The Game Outcomes Project, Part 3: Game Development Factors 游戏专案为何成功系列之三：游戏产业的独特要素 网志版：http://wp.me/pBAPd-qp 原文网址： http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PaulTozour/20150113/233922/The_Game_Outcomes_Project_Part_3_Game_Development_Factors.php 缩网址：http://tinyurl.com/m7kmuzf 撰文：Paul Tozour 繁体中文翻译：NDark 20150113 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 third in a 5-part series. Part 1: The Best and the Rest is also available here: (Gamasutra) (BlogSpot) (in Chinese) Part 2: Building Effective Teams is available here: (Gamasutra) (BlogSpot) (in Chinese) This article is part 3, and will soon be updated on BlogSpot and translated to Chinese. Parts 4-5 will be published in late January 2015. For extended notes on our survey methodology, see our Methodology blog page. Our raw survey data (minus confidential info) is now available here if you'd like to verify our results or perform your own analysis. 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. 本文是系列五篇中的第三篇。 第一篇请连以下文章 (Gamasutra) (BlogSpot) (in Chinese 繁体中文) 第二篇请连以下文章 (Gamasutra) (BlogSpot) (in Chinese 繁体中文) 第四，第五篇将在2015年一月下旬释出。 想要知道问卷的方法论，请参阅部落格页面 "Game Outcomes Project Methodology":http://intelligenceengine.blogspot.com/2014/11/game-outcomes-project-methodology-in.html 我们问卷的原始资料在此，有兴趣的朋友可以拿去分析。 "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 3: Game Development Factors 游戏专案为何成功系列之三：游戏产业的独特要素 The Game Outcomes Project was a large-scale study of teamwork, culture, production, and leadership in game development conducted in October 2014. It was based on a 120-question survey of several hundred game developers, and it correlated all of those factors against a set of four quantifiable project outcomes (project delays, return on investment (ROI), aggregate reviews / MetaCritic ratings, and the team’s own sense of satisfaction with how the project achieved its internal goals). Our team then built all of these four outcome questions into an aggregate “score” value representing the overall outcome of the game project, as described on our Methodology page. 游戏专案为何成功的问卷计画是在2014年十月开始，针对於团队合作，文化，制作，以及 领导方面大范围的研究。问卷是基於一百二十个问题项目对数百位游戏开发者的调查，我 们透过一连串的要素与量化的专案产出分数（包含专案延迟，专案利润，网页分数，内部 满意度）相对应做出的关联性分析。我们问卷团队把四个产出分数总和为一个产出分数， 代表游戏专案的总和产出，如我们方法论部落格所提。 Previous articles in this series (Part 1, Part 2) introduced the Game Outcomes Project and showed very surprising results. While many factors that one would expect to contribute to differences in project outcomes – such as team size, project duration, production methodology, and most forms of financial incentives – had no meaningful correlations, we also saw remarkable and very clear results for three different team effectiveness models that we investigated. 此系列先前的文章（第一篇，第二篇）介绍了"游戏专案为何成功"此计画目前惊人的成果 。许多我们所预期的要素会影响游戏产出。其中团队大小，开发时程，制程方法论，许多 种奖励都没有显着的关联性。我们也看到许多值得一提的数种团队效率模型对我们产出的 影响。 Our analysis uncovered major differences in team effectiveness, which translate directly into large and unmistakable differences in project outcomes. Every game is a reflection of the team that made it, and the best way to raise your game is to raise your team. 我们的分析揭露了团队效率模型之间的差异，以及对团队产出造成的差异。 每个游戏都是团队独一无二的成果，要提高游戏品质，就先从提高团队品质做起。 In this article, we look at additional factors in our survey which were not covered by the three team effectiveness models we analyzed in Part 2, including several in areas specific to game development. We included these questions in our survey on the suspicion that they were likely to contribute in some way to differences in project outcomes. We were not disappointed. 在本文中，我们关注问卷中没有在团队效率篇章提及的额外要素项目，特别是游戏开发相 关的项目。由於我们认为这些问题可能对我们问卷有贡献，所以把这些问题纳入我们的问 卷中，它们并没有让我们失望。 Design Risk Management First, we looked at the management of design risk. It’s well-known in the industry that design thrashing is a major cost of cost and schedule overruns. We’ve personally witnessed many projects where a game’s design was unclear from the outset, where preproduction was absent or was inadequate to define the gameplay, or where a game in development underwent multiple disruptive re-designs that negated the team’s progress, causing enormous amounts of work to be discarded and progress to be lost. 