廣告

2011年8月31日 星期三

郭台銘越是心急: 中國工資水平不斷上漲: 幾乎為毛利潤的兩倍




a pop, ill-fated

Losing $207 a Pop, H-P Revives iPad Rival H-P said it will temporarily resume manufacturing of its ill-fated TouchPad tablet just 11 days after killing its iPad rival as part of a sweeping corporate overhaul.






2011年08月31日 12:43 PM Lex專欄:富士康漲工資 Lex_Hon Hai / Foxconn: wage slaves 英國《金融時報》 Lex專欄
Executives at Foxconn International Holdings, the contract handset manufacturer, like to talk about keeping pace with “industry game-changing movements”. That is to be expected: customers from Espoo to Cupertino are in a state of flux. But the reality is that the more significant developments are unfolding right on the doorstep of the Hong Kong-listed company, headquartered in Shenzhen. Six-month figures published late on Monday showed costs per employee up by exactly one-third, year-on-year, to just under US $2,900. The total staff bill was $272m: almost double gross profit.
手機合同製造商富士康國際控股(Foxconn International Holdings)的高管們,喜歡談論緊跟“行業遊戲規則的變化趨勢”。這在人們的意料之中,因為該公司在世界各地——從芬蘭埃斯波到美國庫比提諾——的眾多客戶正在不斷地推陳出新(譯者註:上述兩地分別是諾基亞和蘋果總部) 但現實情況卻是,在這家總部位於深圳的香港上市公司的家門口,正上演著更加重要的變化。富士康週一晚發布的中報顯示,員工上半年的平均收入同比上漲了整整三分之一,達到將近2900美元;企業工資支出總額為2.72億美元,幾乎為毛利潤的兩倍。
For Foxconn's 71 per cent owner, Hon Hai Precision Industry of Taipei, this is nothing particularly new: rising wages on the mainland helped to drive the consolidated operating margin of the world's largest contract manufacturer of electronic devices, spanning FIH and 22 other subsidiaries, from 4-5 per cent 10 years ago to a 1-2 per cent range now. Until the 2008-2009 crisis, though, rising sales more than offset that decline, keeping earnings-per-share ticking up by about a quarter each year. Not any more. Hon Hai missed profit estimates for the third quarter in a row this week. Full-year EPS is currently expected at about nine-tenths of its 2007 peak.
對持有富士康71%股份的台北鴻海精密(Hon Hai Precision Industry)來說,這已經不是什麼新鮮事了:大陸工資水平不斷上漲,是導致這家世界最大電子設備合同製造商(旗下擁有富士康國際控股等23家子公司)的綜合營業利潤率從10年前的4%-5%降到如今的1%-2%的一個原因。然而,在2008-09年經濟危機之前,銷售額的升幅超出了營業利潤率的降幅,這使得該公司每股收益得以保持每年約四分之一的增長。如今,這種增長維持不下去了。本周鴻海發布了季報,其營利連續第三季度未達到預期。人們現在預測,鴻海今年全年的每股收益將為2007年峰值的九成左右。
Even if chairman Terry Gou succeeds in protecting Hon Hai's top line, investments in new areas such as solar energy and cloud computing may keep net margins low. And the more the group scrambles to adjust to structural pressures, the less sure-footed it looks: witness the deadly explosion in M​​ay at a polishing facility for iPad 2 casings in Chengdu; production had been relocated there only months earlier from more expensive Shenzhen. Little wonder the stock's valuation premium has all but evaporated. Hon Hai and its offshoots are looking like relics from another era.
即便董事長郭台銘(Terry Gou)成功保住鴻海的營收,該集團在太陽能和雲計算等新領域的投資也可能會壓低淨利潤率。鴻海越是心急火燎地作出調整、以應對結構性壓力,它的形勢似乎就越不順利:5月份,鴻海設在成都的iPad2外殼拋光工廠發生爆炸,造成人員傷亡,而這家工廠是幾個月前剛剛從用工成本更高的深圳搬遷來的。難怪鴻海股票的估值溢價幾乎完全蒸發了。鴻海及其子公司現在看起來越來越像上一個時代​​留下來的古董。

譯者/何黎

AT&T: 美國司法部修理鄙公司 給你甜頭

美國司法部修理鄙公司

DOJ Sues to Block AT&T, T-Mobile Deal
The Justice Department is suing to block AT&T's proposed $39 billion takeover of T-Mobile, saying the deal would hurt competition and likely raise prices.


給你甜頭
AT&T Pledges to Bring Jobs to U.S.
AT&T said it would bring 5,000 wireless call-center jobs it has outsourced abroad back to the U.S. if its proposed $39 billion deal to buy T-Mobile is approved by regulators.

2011年8月28日 星期日

台大醫院的查核表和嚴重的管理問題


其實我根本不相信報紙說的這套說詞

台大醫院的查核表根本沒"愛滋病"這條 雖然他們到政府網路登記有此項
換句話說 這是一家只知效率 不知品質的著名的台大醫院


台灣龍頭醫院台大醫院發生致命疏失,將愛滋病患器官移植到病患上,共有5病患受害。怎麼會發生如此疏失?除了台大醫院在確認捐贈 者時檢驗結果時,通報台大醫檢師講的是「reactive」(陽性),接話的器捐移植小組協調師誤聽為「non-reactive」(陰性)外,移植團隊 未在手術前二次確認,造成如此遺憾。

男子的器官由台大和成大進行移植手術,成大表示,手術前曾至衛署器捐中心做二度確認,發現台大登錄於該中心資料,捐贈者是愛滋陰性。


【アジア発!Breaking News】「陽性」と「陰性」を聞き間違え。HIVに感染した臓器を5人に移植。(台湾
Techinsight japan
台湾のトップ医療を誇る台湾大学付設病院(以下台大病院)で、HIVに感染した臓器を誤って移植するという信じられない事件が起きた。移植前の検査結果を報告する電話を受けた台大病院の移植チームスタッフが、「reactive」(陽性)と「non-reactive」(陰性)を聞き間違え ...

