant, with p-values below 0.0001.)

如圖一,四種不同的產出分數:

  • 內部滿意度的關聯性0.47
  • 專案延遲的關聯性0.55
  • 專案利潤的關聯性0.52
  • 網頁分數的關聯性0.69

全部的關聯度其p值都小於0.0001。

As with a poker game, there is an unavoidable element of risk involved in game development.  But learning better strategies will raise our game and improve our odds of a better outcome.  If we move ourselves further to the right side of the correlation graph above, that should also improve our odds of moving upwards, i.e., experiencing better project outcomes.

如同玩一場撲克牌,當然在遊戲開發中有無法預測的風險。但學習更好的策略就會提高我們的獲勝機率。假如我們不斷往右邊的策略移動,當然也會把勝率往上提高,也就是成功的專案。

Most of us on the Game Outcomes Project team are game developers ourselves.  We initiated this study because we wanted to learn the factors that will allow us to make better games, help YOU make better games, and allow all of us to be happier and more productive while doing it.

If you want to find out what those factors are, keep reading.

遊戲專案是否成功的團隊大多是遊戲開發者,我們一開始研究這個議題就是我們希望能夠知道甚麼要素可以讓我們做出好遊戲,讓我們都能獲得更快樂與更有產出的未來。

假如你也希望知道這些要素,請接著看下去。

Hackman’s Model: Setting the Stage

哈克曼模型:設定舞台

The core of our survey was based around three separate models of team effectiveness, each of which was derived from one of the three bestselling books on team effectiveness shown below.

我們問卷的核心圍繞在不同的團隊效率模型,每一個都從團隊效率的暢銷書而來。

The first model was built from J Richard Hackman’s Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances.  This book describes a model for enhancing team effectiveness based on five key enabling conditions that allow a team to function optimally, based on extensive research and validated management science.  This approach is unique in that rather than seeing leaders and managers as drivers of team success, it views leaders as facilitators, setting up the proper conditions to maximize the team’s effectiveness.

第一個模型是哈克曼的領導團隊:設定高效率的舞台。此書基於可擴增的研究與有效的管理科學描述了透過五個關鍵要素加強團隊效率到最佳化的模型,這種獨特的方法並非認為領導者或管理者是團隊成功的驅動者,而視領導者是團隊之一,設定適當的條件,就可增加團隊效率。

Briefly, Hackman’s enabling conditions are:

  1. It must be a REAL TEAM.  The task must be appropriate for a team to work on; the members must be interdependent in task processes and goals; there must be clear boundaries in terms of who IS and who is NOT on the team; team members must have clear authority to manage their own work processes and take charge of their own tasks; there must be stable membership over time, with minimal turnover; and the team’s composition must be based on a combination of technical skills, teamwork skills, external connections, team size, functional and cultural diversity, and experience.
  2. Compelling Direction.  There must be a motivating goal or important objective that directs attention, energizes and sustains effort, and encourages development of new strategies.
  3. Enabling Structure.  Tasks, roles, and responsibilities must be clearly specified and designed for individual members.
  4. Supportive Context.  The team needs a shared belief that it’s safe to take interpersonal risks (“psychological safety”), which includes a deep level of team trust that leads to a willingness to regularly point out errors, admit mistakes, and warn of potential problems or risks.  The team also needs incentives encouraging desirable behaviors and discouraging undesirable behaviors, ample feedback and data to inform team members toward improving their work, and the tools and affordances to get their jobs done.
  5. Expert Coaching.  The team needs access to different types of mentors outside the team boundaries helping members perform tasks more effectively.  This includes motivators (individuals who enhance effort and minimize social loafing), consultants (individuals who improve performance strategy, avoid mindless adoption of routines, and make sure work matches task requirements) and educators (people who can enhance knowledge and skill).