设计上的风险管理 首先，我们先探讨设计上的风险管理。与这篇"用一个影片来说明那些被取消的专案"相同 ，我们亲眼目睹很多专案在开始时的设计不明确，前置作业不足以解释游戏玩法，或是开 发过程中不断打掉重练，造成工时的浪费。 It seemed clear to us that the best teams carefully manage the risks around game design, both by working to mitigate the repercussions of design changes in development, and by reducing the need for disruptive design changes in the first place (by having a better design to begin with). 明显地，优秀的团队都很小心地处理设计面的风险，试图减轻开发中规格变动带来的影响 ，或是在开始时就直接舍弃不良的设计（直到找出真正好的企划案才开案）。 We came up with a set of 5 related questions, shown in Figure 1 below. These turned out to have some of the strongest correlations of any questions we asked in our survey. With the exception of the two peach-colored correlations for the last question (related to the return-on-investment outcome and the critical reception outcome for design documents), all of these correlations are statistically significant (p-value under 0.05). 我们设计了五个相关的问题，在下面的图一显示。它们对我们问的其他问题都有强烈的关 联性。除了最後一个问题两个粉红色的区块之外（针对开始的文件与专案利润的关联）， 其他的关联性都有强烈的统计表徵（小於0.05的p值）。 Figure 1. Questions around design risk management and their correlations with project outcomes. The “category score” on the right is the highest absolute value of the aggregate outcome correlations, as an indication of the overall value of this category. “Not S.S.” indicates correlations that are not statistically significant (p-value over 0.05).设计面的风险管理及专案产出分 数的关联性。最右边的栏位代表四栏中最高的绝对值关联性。Not S.S.代表没有统计表徵 （大於0.05的p值）。 Clearly, changes to the design during development, and the way those design changes were handled, made enormous differences in the outcomes of many of the development efforts we surveyed. 显然，根据我们的问卷指出，开发中改变规格，或是如何改变规则，会对团队产出造成重 大影响。 However, when they did occur, participation of all stakeholders in the decision to make changes, and clear communication and justification of those changes and the reasons for them, clearly mitigated the damage. 然而，假如规格真的改变，团队成员的参与讨论，清楚的沟通，及改变的原因，都会减轻 伤害。 [We remind readers who may have missed Part 2 that negative correlations (in red/orange) should not be viewed a bad thing; on the contrary, questions asked in a “negative frame,” i.e., asking about a bad thing that may have occurred on the project, should have a negative correlation with project outcomes, indicating that a lower answer (stronger disagreement with the statement) correlated with better project outcomes (better ROI, fewer delays, higher critical reviews, and so on). What really matters is the absolute value of a correlation: the farther a correlation is from 0, the more strongly it relates to differences in project outcomes, and you can then look at the sign to see whether it contributes positively or negatively.] 请记得在第二篇中我们提到，负向的关联性并非坏事；相反地，那是因为问题是以反向的 方式设计，例如：询问对专案可能发生的问题是不被允许的，这问题就应该对专案产出有 负面的相关。也就是回答偏向於比较低方向，其实是对专案的产出更好（更好的利润，更 少的延迟，更高的分数等）。真的重要的是专案产出的绝对值，而读者应能明显看出那些 问题的方向。 Somewhat surprisingly, our question about a design document clearly specifying the game to be developed had a very low correlation – below 0.2. It also had no statistically significant correlation (p-value > 0.05) with ROI or critical reception / MetaCritic scores. This is quite surprising, as it suggests design documents are far less useful than generally realized. The only area where they show a truly meaningful correlation is with project timeliness. This seems to suggest that while design documents may make a positive contribution to the schedule, anyone who believes that they will contribute much to product success from a critical or ROI standpoint by themselves is quite mistaken. 意外地，我们关於设计文件的问题只有非常低的关联性，少於0.2。甚至还有几个关联性 （利润与分数）没有统计表徵（p值大於0.05）。这结果真是令人意外，也就是设计文件 其实比我们期待的还要不重要。此项目真正影响的其实只有专案时程，若有人认为专案文 件应该会带给我们巨大利润或网站分数就是犯了大错。 