2011年8月26日 星期五

華碩淡出智慧手機

資源焦點是很重要的 董事長領軍也會敗下來

---

策略大轉彎 華碩淡出智慧手機

轉攻Pad Phone 調升今年平板出貨量

【王郁倫╱台北報導】華碩(2357)智慧手機策略大轉彎,手持裝置事業群本月併入系統產品事業群平板團隊,華碩淡出智慧手機,改攻Pad Phone利基市場。總經理沈振來表示:「專注很重要,我們不是要放棄手機,整合比純手機機會還要大。」華碩同時微幅調升今年平板出貨目標至 150~200萬台。

沈振來昨日主持法說會時透露,華碩手持裝置事業群將在本月併入系統產品事業群,預計將有800~900位人力納入平板電腦團隊中,使華碩產品組織將只剩下開放式平台事業群及系統產品事業群2部分。


華碩2009年組織調整為3大事業群,由3位首長領軍,其中沈振來負責系統電腦事業群,曾鏘聲負責管理開放式平台事業群,而手持裝置由董事長施崇棠統領。沈振來表示,施崇棠是最高主管,手機團隊也培養出一批戰將,兩事業群整合後可以一起打仗。

手持事業併入平板團隊

智慧手機市場戰況激烈,個人電腦(PC)品牌業者雖有意積極布局卡位,但紛傳失利,惠普宣布WebOS手機喊停,而宏碁(2353)智慧手機高階主管艾瑪爾也求去,華碩與國際航電拆夥後,內部也決定智慧手機業務朝利基市場發展,不在主流市場混戰。


華碩6月在台北國際電腦展中,施崇棠展示可從平板電腦背後抽出的智慧手機Pad Phone,該產品預計明年首季推出,內部認為該產品美學跟創新度都很好,價格定位會非常犀利。
沈振來表示,專注很重要,平板電腦從銷售狀況來看,華碩是優等生,通路庫存很低,期望藉由Pad Phone引起一些話題,這支手機跟平板能獨立使用,Phone Plus one(手機加1)希望能闖出成績。沈振來認為,Pad Phone開發後,手機團隊士氣更好。

PC品牌卡位手機大不易

沈振來表示:「我們不是要放棄手機,只是認為這樣機會比純手機來得大。」他表示,智慧手機市場三星跟宏達電創新速度都很厲害,華碩的機會要從Pad Phone再出發。


康和證券分析師郭明錤表示,平板電腦使用習慣較像個人電腦,手機則跟電腦關係不大,電腦廠商作手機在通路跟設計上挑戰性較高,他認為華碩這次的作法是正面的,先把平板做好,回頭再攻手機還有機會。

認為谷歌不會跨入平板

他解釋,主要是因為周邊應用軟體不夠成熟,預估要1年時間陣營氣勢才會成行,另外惠普出清99美元(2871元台幣)平板,近2周內會受影響,故華碩對第1年平板電腦估計量保守一點,等未來應用程式豐富化,平板電腦銷量將會大幅起飛。


對於Google(谷歌)購併摩托移動手機部門,造成客戶衝突,沈振來表示,Google沒理由自己下來做平板,他並不擔心,而也看好明年Windows8在10吋以上大螢幕的發展。

2011年8月21日 星期日

談組織出版的能力

談組織出版的能力

昨晚在胡思書店免費取得數本結緣書,都相當不錯。每本書都值得發揮「牢騷力」。先談這本原書是美國品質協會 (ASQ) 品質出版社的翻譯

Finding the Leader in You: A Practical Guide to Expanding Your Leadership Skills by Anton G. Gamarota, Quality press, American Society for Quality, 2004

《成就卓越領導:發現你的領導力》北京:科學技術技能出版社2006/2008二版

過去近50年來中華民國品質學會 CSQ在出版方面,不管是月刊》和叢書

都採取設立出版委員會的方式應付,初期可以,然而現在狀況令人很尷尬了

日本過去60,「品質與生產力」這領域,至少有數家常青的出版社出版月刊和叢書:科技連盟 JUSE、規格協會、日本能率協會。他們還有專門的出版社負責翻譯日本人的著作成英文並行銷全球的,譬如說 3A 出版公司

台灣的對應單位CSQ和CPC 等,都各有奇怪的發展,不過成績馬虎

美國的ASQ 的會員月刊Quality Progress 等一向還可以。不過,到了80年代,他們發現在出版上,除了老牌的管理協會AMA之外,遠落後日本。所以私立的如Productivity Press ASQ Quality Press 成立了。前者譯介不少日本的東西,而後者訂下的出版規格是:只要內容品質還可以,就出版──美國的出版品的標準已建立,包括幾乎每本書一定有索引

20多年來Quality Press 可能已出版數百本書了。在我這種挑的人,似乎沒一本是讓我眼睛一亮的佳作,然而它保持既定的方針出版,現在「蔚為大觀」

我覺得慚愧的是,與林公孚和戴久永老師當過CSQ的出版委員 (90年代初),不過成績幾乎是零

2011年8月20日 星期六

Google vs Apple; HP vs IBM/ shares fell 21% Friday

一流的公司注重利潤和營業的穩定和成長

Google vs Apple; HP vs IBM是近日 的一些例子


H-P Plans to Spin Off PC Business
H-P, the world's biggest computer maker, is expected to spin off its PC business and is close to a $10 billion deal to acquire U.K. data-analytics firm Autonomy.