簡單來說哈克曼的模型條件是以下幾個:

  1. 必須是一個真的團隊。首先工作必須適合這個團隊執行;在工作進行中團員必須互相依賴;團隊成員與否有一個明顯界驗。團隊必須被清楚的授權進行他們的工作。團隊成員的組成必須是穩定的。團隊必須基於不同的技術能力,合作,外部連結,團隊大小,文化與經驗所組成。
  2. 明確的方向。必須有一個重要的目標來驅動團隊的意圖,來支持團隊,並鼓勵更佳策略的發展。
  3. 明確的架構。任務,角色,責任必須明確並適合各位成員。
  4. 團隊的支持信仰。團隊必須有一種心理的安全性,或稱安全感。也就是團隊需要一個共存的信仰。這種信仰可以讓團隊安全地承認錯誤,指出錯誤,警告潛在風險。團隊還會自動鼓勵成員做出期待的行為,減少成員做出不預期的行為。強化團隊間的回饋管道並能讓工作進行地更順利,或為了完成任務產出輔助性工具。
  5. 專家的指引。團隊需要來自團隊外的專家,讓團隊表現地更有效率。包含鼓舞者,可以加強成員的正確表現,減少惰性;顧問,提供可以加強效率的策略,避免犯錯的規範,確保工作與任務目標一致;教育訓練導師,增強知識與技能。

In our developer survey, we attempted to capture each of these broad categories with a set of several questions.  Due to space constraints in the survey, we had to limit ourselves to 2-4 questions for each of Hackman’s five enabling conditions.

在我們的問卷中,我們針對每一個模型中的條件來設定分別的問題。由於空間不足,每個條件都只有最多四個問題。

The results are in Figure 3 below.  The columns at right show the correlation of more positive answers to each of these questions with our four individual outcome questions at the end of the survey (“delays,” “ROI,” “MetaCritic,” and “Internal”), as well as our aggregate outcome score (“Aggregate Outcome.”)  The “Category” column lists the highest aggregate outcome in each category as the overall value of that category.

結果如圖三所示。右邊的欄位顯示每一個問題對不同產出分數的關聯性(專案延遲,專案利潤,網頁分數,內部滿意度),合計的結果,以及這個模型條件最高的分數。

Figure 3. The Hackman model results, showing the correlation of each question in the model’s 5 categories with each outcome question and the aggregate outcome score.  The “Category Score" is the highest correlation from each question in a category.哈克曼的模營數據結果,顯示每個問題與產出分數的關聯性。

These results are simply staggering.  Every single question correlates significantly with game project outcomes.  The second category in particular – designed around Hackman’s “compelling direction” enabling condition – has a correlation over 0.5 for every single question!  This tells us in no uncertain terms that project leaders would be well-advised to achieve clarity around the product vision, communicate it clearly to the team, and seek buy-in from all team members when beginning a new project, and be very careful about subsequent shifts in direction that might alienate their team.

結果十分令人驚訝。每個獨立的問題都與產出分數有正相關。特別是第二欄-明確的方向。每一個問題都到達超過0.5的關聯性。這告訴我們團隊領導者必須提醒自己必須達到專案視野的透明度,將其對團隊清楚溝通,在專案開始時,才能讓團隊對夢想買單,並小心那些可能會讓團隊偏離方向的舉動。

(Note also that all of these correlations have p-values well under 0.01, indicating a clear statistical significance.  For the remainder of these articles, all correlations can be assumed to have statistical p-values below our significance threshold of 0.05, and we use the text “Not S.S." to clearly indicate all cases where they do not.)

(注意全部的關聯性的p值都小於0.01,指出清楚的統計表徵。並注意在文章中的其餘部分,全部有提到的統計p值都小於0.05,然後Not S.S.代表沒達成統計表徵的意思)

Compare these results to article 1, where we often struggled to find any correlation between the questions we listed and project outcomes.  Even our question about production methodologies showed no meaningful correlation.

把這些結果與第一篇文章比較,在第一篇文章中我們很牽強才找到問題與產出的關聯性。即便是製程的方法論都沒有明顯的統計表徵。

Lencioni’s Model: The Five Dysfunctions

蘭西奧尼模型:五個障礙

The second team effectiveness model was based on Patrick Lencioni’s famous management book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable.  Unlike Hackman’s model, this model is stated in terms of what can go wrong on a team, and is described in terms of five specific team dysfunctions, which progress from one stage to the next like a disease as teams grow increasingly dysfunctional.