We should be clear that our 2014 survey did not ask any questions related to the project’s level of design innovation. Certainly, it’s much easier to limit design risk if you stick to less ambitious one-off games and direct sequels. We don’t want to sound as if we are recommending that course of action. 我们必须坦承本次的问卷并没有问到关於专案突破或是新颖设计相关的问题。假设我们执 行续作专案或相同类型的专案时，当然很容易就会限制设计风险。此处我们也必须强调我 们并非透过上述问卷得到的结果来鼓吹不需创新。 For the record, we do believe that design innovation is enormously important, and quite often, a game’s design needs to evolve significantly in production in order to achieve that level of innovation. Our own subjective experience is that a desire for innovation needs to be balanced against cautious management of the enormous risks that design changes can introduce. We plan to ask more questions in the area of design innovation in the next version of the survey. 我们强调，我们相信创新是很重要的，游戏的设计需要在制程上不断进化来达到设计上的 创新。我们主观的看法是设计的创新是需要小心管理非常多设计可能带来的风险。我们希 望在下一版本的问卷中能够带入这些设计创新方面的问题。 Team Focus Managing the risks to the design itself is one thing, but to what extent does the team’s level of focus – being on the same page about the game in development, and sharing a single, common, vision – impact outcomes? 团队专注力 管理设计上的风险之外，在同一页针对游戏开发的问题中，接下来我们谈团队的专注力， 及团队有单一共通的信念，是否会影响产出。 Figure 2. Questions around team focus and their correlations.团队专注力关联性 的问题 The strong correlations here are not too surprising; these tie in closely with the design risk management topic above, as well as our questions about “ Compelling Direction,” the second element of Hackman’s team effectiveness model from Part 2. As a result, the correlations here are very similar. It’ s clear that successful teams have a strong shared vision, care deeply about the product vision, and are careful to resolve disagreements about the game’ s design quickly and professionally. 强烈的关联性就如同设计风险管理的段落，及第二篇我们提到哈克曼团队效率模型的"明 确的方向"一样并不令人意外。也就是得到一样的结果。显然成功的团队内都有强烈单一 共通的信仰，关心产品的方向，小心但迅速又专业地解决对於游戏设计面的歧见。 It’s interesting to note that the question “most team members cared deeply about the vision of this game” showed a wide disparity of correlations. It shows a strong positive correlation with critical reviews and internal goal achievement, but only a very weak correlation with project timeliness. This seems to indicate that while passion for the project makes for a more satisfied team and a game that gets better review scores, it has little to do with hitting schedules. 值得一提的是这个问题"大多数的团队成员都关心游戏的方向"，在不同栏位中得到了不同 的关联性。在内部满意度与网页评分中关联性很高，但对专案时程的关联性很低。这似乎 指出团队对专案的热忱会造成满意度高的团队，也会获得比较高的网页分数，但对时程没 有影响。 Crunch (Extended Overtime) Our industry is legendary (or perhaps “infamous” is a better word) for its frequent use of extended overtime, i.e. “crunch.” But how does crunch actually correlate with project outcomes? 加班 对这个产业来说，加班文化颇获盛名（或说是恶名昭彰）。到底加班对产出的关联性如何 ？ Figure 3. Questions around crunch, and related correlations.加班的关联性 As you can see, all five of our questions around crunch were significantly correlated with outcomes – some of them very strongly so. The one and only question that showed a positive correlation was the question asking if overtime was purely voluntary, indicating the absence of mandatory crunch. 如你所见，五个围绕在加班的问题都与产出有负面的关联性。唯一有正面关联性的问题是 在自愿也就是没有强制规定下的加班。 Even in the area where you might expect crunch would improve things – project delays – crunch still showed a significant negative correlation, indicating that it did not actually save projects from delays. 当我们预期加班会解决问题，也就是减少专案延迟。结果反而有负向相关，也就是加班并 不能帮助专案赶上进度。 This suggests that not only does crunch not produce better outcomes, but it may actually make games worse where it is used. 同样地加班也不能帮助产出更好的结果，反而可能更糟。 Crunch is an important topic, and one that is far too often passionately debated without reference to any facts or data whatsoever. In order to do the topic justice – and hopefully lay the entire “debate” to rest once and for all – we will dedicate the entirety of our next article to further exploring these results, and we’ll don our scuba gear and perform a “ deep-dive” into the data to ferret out exactly what our data can tell us about crunch and its effects. At the very least, we hope to provide enough data that future discussions of crunch will rest far less on opinion and far more on actual evidence. 