The Game Outcomes Project, Part 2: Building Effective Teams
游戏专案为何成功系列之二：如何打造有效率的团队
网志版：http://wp.me/pBAPd-q9
原文网址：
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/PaulTozour/20150106/233254/The_Game_Outcomes_Project_Part_2_Building_Effective_Teams.php
缩网址：http://tinyurl.com/o64fr9h
撰文：Paul Tozour
繁体中文翻译：NDark
20150106
译按：本文是一篇统计学专业文章，若有翻译不正确的文句，请以原文为主。
This article is the second in a 4-part series.
Part 1 is available here: (Gamasutra) (BlogSpot) (LinkedIn) (traditional
Chinese 中国语文)
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。
第三，第四篇将以一周为周期在2015年一月释出。
想要知道问卷的方法论，请参阅部落格页面 "Game Outcomes Project Methodology"
"游戏专案为何成功"团队成员包含Paul Tozour，David Wegbreit，Lucien Parsons，
Zhenghua “Z” Yang，NDark Teng，Eric Byron，Julianna Pillemer，Ben Weber，及
Karen Buro。
The Game Outcomes Project, Part 2: Building Effective Teams
游戏专案为何成功系列之二：如何打造有效率的团队
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.
我们身为开发者，不论独立团队或大型超过百人的案子，或长时间开发的专案，我们费时
费力打造游戏，但我们一直不知道使用哪一种方法真的能够真的做到有效率。
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.
游戏开发有点像是玩扑克牌：充满了不确定性。有时是工作总是会超过预估，技术总是不
适用，游戏机制只在文件时期看起来有用。有时是外部的事件造成影响－母公司无预警关
闭，或是合约中的行销预算被挪做他用。更有时候，消费者的口味不按常理地剧变，默默
无名的某个开发者，一夜之间突然变成榜上金鸡。
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.
但即使是在赌博，优秀的赌客愿意接受可能失败的风险，懂得评估失败的可能性；也就是
依赖一种优秀的决策系统，甚至包含运气，来计算一手的胜率。
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.
但某些团队似乎总是有办法骰出豹子。有些团队似乎能够每年持续制造出世界级的游戏，
持续与社群成长。
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!)
有一篇讨论串"优秀的程式设计师产量是其他人的十倍"大家都看过。显然在不同团队工作
过后都会得出同样的结论。（特别是团队中有这种高效能的工程师）
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?
到底什么要素使得优秀的团队脱颖而出，假如我们找到那些优秀团队的共通之处，将会贡
献良多。
而更重要的是，我们，这个产业，是否想要知道这个答案？
我们有问到正确的问题吗？
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.
"游戏专案为何成功"这个团队就透过有系统性地，大范围的研究去筛选那些使得有效率团
队之所以有效率的要素。我们在2014年十月到十一月透过问卷，收集从几百位开发者来的
回馈。我们已经在我们的第一篇文章中描述了这次问卷的背景，以及在部落格解释了我们
方法论的细节。
Take a look at Figure 1 below, which illustrates some of our results.
看看这里的第一张图片，点出了我们的其中一个结果。
Figure 1. Correlation of our game development linear regression model
(horizontal axis) with aggregate project outcome score (vertical axis). 273
data points are shown. 游戏开发要素线性回归模型(水平轴)对上专案产出分数(垂直轴
)的关联性。共两百七十三份数据。
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).
分散点图中显示了我们设计的预测模型共30项要素与我们第一篇文章中提到的专案产出分
数的关联性，这个模型显示了非常强烈0.85的关联性以及小于0.0001的统计p值。这使我
们认为这就是我们原先在寻找的证据。
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.
简单来说，每个点代表一个问卷中的专案，垂直轴则是游戏是否成功，水平轴是我们的模
型是否预测它成功。
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.
图表中告诉我们右上方绿色的团队与左下方红色的团队行为模式的差异，而这些差异让我
们学到教训。
Here are four more charts, shown as an animated GIF on a 4-second timer.
Only the vertical axis changes in each case.
下面则是更多图表，以GIF图档四秒的周期轮播。垂直轴分别代表不同意义。
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.我们问卷中的预测模型与不同产出分数
的关联性，分别是专案利润，网页评论分数，专案延迟，内部满意度。这GIF图档以四秒
的周期轮播。颜色从红到绿是代表不同的产出分数，而列与列之间的数据是使用内差法计
算而来。
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.)