第二個團隊效率的模型是基於蘭西奧尼有名的管理書籍-領導者的寓言:團隊的五個障礙。與哈克曼的模型不同,這個模型是反向地描述團隊犯錯的地方,以團隊的五個障礙來描述,也就是當團隊成長時,每個階段都會遇到的病徵。

Of course, there’s no substitute for reading the book, but briefly, we can paraphrase the factors as follows:

  1. Absence of Trust.  The fear of being vulnerable with team members prevents the building of trust within the team.  (Note the uncanny resemblance of this factor to “psychological safety” described in part 4 of Hackman’s model: they are almost identical).
  2. Fear of Conflict.  The absence of trust and the desire to preserve artificial harmony stifle the occurrence of productive conflict on the team.
  3. Lack of Commitment.  The absence of trust and fear of conflict described above make team members less willing to buy in wholeheartedly to the decisions that are made, or to make decisions that they can commit to.
  4. Avoidance of Accountability.  The factors above – especially the lack of commitment and fear of conflict – prevent team members from holding one another accountable.
  5. Inattention to Results.  Without accountability, team members ignore the actual outcomes of their efforts, and focus instead on individual goals and personal status at the expense of collective success.

當然,我們不需要整本書都說明,只須在此針對五個障礙作說明:

  1. 缺乏信任。團隊成員間對於建立信任有種恐懼與抗拒。這與哈克曼模型的團隊的支持信仰幾乎一致。
  2. 害怕衝突。未能建立信任會導致第二個障礙:害怕衝突。他們會傾向維持一個表面和諧,而避免團隊各種正面的衝突。
  3. 不願承諾。缺乏信任與衝突。會導致不願承諾。團隊不願意接下決策的責任,對決策承諾。
  4. 拒絕承擔。缺乏承諾,團隊會衍生出避免承擔的模式,表現得好像承擔會對團隊有害一樣。
  5. 對結果不積極。拒絕承擔導致團隊成員把自己的需求(個人狀態與目標)置於團隊的目標之上。

As with Hackman’s model, we composed 1-3 questions for each of these factors to try to determine how well this popular management book actually correlated with project outcomes.

如哈克曼的模型,我們把每個項目都列出三個問題,試著找出這項管理工具與團隊產出的相關聯性。

Figure 4.  Correlations for the Five Dysfunctions model.  “Not S.S.” stands for “not statistically significant,” meaning we cannot infer any correlations for those relationships.五個障礙的關聯性,Not S. S. 表示沒有統計表徵。

Note that there is a lot of red in the chart above, and many negative correlations.  This is to be expected, and it’s not a bad thing.  Most of the questions are asked in a negative frame (for example, “It was difficult to ask other members of this team for help”), so a negative correlation indicates that answers that agreed more with this statement experienced more negative project outcomes overall, which is exactly what you would expect.

注意到,這圖表上有很多紅色區塊,以及負面的相關。這其實如我們所預期,也不是壞事。因為大部分的問題描述都是以反向的方式來設計(例如:要求團隊成員協助是很困難的),因此一個負向的相關指出這個答案同意這個論述是對產出有害,也就是我們所期待的結果。

What’s important is the absolute value of each of the correlations above.  The greater the absolute value, the greater the correlation, whether positive or negative.  And in every single case above, the sign of the correlation perfectly matches the frame with which the question was asked, and matches what the Five Dysfunctions model says you should expect.

重要的是每個關聯性項目的絕對值。絕對值越高,就越相關,不管是正或負。每個項目中,正負都與問題問法相符,也符合五個障礙模型中所要告訴我們的。

In the Category column at the right, we looked only at the highest absolute value in the “aggregate outcomes" category, and these scores tell us that these five factors are roughly equal to Hackman’s model in terms of their correlations with game project outcomes.