加班是一个值得探讨的问题，复杂到我们不能跟只用数据来探讨它。因此为了揭露它的真 相，希望能够一劳永逸的讲清楚这个问题，我们决定把它留到下一篇来深入探讨。我们会 准备好面对这个敌人，从背後找到它所带来的影响。 Team Stability A great deal of validated management research shows clearly that teams with stable membership are far more effective than teams whose membership changes frequently, or those whose members must be shared with other teams. Studies of surgical teams and airline crews show that they are far more likely to make mistakes in their first few weeks of working together, but grow continuously more effective year after year as they work together. We were curious how team stability affects outcomes in game development. 团队稳定度 大量的管理研究都说有稳定成员的团队会比频繁调动或互相支援的团队来的有效率。对外 科团队或空服团队的研究也说合作的第一个礼拜会容易犯错，但逐渐会越来越有效率。对 於游戏制作团队稳定度与产出是否相关我们产生了好奇。 Figure 4. Questions around team stability and their correlations to project outcomes.团队稳定度与专案产出的效率 Surprisingly, our question on team members being exclusively dedicated to the project showed no statistically significant correlations with project outcomes. As far as we can tell, this just doesn’t matter one way or the other. 意外地，只做一个案子的团队并没有显示出对专案产出有关联性。 However, our more general questions around project turnover and reorganization showed strong and unequivocal correlations with inferior project outcomes. 相反地，对於换人或重组的专案却对专案产出有负面的关联性。 At the same time, it’s difficult to say for sure to what extent each of these is a cause or an effect of problems on a project. In the case of turnover, there are plenty of industry stories that illustrate both: there have been plenty of staff departures and layoffs due to troubled projects, but also quite a few stories of key staff departures that left their studios scrambling to recover – in addition to stories of spiraling problems where project problems caused key staff departures, which caused more morale/productivity problems, which led to the departure of even more staff. 因此，很难说任何一点直接造成了专案的助力或阻力。以换人来说，业界已经有很多案例 告诉我们在困难专案会遇到的裁员与离职，更有关键的团队成员离开工作室，这造成了连 锁效应：士气更低，更多人离职。 We hope to analyze this factor more deeply in future versions of the survey (and we’d like to break down voluntary vs involuntary staff departures in particular). But for now, we’ll have to split the difference in our interpretation. As far as we can tell from here, turnover and reorganizations are both generally harmful, and wise leaders should do everything in their power to minimize them. 我们希望能在未来的版本更进一步分析这个要素（把自愿离职与非自愿离职的要素分清楚 ）。但目前来说，我们只能解释，换人或重组造成伤害，明智地来说应该减少这种现象。 Communication & Feedback We included several questions about the extent to which communication and feedback play a role in team effectiveness: 沟通与回馈 我们列了几个关於沟通与回馈在团队效率方面的问题： Figure 5. Questions around communication and their correlations.沟通与产出的关 联性 Clearly, regular feedback from project leads and managers (our third question in this category) is key – our third question ties in very closely with factor #11 in the Gallup team effectiveness model from Part 2, with virtually identical correlations with project outcomes. Easy access to senior leadership (the second question) is also clearly quite important. 从专案领导者与管理层来的定期回馈（第三个问题，与第二篇盖洛普团队效率模型的第十 一个问题雷同）很清楚地与专案产出有关联性。能够与管理层沟通是很重要的。 Regular communication between the entire team (the first question) is somewhat less important but still shows significant positive correlations across the board. Meanwhile, our final question revealed no significant differences between cultures that preferred e-mail vs face-to-face communication. 团队中持续的沟通（第一个问题）虽没那麽重要，但仍有正面的相关性。顺带一提，最後 一个问题，也就是是否面对面工作却完全没有显示任何相关联性。 