如图一，四种不同的产出分数：
内部满意度的关联性0.47
专案延迟的关联性0.55
专案利润的关联性0.52
网页分数的关联性0.69
全部的关联度其p值都小于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.
如同玩一场扑克牌，当然在游戏开发中有无法预测的风险。但学习更好的策略就会提高我
们的获胜机率。假如我们不断往右边的策略移动，当然也会把胜率往上提高，也就是成功
的专案。
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.
游戏专案是否成功的团队大多是游戏开发者，我们一开始研究这个议题就是我们希望能够
知道什么要素可以让我们做出好游戏，让我们都能获得更快乐与更有产出的未来。
假如你也希望知道这些要素，请接着看下去。
Hackman’s Model: Setting the Stage
哈克曼模型：设定舞台
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.
我们问卷的核心围绕在不同的团队效率模型，每一个都从团队效率的畅销书而来。
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.
第一个模型是哈克曼的领导团队：设定高效率的舞台。此书基于可扩增的研究与有效的管
理科学描述了透过五个关键要素加强团队效率到最佳化的模型，这种独特的方法并非认为
领导者或管理者是团队成功的驱动者，而视领导者是团队之一，设定适当的条件，就可增
加团队效率。
Briefly, Hackman’s enabling conditions are:
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.
Compelling Direction. There must be a motivating goal or important
objective that directs attention, energizes and sustains effort, and
encourages development of new strategies.
Enabling Structure. Tasks, roles, and responsibilities must be clearly
specified and designed for individual members.
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.
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).
简单来说哈克曼的模型条件是以下几个：
必须是一个真的团队。首先工作必须适合这个团队执行；在工作进行中团员必须互相
依赖；团队成员与否有一个明显界验。团队必须被清楚的授权进行他们的工作。团队成员
的组成必须是稳定的。团队必须基于不同的技术能力，合作，外部连结，团队大小，文化
与经验所组成。
明确的方向。必须有一个重要的目标来驱动团队的意图，来支持团队，并鼓励更佳策
略的发展。
明确的架构。任务，角色，责任必须明确并适合各位成员。
团队的支持信仰。团队必须有一种心理的安全性，或称安全感。也就是团队需要一个
共存的信仰。这种信仰可以让团队安全地承认错误，指出错误，警告潜在风险。团队还会
自动鼓励成员做出期待的行为，减少成员做出不预期的行为。强化团队间的回馈管道并能
让工作进行地更顺利，或为了完成任务产出辅助性工具。
专家的指引。团队需要来自团队外的专家，让团队表现地更有效率。包含鼓舞者，可
以加强成员的正确表现，减少惰性；顾问，提供可以加强效率的策略，避免犯错的规范，
确保工作与任务目标一致；教育训练导师，增强知识与技能。
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.
在我们的问卷中，我们针对每一个模型中的条件来设定分别的问题。由于空间不足，每个
条件都只有最多四个问题。
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.
结果如图三所示。右边的字段显示每一个问题对不同产出分数的关联性（专案延迟，专案
利润，网页分数，内部满意度），合计的结果，以及这个模型条件最高的分数。
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.哈克曼的模营数据结果，显示每个问题与产出分数的关联性。
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.
结果十分令人惊讶。每个独立的问题都与产出分数有正相关。特别是第二栏－明确的方向
。每一个问题都到达超过0.5的关联性。这告诉我们团队领导者必须提醒自己必须达到专
案视野的透明度，将其对团队清楚沟通，在专案开始时，才能让团队对梦想买单，并小心
那些可能会让团队偏离方向的举动。
(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.)
(注意全部的关联性的p值都小于0.01，指出清楚的统计表征。并注意在文章中的其余部分
，全部有提到的统计p值都小于0.05，然后Not S.S.代表没达成统计表征的意思)
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.
把这些结果与第一篇文章比较，在第一篇文章中我们很牵强才找到问题与产出的关联性。
即便是制程的方法论都没有明显的统计表征。
Lencioni’s Model: The Five Dysfunctions
兰西奥尼模型：五个障碍
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.
第二个团队效率的模型是基于兰西奥尼有名的管理书籍－领导者的寓言：团队的五个障碍
。与哈克曼的模型不同，这个模型是反向地描述团队犯错的地方，以团队的五个障碍来描
述，也就是当团队成长时，每个阶段都会遇到的病征。
Of course, there’s no substitute for reading the book, but briefly, we can
paraphrase the factors as follows:
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).
Fear of Conflict. The absence of trust and the desire to preserve
artificial harmony stifle the occurrence of productive conflict on the team.