在右邊的欄位中,我們只挑選該區問題中的產出中最高的絕對數值,這五個對向專案產出分數的數值都告訴我們與哈克曼的模型大致上相等。

This is another remarkable result.  Clearly, a separate and quite different model of team effectiveness has shown a remarkable correlation with game project outcomes.

這是另一個值得注目的結果。顯然,不同的團隊效率模型都顯示出對專案產出分數的顯著關聯性。

There are a few cases where the correlation is weak or not statistically significant (with p-values over 0.05).  Two of the questions in the first category show no relationship with the game’s critical reception / MetaCritic scores, for reasons that are not clear.  Also, engaging in unfiltered and passionate debate has no statistical significance with regard to project delays specifically.  We speculate that while unfiltered and passionate debate has an overall positive effect on the game’s quality, this debate can be time-consuming in itself, and while it helps the team’s ability to identify ways to improve product quality, it sometimes leads them to trade off the schedule for higher quality, which counteracts any positive effects it would have otherwise had on the schedule.

有一些項目期關聯性微弱或不顯著(p值超過0.05)。第一個類別中的兩個問題沒有顯示與網頁分數有相關,原因我們不得而知。同時團隊激辯也與專案是否延遲沒有相關。我們深入思考,也許團隊激辯其實是對遊戲品質有正面幫助,雖然討論造成時間消耗,但他也幫助團隊找到品質提高的方法,而團隊也時候也會用時程來換取品質,也許這樣的正面因素抵消了時程上的問題。

It seems clear at this point that both of these models are incredibly useful.  It’s particularly nice that while Hackman’s model looks at the enabling factors and supportive context surrounding a team, Lencioni’s model looks more closely at the internal team dynamics, giving us two complementary and equally effective models for analyzing team effectiveness.

顯然在這兩個模型我們的產出分數都很有用。特別在哈克曼模型的"明確的架構",以及"團隊的支持信仰"。蘭西奧尼模型更專注於團隊內部變化的量度,它給予我們兩個補充及對於團隊效率同等有效的模型。

A Closer Look at Correlation

更進一步看關聯性

But what do these correlations actually mean?  How powerful is a “0.5 correlation?”

這些關聯性到底是甚麼意思?為什麼我們重視0.5的關聯性這件事?

For the sake of comparison, in Part 1, we found that a team’s average level of development experience has a correlation right around 0.2, so it’s not unreasonable to assume that any factor above 0.2 is more important than experience.

我們做一個比較,在第一篇文章中,我們發現團隊的平均開發經驗有一個0.2的關聯性,因此可以認定超過0.2的關聯性都比團隊的開發經驗還要強的關聯性。

Let’s put it in context with a few graphs.  We’ll take one of the highest-scoring questions from our section on Hackman’s model above and graph it against the answers to the question about the game’s return on investment (since some might argue that our aggregate outcome score is more subjective).  We’ll pick the question “The vision for the final version of the game was clear and well-communicated to the team,” with an 0.4 correlation with ROI (although its correlation with our aggregate score is even higher, at 0.56).  For clarity, we’ve colored each entry with its corresponding composite game outcome score, where green is a higher aggregate score and red indicates a lower aggregate score.

我們用圖來說明,我們把哈克曼模型中最高分的問題("在團隊中,對於最終遊戲的願景是清楚且充分溝通的。")針對專案利潤這個產出項目的0.4關聯性畫在圖上。(雖然總合的關聯性是0.56)為了清楚表示,我們把每一個點都畫上專案利潤產出分數的顏色,綠色就是高總合值,紅色是低總合值。

Figure 5. “The vision for the final version of the game was clear and well-communicated to the team" (horizontal axis), graphed against the return on investment question (vertical axis).  Each dot represents one survey response.  Each dot’s color indicates that game’s aggregate game outcome score.  202 data points are shown.“在團隊中,對於最終遊戲的願景是清楚且充分溝通的。"這項問題與專案利潤產出分數的圖,每一個點都代表一個問卷專案。每一個點的顏色指出該團隊的總和產出分數,總共202個結果。

Notice a pattern?  The green is all along the bottom right, the upper-left is all red, and there’s a mix in the top right.  19 out of the 22 respondents in the “Huge Success” category (86%) answered somewhere between “Agree Somewhat” and “Agree Completely,” with similar responses in the “Highly Profitable” category.  In “Unprofitable,” however, 30 of 58, or 52%, answered between “Disagree Somewhat” and “Disagree Completely.”