Organizational Perceptions of Failure 组织对於失败的态度 A 2012 Gamasutra interview with Finnish game developer Supercell explained that company’s attitude toward failure: 在2012年Gamasutra对芬兰游戏开发者Supercell的访问中说到关於公司对於失败的态度： "We think that the biggest advantage we have in this company is culture. [… ] We have this culture of celebrating failure. When a game does well, of course we have a party. But when we really screw up, for example when we need to kill a product – and that happens often by the way, this year we've launched two products globally, and killed three – when we really screw up, we celebrate with champagne. We organize events that are sort of postmortems, and we can discuss it very openly with the team, asking what went wrong, what went right. What did we learn, most importantly, and what are we going to do differently next time?" 我们认为在这间公司中最大的优势是文化... 我们鼓励失败。当游戏做得好的时候我们庆 功，但当我们砸锅，譬如要取消专案的时候我们更开香槟庆祝。我们用某种解颇的仪式来 透明的探讨那些潜在问题，我们在哪些地方犯错了，而哪些地方做对了，我们学到了甚麽 ，下次我们该怎麽做？ It seems safe to say that most game studios don’t share this attitude. But is Supercell a unique outlier, or would this attitude work in game development in general if applied more broadly? Our developer survey asked six questions about how the team perceived failure on a cultural level: 似乎大多数的工作室并没有相同的做法，Supercell是否这麽特别？如果我们将这样的态 度推广出去有用吗？ 我们的问卷中就问了六个关於团队文化是否接受失败的问题。 Figure 6. Questions around organizational perceptions of failure and their correlations.组织如何看待失败的关联性 These correlations are quite significant, and nearly all of them are quite strong. More successful game projects are much more likely encourage creative risk-taking and open discussion of failure, and ensure that team members feel comfortable and supported when taking creative risks. These results tie in very closely with the concept of “psychological safety” explained Part 2, under the “Supportive Context” section of Hackman’s team effectiveness model. 这些关联性很显着，几乎全部都很重要。成功的团队都能在创造时鼓励承担失败与谈论失 败，这样确保团度成员有安全感，感觉创造时有後援。 这些结论与第二篇哈克曼团队效率模型的支持信仰所提的心理层面的安全感十分雷同。 Respect Extensive management research indicates that respect is a terrifically important driver of employee engagement, and therefore of productivity. A recent HBR study of nearly 20,000 employees around the world found that no other leader behavior had a greater effect on outcomes. Employees who receive more respect exhibit massive improvements in engagement, retention, satisfaction, focus, and many other factors. We were curious whether this also applied to the game industry, and whether a respectful working environment contributed to differences between failed and successful game project outcomes as well. We were not disappointed. 尊严 广泛的管理研究指出在对员工相处上尊严起了一个很重要的角色，还因此可以增加产出。 最近一篇哈佛商业文摘对两万名全球员工作的研究指出，除了尊严之外没有更有用的领导 行为。有尊严的员工在工作，满足，专注，及其他方面会有巨大的进步。 我们很好奇这是否对游戏产业适用，是否一个有尊严工作环境可以影响专案的产出？这没 让我们失望？ Figure 7. Questions around respect, and related correlations.尊严的关联性 All three of our questions in this category showed significant correlations with outcomes, especially the question about respectful relationships between team leads/managers and developers. 三个问题都显示正面的关联性，特别是团队管理者及开发者的关系。 Clearly, all team members -- and leads/managers in particular -- should think twice before treating team members with disrespect: they are not only hurting their team, but hurting their own game project and their own bottom line. 显然，团队成员，特别是管理者，在鞭策成员时应该谨慎避免使用不尊重的方式，那不只 伤害团队，也伤害专案，甚至损及自己的底线。 Project Planning We asked a number of questions around the ways different aspects of project planning affected outcomes: 专案规划 我们问了关於专案规划的问题试图找出与产出的关联性： Figure 8. Questions around project planning and their correlations.专案规划的 关联性 Clearly, deadlines and accountability are important, as the positive correlation of the last question shows. Accountability is obviously a net positive. However, teams that took deadlines too seriously, and treated them as matters of life and death (question #4) experienced a negative correlation with project outcomes, while having no statistically significant correlation with project timeliness. This clearly indicates that treating deadlines as matters of life and death not only fails to make a positive contribution to the schedule, it is actually counterproductive in the long run. 