Those of you who may remember me from TEDGlobal remember me asking a few questions which still preoccupy me.
对我在TEDGlobal有印象的观众们，大概会记得我曾经提出过一些问题，它们直到现在仍然困扰着我。
One of them was: Why is it necessary to spend six billion pounds speeding up the Eurostar train when,
有个问题是：为什么要花费六十亿英镑来提升欧洲之星的速度，
for about 10 percent of that money, you could have top supermodels, male and female,
当你只要花费这庞大预算的十分之一就可以请到顶级名模，无论男女，
serving free Chateau Petrus to all the passengers for the entire duration of the journey?
为乘客免费送上彼德绿堡红酒，让他们享受整个旅程呢？
You'd still have five billion left in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.
这样政府还可以省下五十亿英镑的预算，而且乘客还会希望列车跑慢一点。
Now, you may remember me asking the question as well, a very interesting observation,
你们现在也许会记得我提出的另一个问题，一个很有趣的观察，
that actually those strange little signs that actually flash "35" at you,
公路上奇特的小标示牌持续闪烁着数字：35，
occasionally accompanying a little smiley face or a frown, according to whether you're within or outside the speed limit
偶尔旁边还会摆一个笑脸或是哭脸，来表示你是否超速，
those are actually more effective at preventing road accidents than speed cameras, which come with the actual threat of real punishment.
它们其实比测速机更能有效预防车祸，尽管测速机是以实际的罚款警戒违规者。
So there seems to be a strange disproportionality at work, I think,
所以，这里就出现了一个奇怪的失衡，我想，
in many areas of human problem solving, particularly those which involve human psychology, which is:
在我们解决各种问题的时候，特别是那些涉及人类心理因素的问题，即：
The tendency of the organization or the institution is to deploy as much force as possible, as much compulsion as possible,
各种组织或机构往往倾向于尽量布置最多的财力物力，施加最大的压力；
whereas actually, the tendency of the person is to be almost influenced in absolute reverse proportion to the amount of force being applied.
但实际上，人们的倾向所受到的影响和数量却往往呈现反比关系。
So there seems to be a complete disconnect here. So what I'm asking for is the creation of a new job title
这里就出现一个完全不对头的情况。我认为应该出现一个新型职业，
I'll come to this a little later -- and perhaps the addition of a new word into the English language.
稍后我就会提到，并且可能会成为英文里的一个新名词。
Because it does seem to me that large organizations including government, which is, of course, the largest organization of all,
在我看来，多数的大型组织，包括政府，算是所有组织里最大型的，
have actually become completely disconnected with what actually matters to people.
实际上已变得完全脱节，不能配合群众的实际需要。
Let me give you one example of this.
让我举个例子。
You may remember this as the AOL-Time Warner merger, okay, heralded at the time as the largest single deal of all time.
还记得“美国在线与时代华纳”的合并吧？当时，它被称为有史以来最大的单笔交易。
It may still be, for all I know. Now, all of you in this room, in one form or other,
据我所知，现在可能还是如此。我想，在座的各位来自不同的领域，
are probably customers of one or both of those organizations that merged.
都有可能是两家合并公司或是其中之一的客户。
Just interested, did anybody notice anything different as a result of this at all?
那么，是否有人注意到合并所造成的任何变化？
So unless you happened to be a shareholder of one or the other organizations
所以除非你恰好持有两家公司的部分股份，
or one of the dealmakers or lawyers involved in the no-doubt lucrative activity,
或是曾经参与这次高利润活动的交易者或律师，
you're actually engaging in a huge piece of activity that meant absolutely bugger-all to anybody, okay?
否则你实际上不会察觉任何变化，其实这对各位来说都无关紧要。是吧？
By contrast, years of marketing have taught me that if you actually want people to remember you and to appreciate what you do,
相比之下，多年的营销经验让我了解，如果你真的想要其他人记得你并感激你的贡献的话，
the most potent things are actually very, very small.
最有用的，其实是那些非常、非常细微的事。
This is from Virgin Atlantic upper-class, it's the cruet salt and pepper set.
这是维珍航空的头等舱使用的盐和胡椒罐。
Quite nice in itself, they're little, sort of, airplane things.