----補 現在我們該思考hp幾年前的大內鬥 當時創始人的兒子即不贊成將 pc當核心業務 當時印表機還是高利潤事業 現在 俱失.....

Hewlett-Packard shares fell 21% Friday morning as Wall Street's confidence was shaken by management's dramatic restructuring plans and the company's again-reduced outlook.



H.P. Plans Big Shift Toward Business Customers

The company said it was considering spinning off its personal computer business into a separate company.


2011年8月19日 星期五

Burger King Fires the "King"

Burger King Fires the "King"

The fast food chain will part ways with its big-headed mascot as it looks to reinvent itself.

READ FULL STORY

2011年8月15日 星期一

Google to Buy Motorola Mobility, Arming Android

Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility

Arming Android

Aug 15th 2011, 19:56 by L.S. | LONDON

SHOCK. Bombshell. Incredible. Even seasoned observers of the technology industry could not hide their surprise when it was announced on Monday, August 15th, that Google, the online giant, would buy Motorola Mobility, a maker of handsets and other electronic devices, for a whopping $12.5 billion. The deal not only comes as a surprise, it will have a big impact on the mobile industry, too.

For starters, the merger is very good news for the shareholders of Motorola Mobility, among them Carl Icahn, the activist investor. The offer—$40 a share in cash—is 63% above the closing price of Motorola Mobility’s shares on Friday. It is unlikely that shareholders would have got such a price on the open market any time soon. Although Motorola Mobility, which was only spun-off from Motorola in January, has staged something of a turnaround, it is still too small to compete with much bigger rivals such as Apple, Nokia and Samsung. Since March its shares had been trading below their issue price of $25.

As for Google, although it will spend about one-third of its cash on the biggest acquisition in its 13-year history, it will also get a lot: plenty of ammunition in the ongoing battle between mobile platforms. Android, Google’s operating system for smartphones and other mobile devices, has taken the world by storm. In America it now powers nearly 40% of new smartphones, outdoing the platforms of Apple and RIM, the maker of BlackBerry smartphones. Worldwide more than 150m Android devices have been activated, a number that is growing by more than half a million every day.

Yet the Android “ecosystem”, as geeks call it, is also facing growing challenges. For one, the operating system has yet to make much headway in the market for computing tablets, mainly because Android devices are still not as user-friendly as Apple’s iPad. More importantly, although Google does not charge for Android, it is becoming increasingly costly for handset-makers—because rivals claim it infringes on intellectual property owned by other firms. In early 2010 HTC, one of the leading vendors of Android devices, agreed to pay royalties to Microsoft for the use of its patents ($5 per device, according to some estimates). And in July Apple won a legal victory against HTC in a patent infringement suit, which could lead to even higher payments.

Taking over Motorola will help Google to overcome both of these problems. Owning a handset-maker allows the firm to integrate software and hardware more smoothly. It should not only be able to deliver more competitive Android tablets, but speed up the development of other sorts of consumer electronics (Motorola Mobility also sells television set-top boxes). In addition, Google will gain control of Motorola’s huge portfolio of intellectual property, which includes 17,000 patents worldwide. This will give Google—and, indirectly, makers of Android devices—a much better bargaining position in current and future legal battles, which include litigation brought by Oracle, a software firm, over Android’s use of Java, a software technology.

Although Motorola Mobility’s shares soared close to the price offered by Google, suggesting that the market thinks that the takeover will succeed, it could still hit snags. Another suitor may emerge, possibly Oracle. Antitrust authorities on both sides of the Atlantic, which already have Google in their sights, will certainly take a close look, although it seems unlikely that they will block the merger. More fundamentally, the acquisition could discourage other handset-makers from using Android for their devices if they worry that Motorola will gain an unfair advantage. To allay such fears, Google has said that it will run Motorola as a separate business and that it will not change in any way how it manages Android.

Even if the merger, as so many before it, turns out to be a costly mistake, it is another sign that the market for smartphones and other mobile devices will end up looking different from the personal-computer industry. Whereas with PCs operating systems were developed by one set of companies (mostly Microsoft) and the machines by another (Dell, HP, Acer), mobile devices seem to demand a deeper integration of software and hardware, delivered by a single firm. This has always been Apple’s approach. HP also has its own mobile operating system, WebOS.

Google now seems to be going down this path, and others may follow suit. After the announcement of Google’s takeover of Motorola Mobility, analysts began speculating that Microsoft might now buy RIM or, more likely, Nokia, which has already agreed to use Microsoft’s Windows Phone as the software to power its next generation of smartphones.



Google to Buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 Billion

With its largest acquisition ever, Google, the maker of the Android mobile operating system, would become a full-fledged cellphone manufacturer, in competition with Apple.

歌(Google Inc., GOOG)同意以125億美元收購摩托羅拉移動公司(Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., MMI)﹐這標誌著摩托羅拉移動獨立運營的終結﹐也意味著智能手機市場即將重塑。

谷 歌通過向手機製造商免費授權Android移動平台實現了Android系統的普及﹐現在又通過收購摩托羅拉移動進軍硬件市場﹐並可能以更優惠的條件對競 爭對手蘋果公司(Apple Inc.)形成挑戰﹐但同時也會給三星電子(Samsung Electronics Co., 005930.SE)、宏達國際電子股份有限公司(HTC Corp., 2498.TW, 簡稱﹕宏達國際)和LG電子(LG Electronics Inc., 066570.SE)等合作夥伴帶來問題。

Paul Sakuma/Associated Press
摩托羅拉Xoom平板電腦
谷歌還將獲得大量專利權。在科技行業的知識產權之爭日趨激烈之際﹐這些專利將成為谷歌自衛的武器。