显然，能赶上时程的责任感很重要，这从最後一个问题可看出。 然而，若团队太关心期限，把它视为生死交迫的议题时却对产出有负面相关。而且对时程 没有统计上的显露出来的甚麽帮助。 This seems to be telling us that taking deadlines too seriously can be harmful, and high-pressure management tactics are likely to backfire. We speculate that successful teams balance their goals for each milestone against the realities of production, the need for team cohesion, and the pragmatism to sometimes sacrifice or adjust individual milestone goals for the good of the overall project. 这告诉我们，太在意期限有时反而有伤害，高压的管理策略有时候会有反效果。我们认为 优秀的团队会在目标与现实，团队向心力，牺牲个体的福祉来换取专案的成就之间取得平 衡。 Surprisingly, daily task re-estimation (question #5) also shows no significant correlation with timeliness, although it does have a weak positive correlation with all the other outcome factors. 令人惊讶地，每日对工作的重新评估（第五个问题）对时程的关联性也没有统计表徵。即 便对其他的产出分数都有微弱的正相关。 Furthermore, detailed planning (question #1), while positively correlated with both ROI and timeliness, seems to have no statistically significant correlation with critical reception or internal goal achievement: this is clearly useful for project timeliness, but we speculate that this can also lock the team into a fixed, brittle development plan that can tempt teams to focus on the lesser good of schedule integrity over the greater good of product quality, and can sometimes stifle opportunities for improving the game in development. 再来，详细的计画（第一个问题），虽然与时程及利润都有正相关，但是对网页分数或内 部满意度的关联性没有统计表徵：那意思是对专案时程有用，但却常会把团队带入一个僵 化，破碎的开发计画，也就导致团队只关注细节，没有巨观地看整体游戏的品质，有时会 将游戏开发的机会扼杀。 The most unambiguous findings here are that accurate estimation (question #2) and a reasonable level of accountability (question #6) both contribute positively to all outcome factors. 这部分最清楚的现象是准确的预估（第二个问题），及理性地看待时程（第六个问题）都 对产出有正面帮助。 Technology Risk Management We were also curious about risks around technology. How did major technology changes and the management of those changes affect outcomes, and did the team participate in any sort of code reviews or pair programming? The game industry has countless stories to tell of engine changes or major technology overhauls that either caused project delays or even contributed to outright project failure or cancellation. 技术风险管理 我们对於技术方面的风险也很好奇。技术方面的变动及如何处理是否影响着产出？团队中 是否互相审核程式码或是配对程式撰写是否又有影响？游戏产业常听过那些故事说引擎的 更迭造成专案的延迟甚至专案取消。 Figure 9. Questions around technology risk management, and their correlations with project outcomes.技术风险的管理的关联性 Here, too, we see some very strong correlations. Question #1 shows that major technology revamps in development can introduce a great deal of project risk, while question #3 seems to indicate that the communication of those technology changes is even more important. 这里我们也看到很多强烈的关联性。第一个问题显示技术的更迭确实造成专案的巨大风险 ，同时第三个问题指出对於技术的决定在团队中充分沟通也异常重要。 However, whether these decisions are driven by internal or external changes does not appear to be relevant, and while code reviews and pair programming are clearly positively correlated and statistically significant, the correlation is a relatively weak one, at under 0.2, and shows no statistically significant correlation with the project’s critical reception or achievement of its internal goals. Although there is significant evidence that code reviews reduce defects and improve a team’s programming skills, we were surprised that these correlations are not higher, and we suspect it may be related to the way the reviews are carried out in addition to the team’s experience level -- deeper analysis reveals this factor is much more significant with more experienced teams. We plan to investigate these more thoroughly in the next version of the study. 然而，不管改变使用技术的这些决定是否来自於内部的因素，对专案产出似乎不会造成影 响。同时审核程式码及配对程式撰写虽然对专案有正面关联性，但关联性并不高，小於 0.2，在网页分数与内部满意度上更是没有统计表徵。即便有强烈的证据告诉我们审核程 式码降低错误，增进团队程式能力，我们很意外得到这麽低的关联性，我们怀疑是因为审 核与程式人员的经验有关，更进一步看数据发现有经验的团队在这项目的相关联性会比较 高。