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.
Avoidance of Accountability. The factors above – especially the lack of
commitment and fear of conflict – prevent team members from holding one
another accountable.
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.
当然，我们不需要整本书都说明，只须在此针对五个障碍作说明：
缺乏信任。团队成员间对于建立信任有种恐惧与抗拒。这与哈克曼模型的团队的支持
信仰几乎一致。
害怕冲突。未能建立信任会导致第二个障碍：害怕冲突。他们会倾向维持一个表面和
谐，而避免团队各种正面的冲突。
不愿承诺。缺乏信任与冲突。会导致不愿承诺。团队不愿意接下决策的责任，对决策
承诺。
拒绝承担。缺乏承诺，团队会衍生出避免承担的模式，表现得好像承担会对团队有害
一样。
对结果不积极。拒绝承担导致团队成员把自己的需求（个人状态与目标）置于团队的
目标之上。
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，我们把每个项目都列出三个问题，试着找出这项管理工具与团队产出的
相关联性。
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.五个障碍的关联性，Not S. S. 表示没有统计
表征。
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，这图表上有很多红色区块，以及负面的相关。这其实如我们所预期，也不是坏事
。因为大部分的问题描述都是以反向的方式来设计（例如：要求团队成员协助是很困难的
），因此一个负向的相关指出这个答案同意这个论述是对产出有害，也就是我们所期待的
结果。
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.
重要的是每个关联性项目的绝对值。绝对值越高，就越相关，不管是正或负。每个项目中
，正负都与问题问法相符，也符合五个障碍模型中所要告诉我们的。
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.
在右边的字段中，我们只挑选该区问题中的产出中最高的绝对数值，这五个对向专案产出
分数的数值都告诉我们与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.
这是另一个值得注目的结果。显然，不同的团队效率模型都显示出对专案产出分数的显著
关联性。
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.
有一些项目期关联性微弱或不显著（p值超过0.05）。第一个类别中的两个问题没有显示
与网页分数有相关，原因我们不得而知。同时团队激辩也与专案是否延迟没有相关。我们
深入思考，也许团队激辩其实是对游戏品质有正面帮助，虽然讨论造成时间消耗，但他也
帮助团队找到品质提高的方法，而团队也时候也会用时程来换取品质，也许这样的正面因
素抵消了时程上的问题。
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.
显然在这两个模型我们的产出分数都很有用。特别在哈克曼模型的"明确的架构"，以及"
团队的支持信仰"。兰西奥尼模型更专注于团队内部变化的量度，它给予我们两个补充及
对于团队效率同等有效的模型。
A Closer Look at Correlation
更进一步看关联性
But what do these correlations actually mean? How powerful is a “0.5
correlation?”
这些关联性到底是什么意思？为什么我们重视0.5的关联性这件事？
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.
我们做一个比较，在第一篇文章中，我们发现团队的平均开发经验有一个0.2的关联性，
因此可以认定超过0.2的关联性都比团队的开发经验还要强的关联性。
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.
我们用图来说明，我们把哈克曼模型中最高分的问题（"在团队中，对于最终游戏的愿景
是清楚且充分沟通的。"）针对专案利润这个产出项目的0.4关联性画在图上。（虽然总合
的关联性是0.56）为了清楚表示，我们把每一个点都画上专案利润产出分数的颜色，绿色
就是高总合值，红色是低总合值。
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."在团队中，对于最终游戏的愿景是清楚且充分沟
通的。"这项问题与专案利润产出分数的图，每一个点都代表一个问卷专案。每一个点的
颜色指出该团队的总和产出分数，总共202个结果。
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.”
注意到分布了吗？绿色的都在右下，左上都是红的，还有一些混合的在右边上面。属于高
度成功的二十二分回应中的十九份都是同意的那边，与高度获利雷同。在未获利这一侧，
五十八份中的三十份回应都是不同意这一边。
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，左下区块的空白显示了几乎没有团队是对于愿景不清楚的还能赚钱的。
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.
这似乎告诉我们，虽然方向明确的团队不见得会成功，但缺乏方向的团队一定会失败。
In other words, you can’t guarantee success, but you can certainly guarantee
failure.
换句话说，我们不能定义如何成功，但可以定义如何失败。
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.
我们在其他的问题都看到类似的分布。这里有另一个例子。问题"团队内的组织结构与成
员是明确与清楚的。"与利润产出有0.187的低关联度（该类别总和关联度则是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.组织结构与利润分成，每个点的颜色代表专案的
总产出分数。
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.