更 根本的是﹐該交易意味著移動市場競爭的進一步升級。蘋果公司已經在執行一些人所謂的“圍牆花園”(walled garden)戰略﹐經營軟件、移動應用以及iPhone和iPad等移動設備。今年早些時候﹐微軟(Microsoft Corp.)與諾基亞(Nokia Corp.)達成廣泛協議﹐作為全球頂尖手機生產商的諾基亞將在智能手機中搭載Windows移動操作系統。

現在﹐谷歌也開始密切整合硬件與軟件業務。

谷歌管理人士在電話會議中表示﹐此次收購將使Android操作系統免受專利威脅。谷歌還保證該交易不會影響它與採用Android系統的手機製造商的關係。

谷歌首席執行長Larry Page表示﹐隨著移動業務佔據核心位置﹐與摩托羅拉移動合併將是谷歌發展過程中至關重要的一步。

他補充說﹐摩托羅拉移動擁有令人振奮的產品規劃和非常廣闊的增長前景﹔其強大的專利組合將使谷歌的Android系統免受微軟、蘋果和其他公司的競爭威脅。

谷 歌預計在2012年年初完成這項交易。目前該交易已獲得雙方董事會的批准。據《華爾街日報》(The Wall Street Journal)報導﹐該交易包含25億美元的逆向解約賠償。由於谷歌已經引起美國司法部(Department of Justice)反壟斷部門的注意﹐這樁交易的龐大規模使人們不禁擔心它的監管審批前景。

谷歌一直被認為在無線和電訊專利方面比較薄弱。 最近﹐在爭奪北電網絡有限公司(Nortel Networks co., NRTLQ)專利權的過程中﹐谷歌又敗給了蘋果和微軟等科技巨頭。同時﹐谷歌與微軟還一直就專利權招標問題大打口水仗﹐凸現出該市場對此類專利資產的競爭 日趨激烈。

Evercore Partners分析師Alkesh Shah表示﹐谷歌的一大短板就是它只擁有數千個權利﹐而且面臨大量的專利權訴訟﹔而摩托羅拉的專利權組合為抵御這些訴訟構築了一道強有力的防線。

谷 歌將把摩托羅拉移動作為單獨業務運營。摩托羅拉移動還將是谷歌Android系統的授權使用方。至於該交易將對谷歌與其他Android合作夥伴的關係產 生什麼影響﹐目前還不而知。這些合作夥伴包括宏達國際電子、LG電子和三星電子。但谷歌在新聞稿中說﹐不會有什麼不同。

谷歌負責移動業務的高級副總裁Andy Rubin表示﹐他昨天與Android的五大授權方進行了交流﹐他們都非常支持這次收購。

宏達國際電子與三星電子的移動設備在搭載了免費的Android軟件之後銷量上升﹐緩解了市場份額被蘋果iPhone蠶食的壓力。包括LG在內的這三家生產商都表示要在今年擴大Android移動設備的產量。

宏達國際表示支持谷歌的收購﹐稱該公司將因為Android手機的推廣而受益﹐而且該公司與谷歌的合作關係不會受到影響。三星電子和LG則拒絕發表評論。

另 外﹐對Research in Motion Ltd. (RIMM, RIM.T)和諾基亞來說﹐這樁交易可能是喜憂參半的。雖然谷歌與摩托羅拉合併會對這些困境中的智能手機生產商構成更大的威脅﹐但同時也會提升RIM與諾基亞專利權的價值。此外﹐這兩家公司都不使用Android﹐所以即使谷歌收回Android﹐它們也不會受到影響。

Gartner的分析師Carolina Milanesi表示﹐對谷歌來說﹐該交易更大的意義在於平板電腦市場﹐目前Android在這個市場難以抗衡蘋果的iPad。


2011年8月12日 星期五

沒有安全和服務品質的排名Aviation Week

沒有安全和服務品質的排名

美國《航空周刊》(Aviation Week)公布最新「全球最佳航空公司」排行榜,前3名分別為新加坡航空、國泰航空及阿拉斯加航空。中華航空名列第10,是唯一上榜的台灣航空公司。



中華航空榮獲國際航空專業媒體雜誌 Aviation Week 2011年「全球最佳航空公司」第十名,華航是台灣唯一入選前10名的全球最佳航空公司,顯示「華航」品牌長期努力,深獲國際航空專業媒體肯定,在全球消費者心目中,是台灣最佳的航空公司。

美國航空週刊 Aviation Week 雜誌每年邀請專家評比,分為全球主流航空公司、廉價航空及區域航空等三大類評選,評分項目涵蓋財務流動性(20%)、財務健全性(30%)、獲利表現 (30%)、油料成本管理(10%)及資產運用性(10%)。在全球主流航空業者中,華航今年榮獲第10名,較去年躍升8名,同時也獲得進步獎第4名。今 年全球最佳航空前三名分別為新加坡航空、國泰航空、阿拉斯加航空。

美國航空週刊Aviation Week指出,中國大陸將快速取代日本成為亞洲對外的主要孔道,新興中國大陸市場造就大陸航線旺盛,今年排名受中國效應(The China Effect) 及兩岸直航影響,台灣航空業者成為大陸航線的主要受惠業者,表現突出:中國大陸的航空公司如國航、南航及東航,在品牌、產品及服務方面則急起直追。同時, 國際航空聯盟的天合聯盟(SkyTeam)也看好中國大陸市場,加入南航、東航以強化成長,此外華航將於9月28日正式加入天合聯盟,成為第十五個會員, 和東航、南航形成兩岸市場的鐵三角,未來藉由聯盟的綿密航網,可提供旅客更便捷與多元的服務。

hp 的TouchPad 下殺2成價 (2個月後)

Hewlett-Packard has dropped the price of its TouchPad tablet by 20% less than two months after it hit stores, as the computer giant tries to boost sales of its answer to Apple's iPad.