我们希望能在下一版本的研究中更深入研究。 Production Methodologies In Part 1, we revealed the rather shocking discovery that the specific production methodology a team uses – waterfall, agile, scrum, or ad-hoc – seems to make no statistically significant difference in project outcomes. However, we also asked a number of additional questions on the topic of production methodologies: 制程方法论 在第一篇中，我们已经揭露了关於团队使用的制程方法，也就是瀑布式，敏捷式，或其他 随意的方法，似乎都没办法对专案产出产生有统计性的差异。然而，我们还是在这个项目 中问了额外的问题。 Figure 10. Questions around production methodologies and their correlations.制 程方法论的关联性 Here, we can see clearly that training in production methodologies, efforts to improve them, and involving the entire team in prioritizing the work for each milestone are all significantly correlated (>0.2) with positive project outcomes. However, our questions about daily production meetings and re-prioritization for each milestone showed relatively low correlations. 这里我们可以清楚地看到，在制程方法上有明确的训练，改进，每次里程碑团队都能自己 决定工作优先度对专案产出有正向相关。然而每日制程会议及随着专案进度调整工作的优 先度，关联性却不高。 We see no statistically significant correlation of the last question (regarding re-prioritization in each milestone) with project delays, but a small positive correlation with the other three outcomes. It seems reasonable to assume that this indicates that while re-prioritization at each milestone increases product quality, it sometimes does so at the expense of the schedule. 在最後一个问题（随着专案进度调整工作的优先度，而非依照原本的规划），我们看到对 专案的延迟是没有关联性，但对其他三者却有微量正面相关。这似乎很有道理，在每次里 程碑中重新调整优先度就代表专案为了提高品质，接受延迟的现况。 We also further attempted to verify our controversial finding that production methodology used makes no difference by re-evaluating production methodologies only for respondents that replied that their teams were well-trained in their studio’s production methodology (i.e. they answered “ Agree Strongly” or “Agree Completely” to the first question in this category). Here, too, we found no statistically significant differences between waterfall, agile, and agile using Scrum. This analysis appears to reinforce our earlier finding that the particular production methodology being used matters very little; what matters is having one, stick to it, and properly training your team to use it. 我们更进一步想要厘清这个令人争议的发现，就是使用方法论与否似乎只对那些会精进方 法技巧的团队有用（那些对第一个问题会回答正面的团队）。同样地，我们无法在各种方 法论中找到统计差异。 这个分析显然支持我们早先的论点，也就是说特定的方法论影响并不巨大，更重要的是坚 定专注於使用的方法，训练新进的员工适应它。 Collaboration & Helpfulness We’ve personally experienced many different types of team cultures where helpfulness was treated as a virtue or a vice. Some encourage a “sink or swim” attitude, and deliberately force new hires to learn the ropes on their own; others go out of their way to encourage and reward collaboration and helpfulness among team members. We were curious about the effect of these cultural differences on project outcomes. 合作与协助 我们了解很多不同的文化在互助协助的看法也正反不一。有些文化鼓励强者生存的态度， 让新人自己努力；有些文化则鼓励同僚之间互助合作。我们对这些文化是否对产出有帮助 产生好奇。 Figure 11. Questions around collaboration and helpfulness and their correlations.合作与帮助的关联性 Although the correlations to the individual outcomes here are relatively weak, the correlations with the aggregate outcome are unambiguously positive. Note that there is no statistically significant correlation between the second question and the outcome factor for project timeliness. We speculate that some teams may spend too much time and energy obsessing over their issues and challenges, which can become a time sink or a source of negativity if carried out to unhealthy extremes. 虽然合作对个别的产出的相关性都很微弱，但基本上还是维持一个正面相关。 注意此处第二个问题与专案延迟并没有统计表徵，我们怀疑某些团队可能花了太多时间与 精力在处理互相之间的问题，导致一个不健康的时程结果。 Outsourcing and Cross-Functional Teams We asked two additional categories of questions. One category related to the use of contractors, temporary workers, and outsourcing: 外包与功能性的部门 我们还问了两个问题，一个关於合约或外包员工。 Figure 12. Questions around outsourcing and their correlations.