注意到分布了嗎?綠色的都在右下,左上都是紅的,還有一些混合的在右邊上面。屬於高度成功的二十二分回應中的十九份都是同意的那邊,與高度獲利雷同。在未獲利這一側,五十八份中的三十份回應都是不同意這一邊。

More than anything, the emptiness of the lower-left quadrant is quite revealing – this is the quadrant where we would expect to see teams that somehow achieved a reasonable ROI without a clear and well-communicated vision, but there are almost none.

更重要的是,左下區塊的空白顯示了幾乎沒有團隊是對於願景不清楚的還能賺錢的。

This seems to be telling us something: teams with a clear vision don’t always succeed, but teams without a clear vision almost always fail.

這似乎告訴我們,雖然方向明確的團隊不見得會成功,但缺乏方向的團隊一定會失敗。

In other words, you can’t guarantee success, but you can certainly guarantee failure.

換句話說,我們不能定義如何成功,但可以定義如何失敗。

We would see a similar pattern with any other question we had chosen.  All of them get similar results.  Here’s another example, looking at the results for the question “The organizational structure and membership of the team were clear from the outset of the project.”  This has a significantly lower correlation of 0.187 with ROI (and 0.288 with the aggregate outcome), but the pattern is still clear.

我們在其他的問題都看到類似的分布。這裡有另一個例子。問題"團隊內的組織結構與成員是明確與清楚的。"與利潤產出有0.187的低關聯度(該類別總和關聯度則是0.288),但分布仍很一致。

Figure 6. Clarity of organizational structure (horizontal axis) graphed against ROI (vertical axis), with each dot’s color indicating the aggregate game outcome score for that project.組織結構與利潤分成,每個點的顏色代表專案的總產出分數。

Correlation is not causation, and it’s impossible to prove that these team factors caused these differences in outcomes.  In particular, one could object that some other, “hidden” factors caused the differences.

這些關聯度互相是獨立的,沒有因果關係,也不可能證明團隊故意要塑造成產出的差異。嚴格來說我們只能推測,有可能的潛在的要素造成這種結果。

Playing devil’s advocate, one could argue that perhaps the more effective teams just hired better people.  Better employees could have then caused both the differences in the team character (as revealed by the questions above) and the improved game outcomes, without the two having anything to do with one another.

從此論點反面來論述,我們可以認定也許有效率的團隊就是雇用了比較優秀的人,優秀的團隊就造成了團隊的差異性,也造成了專案的產出,其他的要素都是假議題。

We won’t try to rigorously debunk this theory (although we’ll make our raw data available later to anyone who wants to study it).  However, when we look only at individual tiers of team experience level – say, only the most experienced teams, or only the least experienced – all of these results still hold, which we would not expect to happen if it all came down to the skill levels of the individual team members.

對這個論點,我們不會試著嚴格地辯護(但我們未來會把我們的數據資料開放給所有想要研究的人)。然而,如果我們依照團隊經驗來分別查看,那些沒有經驗的團隊,也都顯示相同的結果。如果團隊經驗真的很重要的話,結果不該如此。

Finally, let’s take a look at our third model and see how it fared.