商場上就是這樣 沒搞頭之後 2個月就可以下殺2成的價錢
這樣表示它是領導者 毛利希望保持3-4成
也說明施展不開來
行銷的"經驗曲線" 律?

2011年8月11日 星期四

交通機関の運行予定。ダイヤ。

北京―上海の高速鉄道、大幅減便へ 鉄道省が安全を重視


 中国浙江省温州市の高速鉄道事故を受け、中国鉄道省は安全確保のため、北京―上海間の高速鉄道の運行本数を大幅に減らすなどのダイヤ改定を、16日から 段階的に実施することを明らかにした。国営新華社通信が11日伝えた。中国政府は前日に国務院(内閣に相当)常務会議を開き、安全重視の姿勢を打ち出して いた。

 北京―上海線では、現在88往復を66往復に減らす。大手車両メーカー「中国北車」が製造した「CRH380BL」で故障が相次いでいるため。

 また、7月のダイヤ改定では最高時速350キロを維持した北京―天津、上海―杭州線でも300キロに減速する。これに伴い、運賃も5%前後値下げする。(北京=吉岡桂子)


ダイヤグラム【diagram】
1 線図。図表。 2 列車など、交通機関の運行状況を1枚の図に表示したもの。また、その運行予定。ダイヤ。


南西急行の臨時列車ダイヤ


 南西急行は、沿線に利用者数の波動が大きい大規模集客施設(KDW、新長坂ららぽーと、美咲空港…etc)や国際的観光地(青海半島・水澄)を有 しているため、臨時列車による増発や、団体列車による大口団体の輸送に臨機応変に対応できるよう、「盛り込みスジ」と呼ばれる増発用のダイヤを準備してい る。
 本項では、この「盛り込みスジ」がどのように構成されているか、平成21年10月改正ダイヤに基づいて解説する。

【1】東京線(急行線)
 東京線(急行線)では日中の1時間に、臨Aと呼ばれる急行列車増発用のスジが4往復、臨Bと呼ばれる団体列車増発用のスジが4往復用意されている。
 臨Aのスジ(下図の破線)は、基本的に新宿~旗塚間の普通列車を延長運転する形で設定され、青海・水澄線への直通に際しては、美咲~八浦(新八浦)間お よび美咲~矢積(御幸台)間の普通列車とスジを繋いだ「区間急行」として設定される。朝ラッシュ後の下り急行の増発と、平日夕方・休日朝に運転される区間 急行がこのスジを使っている。
 また、冬休み・春休み・GW・夏休み期間においては、湾岸区間の多客に対応するため、特に午前中を中心に急行が増発される。この増発急行は、曜日配列や イベントの予想参加人員、当日の天候に応じて運転され、新成原で折り返すか、美咲駅まで運転するかの判断も需要予測により行われる。
 一方、臨Bのスジ(下図の太線)は主として団体列車に使われ、神津・新成原での調整時間を利用して、急行・快速の増発スジとしても使用できる。快速の増 発、という事態はまず発生しないが、イベントにより急行に乗客が集中すると判断される場合は、臨Aのスジと共に臨Bのスジで急行を増発することもあり、東 京線では都合1時間に最大12本の急行を運転できることになる。
 臨Bのスジは後述する緩行線の盛り込みスジと密接に関連し、旗塚において地下鉄谷町線への直通が可能であるほか、乾においても緩行線との「列車渡し」が できる。さらに、青海線・水澄線の盛り込みスジとも繋がっているので、例えば水澄線水澄→谷町線浅草の団体列車がこのスジを適用して容易に設定可能であ り、このことが南西急行の団体営業に大きな競争力をもたらしている。


東京線(急行線)における臨時列車ダイヤ(平成21年10月改正)

東京線の線路配線図

【2】東京線(緩行線)
 緩行線には、前述のように急行線の臨Bのスジに対応した盛り込みスジが設定されており、旗塚および乾で急行線との「列車渡し」が可能になっている。この ため、東京メトロ谷町線および緩行線池尻~槙坂間の各駅から湾岸区間、美咲空港、青海・水澄方面への団体列車が容易に設定可能であり、特に沿線の小・中・ 高等学校の遠足や修学旅行に多く利用されている。また、東京メトロを通じて、関東一円から美咲空港へ向かう団体客もこのスジで受け入れることができ、南西 急行の重要な収入源となっている。
 この盛り込みスジは、大手町で後続の準快を待避するようになっているが、大手町駅は2面3線の構成のため、実際には上下線のどちらか片方の列車しか同時に設定できない。
 盛り込みスジは夕方ラッシュ時にも設定されているが、急行線と緩行線の列車配置の関係で、下り方向の列車渡しは乾で、上り方向の列車渡しは旗塚でのみ可能となる。


東京線(緩行線)の臨時列車ダイヤ(平成21年10月改正)


東京線(緩行線)の夕方の臨時列車ダイヤ(平成21年10月改正)

【3】青海線・水澄線
 青海線の盛り込みスジは、東京線の「臨B」のスジと繋がっており、上下方向共に名取で急行を待避し、八浦駅で8分の時間調整が発生する。また、最近は特 急で団体客を捌くことができているため、青海線で営業列車に盛り込みスジが使われるケースは比較的少なく、検測車や回送列車に活用されることが多い。
 水澄線も、青海線と同様のダイヤになっている。


青海線の臨時列車ダイヤ(平成21年10月改正)


水澄線の臨時列車ダイヤ(平成21年10月改正)

2011年8月8日 星期一

民主弊病?