这些关联度互相是独立的，没有因果关系，也不可能证明团队故意要塑造成产出的差异。
严格来说我们只能推测，有可能的潜在的要素造成这种结果。
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.
从此论点反面来论述，我们可以认定也许有效率的团队就是雇用了比较优秀的人，优秀的
团队就造成了团队的差异性，也造成了专案的产出，其他的要素都是假议题。
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.
对这个论点，我们不会试着严格地辩护（但我们未来会把我们的数据资料开放给所有想要
研究的人）。然而，如果我们依照团队经验来分别查看，那些没有经验的团队，也都显示
相同的结果。如果团队经验真的很重要的话，结果不该如此。
Finally, let’s take a look at our third model and see how it fared.
最后，让我们来查看第三个模型的表现。
Gallup’s Model: ‘12’
盖洛普十二模型
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:
Knowing What’s Expected
Materials & Equipment
I Have the Opportunity to Do What I Do Best
Recognition and Praise
Someone at Work Cares About Me as a Person
Someone at Work Encourages My Development
My Opinions Seem to Count
I Have a Connection With the Mission of the Company
My Co-Workers are Committed to Doing Quality Work
I Have a Best Friend at Work
Regular, Powerful, Insightful Feedback
Opportunities to Learn and Grow
第三且最后的团队效率模型是基于华格纳与哈特的书：良好管理的十二个基石，而它是从
盖洛普由一千万劳工与管理者的数据中统计而出。这个模型是基于以下的十二个要素：
了解期待
装备与补给
有机会做到最好
认可与称赞
职场中有人关心我
职场中有人鼓励我的产出
我的意见很重要
我的工作与公司的目标一致
我的同僚都保证能产出优秀的作品
职场中有挚友
持续，有效，与充满洞见的工作回馈
学习与成长的机会
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:
因为这个模型的类别比较多，所以我们把每个类别的问题缩小到只有至多两个。关联度如
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.
这些发现比起哈克曼与兰西奥尼模型有各种不同现象。第十个要素没有统计表征，看来也
无关联。第三与第五个要素（分别是工作是否符合员工技能，以及是否关心员工）两者都
显示不够强烈的正相关，对比产出分数也有一半未有统计表征。第六个要素有中等关联性
，但对上网页分数的产出没有统计表征。
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，几个要素如第七，八，九，十一都有显示与专案产出有强烈的关联性。再来，这几
个要素都与哈克曼与兰西奥尼模型都有正交相关。显然，"聆听团队成员的意见"，"与公
司的目标一致"，"保证能产出优秀的作品"，"持续，有效，与充满洞见的工作回馈"都是
优秀团队的要素，要素第一，第二，第四，第十二也显示不错的统计关联性。
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.
最强烈关联性的第八个项目－"与公司的目标一致"是最值得一提的。它所显示的关联性是
整个模型中最高，甚至超乎哈克曼与兰西奥尼模型。
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.
有很多组织没有定义自己公司的价值观，或没有实际实践那些口号。因此我们常常很容易
讽刺这些墙壁上的名言，说它们毫无意义。
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.
但我们的结果清楚显示这些组织的价值观，对于产出有强烈影响，组织应该要更认真地思
考这些价值观，小心地把它们整合到文化里面，比起不做，是有办法提高优势的。像是几
个成功的公司像是Valve与Supercell都清楚地把它们的文化释放出来，也将那些价值观视
为是组织的策略。两者都有独特且适当地定义内部文化。
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.
我们的结果显示这并非巧合。
我们认为这结果并非仅是证明一小部分的盖洛普模型，同时也证明透过我们的问卷及对应
的分析方法可以找出哪些要素与游戏产出没有相关。
Conclusions
结论
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.
当我们观察个别的游戏专案，通常很难去看到它成功与失败之处。很容易因为见树不见林
，用任何其中一个要项如设计，领导，商业模型，加班，技术来随意作出一个结论。
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，把这么多专案放在一起比较，就可以看到那些暗示戏剧性的浮现出来。
虽然游戏专案有着无法避免的风险，如同赌博，还有着外部要素严重地影响，我们还是认
为游戏的产出是可以掌控在手中。团队才是掌控专案命运的最重要要素。
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.
我们的数据让我们不可避免得到这样的结论，最能够区分优秀团队就是仔细与执意地提高
团队效率，这对游戏专案产出有着巨大的影响。如图一所示，包含下一篇文章，所提到的
要素，都对产出分数有0.82的关联性。
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