最後,讓我們來查看第三個模型的表現。

Gallup’s Model: ‘12’

蓋洛普十二模型

The third and final team effectiveness model was based on Wagner & Harter’s book 12: The Elements of Great Managing, which is derived from aggregate Gallup data from 10 million employee and manager interviews.  This model, as you may have guessed from the name, is based on 12 factors:

  1. Knowing What’s Expected
  2. Materials & Equipment
  3. I Have the Opportunity to Do What I Do Best
  4. Recognition and Praise
  5. Someone at Work Cares About Me as a Person
  6. Someone at Work Encourages My Development
  7. My Opinions Seem to Count
  8. I Have a Connection With the Mission of the Company
  9. My Co-Workers are Committed to Doing Quality Work
  10. I Have a Best Friend at Work
  11. Regular, Powerful, Insightful Feedback
  12. Opportunities to Learn and Grow

第三且最後的團隊效率模型是基於華格納與哈特的書:良好管理的十二個基石,而它是從蓋洛普由一千萬勞工與管理者的數據中統計而出。這個模型是基於以下的十二個要素:

  1. 了解期待
  2. 裝備與補給
  3. 有機會做到最好
  4. 認可與稱讚
  5. 職場中有人關心我
  6. 職場中有人鼓勵我的產出
  7. 我的意見很重要
  8. 我的工作與公司的目標一致
  9. 我的同僚都保證能產出優秀的作品
  10. 職場中有摯友
  11. 持續,有效,與充滿洞見的工作回饋
  12. 學習與成長的機會

As this model has a larger list of factors than the other two, we limited ourselves one or two questions per factor for fear of making the survey too long.  Our correlations were as follows:

因為這個模型的類別比較多,所以我們把每個類別的問題縮小到只有至多兩個。關聯度如下所示:

Figure 7. Correlations for the Gallup model, based on the book “12″ by Wagner & Harter.

These findings are somewhat more mixed than the Hackman and Lencioni models.  Factor 10 – having a best friend at work – showed no statistical significance, and appears to be irrelevant.  Factors 3 and 5 – whether the tasks were a good fit for one’s skill set, and whether one person on the team cared about the respondent as a person – both showed relatively weak positive correlations, almost at the point of making them irrelevant, and each showed no statistical significance with 2 of the 4 outcome factors.  Factor 6 was also relatively weak, with a modest correlation and no statistical significance when correlated with critical reception / MetaCritic scores.

這些發現比起哈克曼與蘭西奧尼模型有各種不同現象。第十個要素沒有統計表徵,看來也無關聯。第三與第五個要素(分別是工作是否符合員工技能,以及是否關心員工)兩者都顯示不夠強烈的正相關,對比產出分數也有一半未有統計表徵。第六個要素有中等關聯性,但對上網頁分數的產出沒有統計表徵。

However, several of the other factors – especially 7, 8, 9, and 11 – showed remarkably strong correlations with project outcomes.  Moreover, nearly all of these factors are fundamentally orthogonal to the factors in Hackman and Lencioni’s models.  Clearly, listening to team members’ opinions, having a connection with the mission of the company, a shared commitment to doing quality work, and regular, powerful, insightful feedback are a big part of what separates the best dev teams from the rest.  Factors 1, 2, 4, and 12 also showed healthy and statistically significant correlations.

然而,幾個要素如第七,八,九,十一都有顯示與專案產出有強烈的關聯性。再來,這幾個要素都與哈克曼與蘭西奧尼模型都有正交相關。顯然,"聆聽團隊成員的意見","與公司的目標一致","保證能產出優秀的作品","持續,有效,與充滿洞見的工作回饋"都是優秀團隊的要素,要素第一,第二,第四,第十二也顯示不錯的統計關聯性。

The very strong correlation of the 8th category – a connection with the mission of the company – is particularly noteworthy.  The correlation of this category is the strongest in all of the Gallup questions, and it’s unique from the Hackman and Lencioni models.

最強烈關聯性的第八個項目-"與公司的目標一致"是最值得一提的。它所顯示的關聯性是整個模型中最高,甚至超乎哈克曼與蘭西奧尼模型。

There are many organizations that have no clearly-defined mission statement or values statement, or that don’t actually act in accordance with their own stated values.  So it’s very easy to be cynical about values and write them off as a pointless corporate flag-waving exercise that doesn’t actually relate to anything.