從另一方面看 這是民主制之調整優點
換句話說 它要求執政黨要有能力和操守


蘋論:美國民主弊病台灣都有

民主政治有很多缺點,但根據經驗,人類所有政治體制都不好,而民主體制是不好中的最好。它至少在保護個人權益不受集體和權力的迫害上,優於其他所有的體制。

惡鬥阻歐巴馬連任

台灣既然走上民主政治,就不能不認識到民主機制的缺陷,因為既可知道問題出在哪,也可進行自我完善。在所有政治制度中,民主彈性最大,自我矯正的能力最強,可是它的缺陷有時會超過自我修正的能力,破壞理念和政策的實現。


美國是典型民主國家,與政治制度相應的經濟制度是資本主義自由經濟。資本主義出現的人性問題常常會破壞民主體制的良性循環。美國債信危機是經濟問題,但肇因卻是民主政治的缺陷。
《華盛頓郵報》指出債信危機看似是民主、共和兩黨為提高債務上限而攤牌的惡鬥,其實是共和黨新當選的菜鳥議員(包括茶黨議員)經過1年的努力打造一個新的多數黨,並欲扭轉該黨命運而產生的自然結果。1月中旬新上任的共和黨眾院領袖坎托,向黨內新科議員表示,要將債限案視為展示實力的槓桿,逼迫歐巴馬不得不和他們交易。《紐約時報》也報導稱,標準普爾高層指出,歐巴馬總統與國會之間的惡鬥僵局是種「崩潰」,因此在評估降級決定時,對華府政治癱瘓與財政政策同等重視。換句話說,美國政治惡鬥是評等降級的主因,目的在阻止歐巴馬明年連任成功,不是舉債上限的問題。

兩黨妥協風暴減弱

這裡展現出民主制度的問題所在。一,為 選舉而操弄議題,有的是小題大做,有的是大題小做,看哪樣有利本黨和自己的選情。二,切割責任,並利用權力制衡結構逃避、推卸責任;也與選舉有關。這種推 諉責任的行為台灣最流行,常聽吳敦義說某某問題是民進黨執政時造成的,「我們在替他們收爛攤子」。三,為了選票快到選舉時才推出討好人民的政策。四,朝野 兩黨在重大危機時不肯同心協力,反而落井下石,延誤解決問題的時機,並幸災樂禍。這一次美債問題就是。
其實美債風暴的原因並非經濟,而是政治,所以當政治解決了,像是兩黨妥協,經濟風暴也將會跟著減弱。同樣的,台灣的民主缺陷只會比美國嚴重,需要修法矯正,也需要政客們的自制與提高素質。


2011年8月3日 星期三

總統學作為領導學

十二位現代總統中有四位脫穎而出,他們沒有惱人的情感擾動問題:艾森豪,福特,老布希和小布希。其他四人的特點是有情感流可未明顯地損害其領導力:小羅斯福,杜魯門,甘迺迪和雷根。剩下四位,詹森,尼克森,卡特,克林頓等都有情感上障礙。堅硬如維蘇威火山石的詹森( LBJ) ,他的情緒起落之大足以必須上醫院找醫生診療。卡特的剛硬對他在白宮的表現是一個重大障礙。衝動控制上有缺陷的克林頓所導至的行動,讓他後來遭到彈劾。

現在先介紹兩位學者的研究。首先是上文的引文的作者弗雷德‧格林斯坦(Fred I. Greenstein) 。他是美國普林斯頓大學的榮譽教授。他的著作包括 《兒童與政治》Children and Politics (1965), 《個性與政治》Personality and Politics (1969), 《深藏不露宿的總統:艾森豪作為一領導》The Hidden-Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader (1982), 《總統們如何考驗現實》How Presidents Test Reality (1989, with John P. Burke), 《總統的差異特色:從小羅斯福到歐巴桑馬的領導風格》The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama (2009), and 《發明總統職務:從喬治華盛頓到安德魯傑克遜》Inventing the Job of President: Leadership Style from George Washington to Andrew Jackson (2009).等等。

本章將會翻譯《總統的差異特色:從小羅斯福到布希總統的領導風格》摘要 (The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. pp. 217-223.

見仁見智中的總統學作為領導學
:以美國研究為主

美國歷任總統那五位最偉大?

摘自鍾漢清著 領導與學習:



1954317 胡適在台北演講《美國的民主政治》。說他親歷6次美國總統大選 (1912-54 11次大選) …… 6次便是艾森豪的當選。……1952的大選,艾森豪勝利決定後,斯蒂文生Adlai E Stevenson (. 1900-1965)說:「選舉前我們彼此拼命攻擊,選舉決定後,我們彼此真誠合作。」(胡頌平《胡適之先生年譜長編初稿‧第七冊》台北:聯經,1984,頁2399) 案:本章多引過《史蒂文生 演講選》 (Looking outward ) 陳若桓譯,香港:今日世界,1967

美國總統大選多此種君子之爭,如2000年的民主黨總統候選人高爾 Gore 讓小布希。

到了1960114,胡適接受中廣公司訪問他的親歷7次美國總統大選。談完之後,王大空問他:「美國歷任總統那五位最偉大?」胡適答:「華盛頓、傑弗遜、林肯、威爾遜、()羅斯福。」(胡頌平《胡適之先生年譜長編初稿‧第九冊》台北:聯經,1984,頁3356)

讀者可以從本章中了解各人對「美國歷任總統那五位最偉大?」的認知,是各有喜好的,而這更反映出個人的知識和經驗背景的差異…..不過,我們尊敬一些專家和胡適之先生等人的看法…….