看起来很可爱的小东西，确实像是可以免费带走的用品。
What's really, really sweet is every single person looking at these things has exactly the same mischievous thought,
有趣的是，当每位乘客看到它们的时候，内心都会暗地寻思：
which is, "I reckon I can heist these."
“我猜我可以带走它们。”
However, you pick them up and underneath, actually engraved in the metal, are the words, "Stolen from Virgin Atlantic Airways upper-class."
但是，要是你拿起那些罐子，会发现底座刻着这段句子：“窃取自维珍航空头等舱。”
Now, years after you remember the strategic question of whether you're flying in a 777 or an Airbus, you remember those words and that experience.
多年以后，当你已经淡忘当年坐的是波音777还是空中巴士后，你会记得那段有趣的语句和经验。
Similarly, this is from a hotel in Stockholm, the Lydmar.
同样的，这是在斯德哥尔摩的Lydmar宾馆。
Has anybody stayed there? It's the lift, it's a series of buttons in the lift.
有人住过那吗？那里的电梯有一串按钮。
Nothing unusual about that at all, except that these are actually not the buttons that take you to an individual floor.
看似平常，然而它们并不是用来指示要到达的楼层。
It starts with garage at the bottom, I suppose, appropriately, but it doesn't go up garage, grand floor, mezzanine, one, two, three, four.
最下面的按钮是Garage（车库），没错吧？但是上面这些按钮并不是写着“车库、大厅、夹层、一楼、二楼、三楼、四楼”。
It actually says garage, funk, rhythm and blues.
事实上，它们写着“车库、放克、节奏、蓝调”。
You have a series of buttons. You actually choose your lift music.
这列按钮是供你选择在电梯内播放的音乐。
My guess is that the cost of installing this in the lift in the Lydmar Hotel in Stockholm is probably 500 to 1,000 pounds max.
我猜Lydmar宾馆的电梯里安装这种音乐点播的系统，大约花费五百到一千英镑。
It's frankly more memorable than all those millions of hotels we've all stayed at
但它真的很令人难忘，比起我们住过的其他旅馆更加印象深刻，
that tell you that your room has actually been recently renovated at a cost of 500,000 dollars,
尽管那些旅馆常常告诉我们，你的住房才刚全新装潢，装修耗资五十万美元，
in order to make it resemble every other hotel room you've ever stayed in in the entire course of your life.
但那房间与其他旅馆的客房相比之下，没什么两样，根本就是过眼烟云。
Now, these are trivial marketing examples, I accept.
这些都是很细微的市场营销案例。
But I was at a TED event recently and Esther Duflo, probably one of the leading experts in,
但是，在我最近参与的一次TED活动中，经济学家Esther Duflo很可能是当前，
effectively, the eradication of poverty in the developing world, actually spoke.
在有效消除发展中国家贫困现象的这一领域上的主要的专家之一，她谈到了一个案例。
And she came across a similar example of something that fascinated me as being something which,
她提出一个类似的方案，我感到极大的兴趣，
in a business context or a government context, would simply be so trivial a solution as to seem embarrassing.
然而对于企业界和政府机关来说，这方案是如此微不足道，以至于显得很尴尬。
It was simply to encourage the inoculation of children by, not only making it a social event
这个方案是提倡儿童的疫苗接种不仅仅是个社会活动，
I think good use of behavioral economics in that, if you turn up with several other mothers to have your child inoculated,
这是对行为经济学的良好应用。如果你同另外几位母亲一起带自己的小孩去接种，
your sense of confidence is much greater than if you turn up alone.
你会比独自前往更有信心。
But secondly, to incentivize that inoculation by giving a kilo of lentils to everybody who participated.
但第二点是，为了鼓励接种，政府会配给每位参与接种的人一公斤扁豆。
It's a tiny, tiny thing. If you're a senior person at UNESCO and someone says, "So what are you doing to eradicate world poverty?"
这是很小很小的事情。如果你是联合国教科文组织的一个高级官员，当有人问起：“那你要怎么消除当今世界的贫困问题？”
you're not really confident standing up there saying, "I've got it cracked; it's the lentils," are you?
你不可能满怀自信地回答：“我搞定了，答案就是扁豆。”对吧？
Our own sense of self-aggrandizement feels that big important problems need to have big important, and most of all, expensive solutions attached to them.