有很多組織沒有定義自己公司的價值觀,或沒有實際實踐那些口號。因此我們常常很容易諷刺這些牆壁上的名言,說它們毫無意義。

But our results show clearly that organizational values have a substantial impact on outcomes, and organizations that think deeply about their values, take them seriously, and carefully work to ingrain them into their culture seem to have a measurable advantage over those that do not.  A few hugely successful companies like Valve and Supercell are noted for taking culture unusually seriously and viewing it as the centerpiece of their business strategy, and both have their own unique and very well-defined approaches to defining and organizing their internal culture.

但我們的結果清楚顯示這些組織的價值觀,對於產出有強烈影響,組織應該要更認真地思考這些價值觀,小心地把它們整合到文化裡面,比起不做,是有辦法提高優勢的。像是幾個成功的公司像是Valve與Supercell都清楚地把它們的文化釋放出來,也將那些價值觀視為是組織的策略。兩者都有獨特且適當地定義內部文化。

Our results suggest that this is no coincidence.

We see this result as not only a partial validation of the Gallup model, but also a validation of the ability of our survey and our analytical approach to pinpoint which factors are not actually relevant to game project outcomes.

我們的結果顯示這並非巧合。

我們認為這結果並非僅是證明一小部分的蓋洛普模型,同時也證明透過我們的問卷及對應的分析方法可以找出哪些要素與遊戲產出沒有相關。

Conclusions

結論

When you look at an individual game project, it can be difficult to see what made it a success or a failure.  It’s all too easy to jump to conclusions about the way a single project turned out, and give all the credit or blame for the outcome to its design, its leadership, its business model or unique market environment, the team’s many hours of crunch, or the game’s technology.

當我們觀察個別的遊戲專案,通常很難去看到它成功與失敗之處。很容易因為見樹不見林,用任何其中一個要項如設計,領導,商業模型,加班,技術來隨意作出一個結論。

Put many projects side-by-side, however, and a dramatically different picture emerges.

Although there’s an unavoidable element of risk, as with our poker player example, and external factors (such as marketing budgets) certainly matter, the overwhelming conclusion is that the outcome is in your hands.  Teams have control over the overwhelming majority of their own destiny.

然而,把這麼多專案放在一起比較,就可以看到那些暗示戲劇性的浮現出來。

雖然遊戲專案有著無法避免的風險,如同賭博,還有著外部要素嚴重地影響,我們還是認為遊戲的產出是可以掌控在手中。團隊才是掌控專案命運的最重要要素。

Our results lead us to the inescapable conclusion that most of what separates the most effective teams from the least effective is the careful and intentional cultivation of effective teamwork, and this has an absolutely overwhelming impact on a game project’s outcome.  The factors described in this article, along with those we will describe in our next article, are sufficient to describe a 0.82 correlation with aggregate outcome scores, as shown in Figure 1.

我們的數據讓我們不可避免得到這樣的結論,最能夠區分優秀團隊就是仔細與執意地提高團隊效率,這對遊戲專案產出有著巨大的影響。如圖一所示,包含下一篇文章,所提到的要素,都對產出分數有0.82的關聯性。

The famed management theorist Peter Drucker was well-known for the quote, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.”  This is generally interpreted to mean that as much as we may believe that our strategies — our business models, our technologies, our game designs, and so on — give us an edge, the lion’s share of an organization’s destiny, and its actual ability to fulfill its strategy, are determined by its culture.

著名的團隊管理學者Peter Drucker下過一個註解"文化是戰略之始“。也就是假如我們認為成組織的優勢或是造成組織實行戰略的能力是來自於戰略,商業模型,技術或設計的話,都是由文化所開始的。

Team trust and “psychological safety” lay the groundwork to allow team members to openly point out problems, admit mistakes, and warn of impending problems and take corrective action.  An embrace of creative conflict, a compelling direction that includes commitment to a clearly-defined shared vision, acceptance of accountability, the availability of the necessary enabling structure, the availability of expert coaching, a connection with the mission of the company, a belief that your opinions count and your colleagues are committed to doing quality work, and regular, powerful, insightful feedback all allow teams to work together more effectively.  Put together, all of these make an enormous amount of difference between successful teams and failed ones.