2011年8月1日 星期一

The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush

In considering the qualities of effective and ineffective U.S. presidents, Fred I. Greenstein focused on the twelve modern presidents from FDR to George W. Bush, and used six criteria: Public communication, organizational capacity, political skill, vision, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence. And there is one attribute on his list to which he gives special emphasis, noting that without it, "all else may turn to ashes." Greenstein is author or editor of eight books on the U.S. presidency and is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Princeton University.

This excerpted passage is from Greenstein's book, The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. pp. 217-223. Reprinted with permission of the author and publisher.

Effectiveness as a Public Communicator
For an office that places so great a premium on the presidential pulpit, the modern presidency has been surprisingly lacking in effective public communicators. Most presidents have not addressed the public with anything approximating the professionalism of countless educators, members of the clergy, and radio and television broadcasters. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan -- and Clinton at his best -- are the shining exceptions.

Chief executives who find the most able of the presidential communicators daunting should be relieved to learn that their eloquence was in part the product of effort and experience. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan took part in drafting their speeches and rehearsed their presentations. In 1910, when Eleanor Roosevelt first heard her husband give a speech, she was taken aback by his long pauses and slow delivery. "I was worried for fear that he would never go on," she recalled.1 When Kennedy was a freshman congressman, he had a diffident, self-effacing public manner. And for all of Reagan's professionalism, he did not perfect the podium manner of his political years until the 1950s, when his film career drew to a close and he found employment on the speaking circuit.

One president who allowed himself to be fazed by an accomplished predecessor was George H. W. Bush, who seems to have concluded that since he could not compare with Reagan as a communicator, he should be his near antithesis. Bush used the White House briefing room for his public communications, only rarely addressing the nation from the Oval Office, and he instructed his speech writers to temper his prose. Bush's initial three years of high public approval provide a reminder that formal addresses are not the only way for a president to remain in the good graces of the public. His defeat highlights the costs of a leadership style that gives short shrift to the teaching and preaching side of presidential leadership.

Organizational Capacity
A president's capacity as an organizer includes his ability to forge a team and get the most out of it, minimizing the tendency of subordinates to tell their boss what they sense he wants to hear. It also includes a quite different matter: his proficiency at creating effective institutional arrangements. There is an illuminating postpresidential indicator of a president's success as a team builder -- the way that he is remembered by alumni of his administration. Veterans of the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, and George H. W. Bush presidencies have nothing but praise for their erstwhile chiefs. In contrast, few Johnson, Carter, and Clinton lieutenants emerged from their White House service with unmixed views of the president they served. Most ambivalent are the former aides of Richard Nixon, a number of whom went to prison for their actions in his service.

Presidents also differ in their ability to avail themselves of a rich and varied fare of advice and information. FDR encouraged diversity in the recommendations that reached him by pitting his assistants against one another. Kennedy's method was to charge his brother Robert and his alter ego Theodore Sorensen with scrutinizing the proposals of his other advisers for flaws and pitfalls. The modern president with by far the greatest and most demanding organizational experience was Eisenhower, who had a highly developed view of the matter. "I know of only one way in which you can be sure you have done your best to make a wise decision," he declared in a 1967 interview:

That is to get all of the [responsible policymakers] with their different viewpoints in front of you, and listen to them debate. I do not believe in bringing them in one at a time, and therefore being more impressed by the most recent one you hear than the earliest ones. You must get courageous men of strong views, and let them debate with each other. 2

Not all of the modern presidents have been open to vigorous give and take. Nixon and Reagan were uncomfortable in the presence of face-to-face disagreement. Johnson's Texas-sized personality had a chilling effect on some of his subordinates. His NSC staff member Chester Cooper recalled recurrent fantasies of facing down LBJ at NSC meetings when Johnson sought his concurrence on a matter relating to Vietnam by replying, "I most definitely do not agree." But when LBJ turned to him and asked, "Mr. Cooper, do you agree?" Cooper found himself replying, "Yes, Mr. President, I agree." 3

The capacity to design effective institutional arrangements has been in even scarcer supply than effective public communication in the modern presidency. In this department, Eisenhower was in a class of his own. The most emulation-worthy of his departures was the set of arrangements that framed his administration's national security deliberations. Each week the top planners in the bodies represented in the NSC hammered out option papers stating the policy recommendations of their agencies. The disagreements were clearly delineated and set before the NSC, where they were the object of sharp, focused debate. The result was as important for preparing Eisenhower's foreign policy team to work together as it was for grounding it in the issues bearing on unfolding global contingencies.

Political Skill
The classic statement of the centrality of political skill to presidential performance is Richard E. Neustadt's Presidential Power, which has been described as the closest approximation to Machiavelli's writings in the literature of American politics.4 The question Neustadt addresses is how the chief executive can put his stamp on public policy in the readily stalemated American political system. Neustadt's prescription is for the president to use the powers of his office assertively, build and maintain public support, and establish a reputation among fellow policymakers as a skilled, determined political operator. If there ever was reason to doubt Neustadt's diagnosis, it was eliminated by the presidential experience of Jimmy Carter.

Lyndon Johnson seemed almost to have taken his methods from the pages of Presidential Power. Within hours after Kennedy's assassination, Johnson had begun to muster support for major domestic policy departures. He exhibited will as well as skill, cultivating his political reputation by keeping Congress in session until Christmas 1963 in order to prevail in one of his administration's first legislative contests. His actions won him strong public support, making it apparent to his opposite numbers on Capitol Hill that it would be politically costly to ignore his demands.