自我优越性往往使我们觉得，重要的问题必须用看起来重大、而且通常很昂贵的方式才能解决。
And yet, what behavioral economics shows time after time after time is
其实不然，行为经济学一再地表明，
in human behavioral and behavioral change there's a very, very strong disproportionality at work,
在人类的行为与行为的改变之间出现了非常严重的比例失调，
that actually what changes our behavior and what changes our attitude to things
那些能够真正改变我们行为和态度的事，
is not actually proportionate to the degree of expense entailed, or the degree of force that's applied.
实际上不需要花费很可观的财力或是物力，
But everything about institutions makes them uncomfortable with that disproportionality.
但所有和机构有关的事物都使他们无法适应这种不等比例的情况。
So what happens in an institution is the very person who has the power to solve the problem also has a very, very large budget.
于是，这就造成机构中有权解决问题的人往往拥有巨额的预算。
And once you have a very, very large budget, you actually look for expensive things to spend it on.
一旦你有了巨额预算，解决问题的眼光就会放在较昂贵的事情上。
What is completely lacking is a class of people who have immense amounts of power, but no money at all.
如今我们所缺乏的正是有着巨大权力，但身无分文的人。
It's those people I'd quite like to create in the world going forward.
我希望在这日新月异的世界中能出现这样的人才。

Now, here's another thing that happens, which is what I call sometimes "Terminal 5 syndrome,"
还有一个现象，有时，我会称它为“第五航厦症候群”，
which is that big, expensive things get big, highly-intelligent attention, and they're great,
它是指，当完成耗资巨额的重要事件时，人们集中才智、精力，成果看起来就会很棒，
and Terminal 5 is absolutely magnificent, until you get down to the small detail, the usability, which is the signage, which is catastrophic.
而第五航厦的确是华丽壮观，直到你开始注意小细节与实用性时，例如指示牌，你就会发现，这简直是个灾难。
You come out of "Arrive" at the airport, and you follow a big yellow sign that says "Trains" and it's in front of you.
走出机场的入境关口后，你看到眼前有一个标明“列车”的大型黄色指示牌。
So you walk for another hundred yards, expecting perhaps another sign, that might courteously be yellow, in front of you and saying "Trains."
于是你跟随指示走上几百码，搜寻着新的指示牌，你希望在前方找到另一个黄色的“列车”指示。
No, no, no, the next one is actually blue, to your left, and says "Heathrow Express."
但，错了。下一个指示牌其实是蓝色的，且位置在你左方，上面是写“希斯路机场快线”。
I mean, it could almost be rather like that scene from the film "Airplane."
这实在太像喜剧电影《空前绝后满天飞》的搞笑片段了。
A yellow sign? That's exactly what they'll be expecting.
黄色的指示牌？这正是他们所期待的。
Actually, what happens in the world increasingly -- now, all credit to the British Airport Authority.
实际上，这种情况在世上可是层出不穷--全归功于英国机场管理局（对细节的忽略）。
I spoke about this before, and a brilliant person got in touch with me and said, "Okay, what can you do?"
我以前就谈过这问题了，当时一个聪明的人当面跑来问我说：“好，那你会怎么做？”
So I did come up with five suggestions, which they are actually actioning.
于是我给他五个建议，而且已经付诸实行了。
One of them also being, although logically it's quite a good idea to have a lift with no up and down button in it,
其中一个建议尽管在逻辑上说来是个好点子-- 一个没有上与下键的电梯。
if it only serves two floors, it's actually bloody terrifying, okay?
但如果电梯只在二层楼间运行的话，真的那样做其实蛮恐怖的，是吧？
Because when the door closes and there's nothing for you to do, you've actually just stepped into a Hammer film.
因为当门关上后，你根本就不用动手，彷佛一脚踏进恐怖电影的场景里。
So these questions ... what is happening in the world is the big stuff, actually, is done magnificently well.
这些问题都说明了当今世界发生的真正重要的问题，我们都能妥善解决。
But the small stuff, what you might call the user interface, is done spectacularly badly.
但细节问题，比如用户接口，就处理得糟糕透顶。
But also, there seems to be a complete sort of gridlock in terms of solving these small solutions.
同时，人们往往陷入一种僵局，以致于更难以解决这些细节问题。
Because the people who can actually solve them actually are too powerful and too preoccupied
因为能真正解决问题的人们往往位高权重，
with something they think of as "strategy" to actually solve them.