團隊信任與安全感奠定了讓團隊成員開放心胸解決問題,承認錯誤,警告潛在風險,執行正確行為的基礎。有正面意義的衝突,明確的方向,清楚的目標,勇於承擔,明確的架構,專家級的教練,與公司的目標一致,貢獻自己的力量,同僚能保證優秀的產出,以及持續,有效,與充滿洞見的工作回饋,都讓團隊更有效地在一起工作。總和來說,這些要素累積起來就造成了成功與失敗團隊的巨大差異。

It’s tempting to say that the secret sauce is teamwork – but this would be a trivialization of what is actually a far more subtle issue.

說成功的秘訣就是團隊合作很容易,但有時平凡其實更難做到。

The actual secret sauce seems to be a culture that continually and deliberately cultivates and enables good teamwork, gives it all the support it needs to flourish, and carefully and diligently diagnoses it and fixes it when it begins to go astray.

真正的成功秘訣似乎是一個可以持續並有推動力會持續挖掘啟發良好團隊合作的文化,這個文化會讓這個團隊合作成長,並仔細勤勉地自我精進,並在有問題時自我修正。

If you take anything from the Game Outcomes Project, take this: the clearest finding from our survey is that culture is by far the greatest contributor to differences in project outcomes.

假如你想要從本計畫中找到有用的東西,請記下:從問卷中我們發現最清晰的訊息是文化就是造成專案產出差異最大的因素。

As developers, we spend an enormous amount of effort optimizing our code and our data.  There’s no reason we shouldn’t put an equivalent amount of effort into optimizing our teams.

身為一個開發者,我們花了很多時間去最佳化我們的程式碼與資料。沒道理我們不花時間去最佳化團隊本身。

We encourage developers who may be interested in further reading on the subject to pick up the books that inspired our models and learn directly from the source.

我們鼓勵對我們的研究有興趣的開發者選擇那些參考書籍來閱讀第一手資料。

In our next article, to be released next week, we’ll examine a raft of additional factors our team investigated that are specific to game development, including design risk management, crunch / overtime, project planning, respect, team focus, technical risk management, outsourcing, communication, and the organization’s perceptions of failure.

我們的下一篇文章,將在下禮拜釋出,會解釋那些特別針對遊戲產業的要素,包含風險管理,加班,專案規劃,尊嚴,專注,技術風險,外包,溝通及從組織如何看待失敗。

Finally, in part 4, we’ll offer a detailed analysis on the topic of crunch specifically, and we’ll show that the data makes a surprisingly strong case on this topic.

最後在第四篇,我們會提供一個對於加班這個題目的詳細分析,也會在這個議題上展示一個令人驚訝的案例。

The Game Outcomes Project team would like to thank the hundreds of current and former game developers who made this study possible through their participation in the survey.  We would also like to thank IGDA Production SIG members Clinton Keith and Chuck Hoover for their assistance with survey design; Kate Edwards, Tristin Hightower, and the IGDA for assistance with promotion; and Christian Nutt and the Gamasutra editorial team for their assistance in promoting the survey.

For further announcements regarding our project, follow us on Twitter at @GameOutcomes

“遊戲專案為何成功"團隊希望能感謝數百名現任開發者及前輩,讓這個問卷研究能順利進行。我們也同時感謝IGDA生產力同好會的成員Clinton Keith與Chuck Hoover在問題設計方面的協助;感謝IGDA的Kate Edward協助推廣此專案;感謝Christian Nutt,Tristin Hightower及Gamasutra編輯群對我們問卷的支持。對我們的進度有興趣的話,不妨追蹤我們在Twitter上的帳號@GameOutcomes

廣告

7 thoughts on “[翻譯] 遊戲專案為何成功系列之二:如何打造有效率的團隊

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s