Vision
"Vision" is a term with a variety of connotations. One is the capacity to inspire. In this the rhetorically gifted presidents -- Kennedy, Reagan, and above all FDR -- excelled. In the narrower meaning employed here, "vision" refers to preoccupation with the content of policies, an ability to assess their feasibility, and the possession of a set of overarching goals. Here the standouts are Eisenhower, Nixon, and to a lesser extent Ronald Reagan, whose views were poorly grounded in specifics. Vision also encompasses consistency of viewpoint. Presidents who stand firm are able to set the terms of policy discourse. In effect they serve as anchors for the rest of the political community.

George H. W. Bush was not alone in lacking "the vision thing." He falls in a class of presidential pragmatists that includes the bulk of the modern chief executives. The costs of vision-free leadership include internally inconsistent programs, policies that have unintended consequences, and sheer drift. When it comes to vision, the senior Bush could not have been more different from his son, George W. Bush, for whom having an explicit agenda is a watchword. Ironically, the younger Bush's vision led him in potentially problematic directions, most strikingly in the case of the war in Iraq, in which a short-run military victory was followed by a continuing pattern of guerilla warfare against the American occupying force. In short, the first Bush suffered for his lack of vision, and the second Bush may prove to suffer because of his policy vision.

Cognitive Style
Presidents vary widely in their cognitive styles. Jimmy Carter had an engineer's proclivity to reduce issues to what he perceived to be their component parts. That style served him well in the 1978 Camp David negotiations, but it was ill suited for providing his administration with a sense of direction. Carter's cognitive qualities contrast with the kind of strategic intelligence that cuts to the heart of a problem, as Eisenhower did when he introduced his administration's deliberations on Dien Bien Phu with the incisive observation that the jungles of Indochina would "absorb our divisions by the dozens."5

Another example of strategic intelligence is to be had from a chief executive who will never grace Mount Rushmore: Richard Nixon. Two years before entering the White House, Nixon laid down the goals of moving the United States beyond its military involvement in Vietnam, establishing a balance of power with the Soviet Union and an opening with China. By the final year of his first term, he had accomplished his purposes.

Nixon's first-term successes contrast with the paucity of major accomplishments in the two White House terms of the first presidential Rhodes scholar, Bill Clinton. Clinton possessed a formidable ability to absorb and process ideas and information, but his mind was more synthetic than analytic, and his political impulses sometimes led him to substitute mere rationalization for reasoned analysis.

Two presidents who were marked by cognitive limitations were Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Truman's uncritical reading of works of popular history made him susceptible to false historical analogies. Reagan was notorious for his imperfect understanding of a number of his policy initiatives. That both presidents had major policy accomplishments shows that intelligence and information as measured by standardized tests is not the sole cause of presidential effectiveness.

Emotional Intelligence
Four of the twelve modern presidents stand out as fundamentally free of distracting emotional perturbations: Eisenhower, Ford, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Four others were marked by emotional undercurrents that did not significantly impair their leadership: Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan. That leaves Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton, all of whom were emotionally handicapped. The vesuvian LBJ was subject to mood swings of clinical proportions. Jimmy Carter's rigidity was a significant impediment to his White House performance. The defective impulse conrrol of Bill Clinton led him into actions that ensued in his impeachment.

Richard Nixon was the most emotionally flawed of the presidents considered here. His anger and suspiciousness were of Shakespearean proportions. He more than any other presidenr summons up the classic notion of a tragic hero who is defeated by the very qualities that brought him success. It has been argued that the tortured psyche of a Nixon is a precondition of political creativitsy. This was the view of Elliot Richardson, who held that if Nixon's "rather petty flaws" had been taken away, "you would probably have removed that very inner core of insecurity that led to his rise."6 Richardson's claim is a variant of the proposition that the inner torment of a Van Gogh is the price of his creativity, but other great painters were free of Van Gogh's self-destructiveness, and the healthy-minded Eisenhower was as gifted as Nixon in the positive aspects of leadership. Great political ability does sometimes derive from troubled emotions, but the former does not justify the latter in the custodian of the most destructive military arsenal in human experience.

CODA

In the world of imagination it is possible to envisage a cognitively and emotionally intelligent chief executive, who happens also to be an inspiring public communicator, a capable White House organizer, and the possessor of exceptional political skill and vision. In the real world, human imperfection is inevitable, but some imperfections are more disabling than others. Many of the modern presidents have performed adequately without being brilliant orators. Only a few chief executives have been organizationally competent. A minimal level of political skill is a precondition of presidential effectiveness, but political skill is widely present in the handful of individuals who rise to the political summit. Vision is rarer than skill, but only Lyndon Johnson was disastrously deficient in the realm of policy.

Finally there are thought and emotion. The importance of cognitive strength in the presidency should be self-evident. Still, Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton had impressive intellects and defective temperaments. They reversed Justice Holmes's characterization of FDR. Clinton's foibles made him an underachiever and national embarrassment. Carter's defective temperament contributed to making his time in office a period of lost opportunity. Johnson and Nixon presided over major policy breakthroughs, but also over two of the most unhappy episodes of the twentieth century. All four presidential experiences point to the following moral: Beware the presidential contender who lacks emotional intelligence. In its absence all else may turn to ashes.

1 Eleanor Roosevelt, This Is My Story (New York: Harper, 1937), 167.

2 Dwight D. Eisenhower, Columbia University Oral History Inerview, July 20, 1967, 103.

3 Chester L. Cooper, Lost Crusade: America in Vietnam (Greenwich, Conn.: Dodd, Mead, 1970), 223.

4 Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership (New York: Wiley, 1960).

5 See Chapter 4 and John P. Burke, Fred I. Greenstein, with Larry Berman and Richard Immerman, How Presidents Test Reality (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988), chaps. 2-5, 32.

6 Richardson interview, Arts and Entertainment Network documentary: Biography: Richard Nixon: Man and President (New York, 1996).


Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/greenstein.html#ixzz1TqMO0mDy

網誌存檔