时常忙于思考“策略性”的问题而非实际解决。
I tried this exercise recently, talking about banking.
我最近遇到这样一件事，我和银行业的一些人谈话。
They said, "Can we do an advertising campaign? What can we do and encourage more online banking?"
他们问：“我们能够以广告竞争吗？如何推广网络银行业务？”
I said, "It's really, really easy."
我回答：“相当容易。”
I said, "When people login to their online bank there are lots and lots of things they'd probably quite like to look at.
“比如当人们登入到网络银行中，是为了查看各种信息。
The last thing in the world you ever want to see is your balance."
而最不愿意看的信息就是自己的结余。”
I've got friends who actually never use their own bank cash machines because there's the risk that it might display their balance on the screen.
我有一些朋友从来不用银行的提款机，仅仅是因为不愿看到自己的结余显示在屏幕上。
Why would you willingly expose yourself to bad news? Okay, you simply wouldn't.
谁愿意让自己得知坏消息呢？对，你当然不愿意。
I said, "If you make, actually, 'Tell me my balance.' If you make that an option rather than the default,
我告诉他们：“如果将'显示结余'从自动显示改为用户自行选择的话，
you'll find twice as many people log on to online banking, and they do it three times as often."
你会发现，使用网络银行的用户将会增长一倍，而且登入频率也会增加两倍。”
Let's face it, most of us -- how many of you actually check your balance before you remove cash from a cash machine?
说实话，我们之间有多少人会在提款前查看自己的结余？
And you're pretty rich by the standards of the world at large.
更不用说以世界平均衡量，你们相当富裕。
Now, interesting that no single person does that, or at least can admit to being so anal as to do it.
看吧，在场没有一位会看的，或是说，即使会看也不敢让别人知道。
But what's interesting about that suggestion was that, to implement that suggestion wouldn't cost 10 million pounds;
关于这个提议，有趣的是执行的花费不会超过一千万英镑，
it wouldn't involve large amounts of expenditure; it would actually cost about 50 quid. And yet, it never happens.
实际上，开支非常少，不过五十英镑左右。然而它至今从未实行。
Because there's a fundamental disconnect, as I said, that actually, the people with the power want to do big expensive things.
这就回到我所说的严重脱节的问题上，即，有权的人，只想做巨大、浪费钱的事。
And there's to some extent a big strategy myth that's prevalent in business now.
然而，现在有一种策略上的迷思在企业界很普遍。
And if you think about it, it's very, very important that the strategy myth is maintained.
如果多加思考就会发现，非常、非常重要的一点是这个策略迷思仍然普遍维持着。
Because, if the board of directors convince everybody that the success of any organization is almost entirely dependent on the decisions made by the board of directors,
因为，董事会必须说服公司成员，任何共同成就几乎都得完全归功于董事会的决策，
it makes the disparity in salaries slightly more justifiable
这才能使薪资的巨大差异显得更合理，
than if you actually acknowledge that quite a lot of the credit for a company's success might actually lie somewhere else, in small pieces of tactical activity.
而不会承认公司的成功有大多数其实都在于别的方面，比如那些细微的策略运作。
But what is happening is that effectively -- and the invention of the spreadsheet hasn't helped this;
但，现在的实际情况是--电子表格软件的发明与此无关，
lots of things haven't helped this -- business and government suffers from a kind of physics envy.
许多事情和它丝毫没有一点关联--在企业界和政府部门中都承受一种类似物理钦羡的心理。
It wants the world to be the kind of place where the input and the change are proportionate.
他们希望这个世界是有一分投注就有一分收获的。
It's a kind of mechanistic world that we'd all love to live in where, effectively,
如果世界是符合机械理论的，我们应该都会乐见于此，
it sits very nicely on spreadsheets, everything is numerically expressible,
像是所有的事物都可以在电子表格软件上以数据形式清晰地显示出来，
and the amount you spend on something is proportionate to the scale of your success.
而你在事物上所投入的时间会完全回馈于你的收效上。
That's the world people actually want. In truth, we do live in a world that science can understand.
大家都渴望这样的世界。而实际上，我们也生活在一个以科学为基础的世界。
Unfortunately, the science is probably closer to being climatology in that in many cases,
不幸的是，这种科学很可能更类似气象学，在许多情况下，
very, very small changes can have disproportionately huge effects,
非常、非常微小的变动就可以造成翻天覆地的变化，
and equally, vast areas of activity, enormous mergers, can actually accomplish absolutely bugger-all.
相反的，大范围活动、大企业合并，到头来不过是无关痛痒。
But it's very, very uncomfortable for us to actually acknowledge that we're living in such a world.
但我们很难实际地承认世界就是如此不合逻辑。
But what I'm saying is we could just make things a little bit better for ourselves if we looked at it in this very simple four-way approach.
我想说的是，许多事情都能变得更加容易，只要我们将此分成四个大类。
That is actually strategy, and I'm not denying that strategy has a role.
这是“策略”方面，当然不否认每个策略都有实用的地方。
You know, there are cases where you spend quite a lot of money and you accomplish quite a lot.
要知道，毕竟有些事情确实需要耗资不斐才有可观的成果。
And I'd be wrong to dis that completely. Moving over, we come, of course, to consultancy.
我不否认这种可能。然后我们来说一下，没错，“咨询”方面。
I thought it was very indecent of Accenture to ditch Tiger Woods in such a sort of hurried and hasty way.
在我看来，埃森哲这样草率地弃泰格·伍兹不顾，是一件很不光彩的事。
I mean, Tiger surely was actually obeying the Accenture model.
因为泰格实际上遵循了埃森哲的服务模式。
He developed an interesting outsourcing model for sexual services,
他建立一个很有趣的性服务外包服务，
no longer tied to a single monopoly provider, in many cases, sourcing things locally,
不再被单一的“供货商”垄断，在多数情况下本地“采购”，
and of course, the ability to have between one and three girls delivered at any time led for better load-balancing.
同时，在任何时候都有一到三个女生持续供应服务，使负载更加平衡。
So what Accenture suddenly found so unattractive about that, I'm not sure.
所以埃森哲为什么突然不喜欢泰格了？真是难以理解。
Then there are other things that don't cost much and achieve absolutely nothing. That's called trivia.
还有一类事情虽然花费不高，却也没什么成效。人们称之为“琐事”。
But there's a fourth thing. And the fundamental problem is we don't actually have a word for this stuff.
但最后还有第四类事情。根本的问题是我们没有词语来形容这类事情。
We don't know what to call it. And actually we don't spend nearly enough money looking for those things,
我们不知道该如何称呼它。而且我们很少花费资金来寻找这类事物，
looking for those tiny things that may or may not work,
尽管它们微不足道，但却可能带来大的改变，
but which, if they do work, can have a success absolutely out of proportion to their expense, their efforts and the disruption they cause.
如果确实起了作用，那么它们取得的成功绝对会远超当初所投入的人力、物力以及实行中造成的干扰。
So the first thing I'd like is a competition -- to anybody watching this as a film -- is to come up with a name for that stuff on the bottom right.
因此，首先我希望每一个看过这次演讲的人都来参与一个竞赛，就是为右下角第四项事项命名。
And the second thing, I think, is that the world needs to have people in charge of that.
其次，我认为，这个世界需要有人来掌握这类事情。
That's why I call for the "Chief Detail Officer."
这就是为何我呼吁“细节总监”的设立。
Every corporation should have one, and every government should have a Ministry of Detail.
每个公司都该有这个职位，而每个政府都该设立“细节部门”。
The people who actually have no money, who have no extravagant budget,
担任此职的人不能有太多钱，不能有庞大的预算，
but who realize that actually you might achieve greater success in uptake of a government program by actually doubling the level of benefits you pay,
并且要能意识这一点: 付出双倍的津贴有可能在政府工作中取得更大的绩效；
but you'll probably achieve exactly that same effect simply by redesigning the form and writing it in comprehensible English.
但要取得同样的效果，你通常只需要重新设计表格，并以更明白的英文表示。
And if actually we created a Ministry of Detail and business actually had Chief Detail Officers,
如果政府真的设立了细节部门，而企业有细节总监，
then that fourth quadrant, which is so woefully neglected at the moment, might finally get the attention it deserves. Thank you very much.
那么这个第四类领域，这个时常不幸遭人漠视的事项，到时大概就会得到应有的关注。非常感谢大家。