外包的关联性 We saw no statistically significant correlations regarding outsourcing, and as far as our data set can tell, this has no identifiable impact on project outcomes. It seems much more likely that any effects of outsourcing have much more to do with the quality of the contractors or outsourced labor, the way outsourcing is integrated into the team, its cost, and the quality of the coordination of the outsourced labor, all of which were outside the scope of the 2014 survey. 这里看到都没有统计的关联性，也就是说对产出来说是没有关系的。显然外包人员都自动 的融入团队，并没有在这次的问卷中对产出产生影响。 The other category related to whether sub-teams were divided up by discipline (art, programming, design) or were organized into cross-functional sub-teams, each combining several disciplines. 另一个类别是功能性的部门团队，例如是否分成美术，程式，设计部门，还是将不同的功 能混合在一个团队中。 Figure 13. Questions around cross-functional teams and their correlations.功能 性部门的关联性 We also observed no correlations for cross-functional or per-discipline teams, leading us to conclude that there is probably no “right” answer here. If there is any utility in adopting one team structure or the other, the factors involved were outside the scope of the questions asked in our study. 我们在分部门或混合团队都没看到有关联性，可能这里我们问的问题并不正确。也许我们 的问卷应该针对团队结构进行更进一步的分析。 Conclusions: Best Practices 结论：最佳化团队 The previous article illustrated that three very different team effectiveness models all correlate strongly with game project outcomes. We found that team effectiveness is tied to having a compelling direction and a shared vision, an enabling structure and supportive context, a connection with the mission of the organization, regular feedback, a deep level of trust and commitment within the team, belief in the mission of the organization, and the essential element of “psychological safety” that allows team members to feel comfortable taking interpersonal risks. 我们的前一篇文章中已经谈到三种不同的团队效率模型都与游戏专案产出分数相关。我们 发现明确的方向与清楚的目标，明确的架构，团队的支持信仰，与公司的目标与任务一致 ，持续回馈意见，深度的信任及团队承诺，以及心理安全感会让团队感觉能承担更多风险 。 In addition to those factors, all but the last two of the factors outlined in this article showed significant correlations as well. Those that showed no correlations are just as noteworthy as those that did. 在这些要素之中，最後两者在这篇文章中显示了显着地关联性。其他的部分都没有这麽强 烈。 For convenience, we deliberately ordered the section descriptions listed in this article in order from strongest to weakest correlation. To summarize: 为了方便起见，我们把这篇文章提到由强到弱的关联性总结如下： # Design risk management showed the strongest correlations, with a correlation over 0.57. # Team focus came in a close second, at 0.50. # Avoidance of crunch was in third place, at 0.44. # After that, team stability, communication, organizational perceptions of failure, respect, project planning, and technology risk management were also very important, all with correlations between 0.36 and 0.39. # Production methodologies and collaboration/helpfulness came in last but were still significant, at 0.29 and 0.20, respectively. # Outsourcing and the use of cross-functional teams showed no statistical significance. These do not seem to impact project outcomes in any general sense as far as our survey was able to detect. # 设计的风险管理有最强的关联性0.57。 # 团队专注则次之0.50。 # 避免加班第三0.44。 # 团队稳定，沟通，组织看待失败，尊严，计画，技术风险管理都很重要，从0.36到0.39 # 制程及合作则只有0.29与0.20。 # 外包与功能性部门则没有显着的统计表徵。至少我们的问卷都没能侦测出他们与产出 有关。 Finally, in order to help teams make the best use of these results, we’ve created an interactive self-reflection tool to help teams conduct systematic post-mortems and identify their best opportunities for growth. 最後，为了帮助团队能够使用我们的结果，我们做了一个自我检查的工具来帮助团队提早 诊断成功的机会 Self-Reflection Tool The Self-Reflection Tool is an interactive Excel spreadsheet that includes the 38 most relevant questions from our survey, along with five linear regression models (and one for each individual outcome factor and one for the aggregate outcome score). To use it, you can simply open it and answer the 38 questions highlighted in yellow on the primary worksheet. It will then forecast your team’s likely ROI, critical success, chance of project delays, and chance to achieve the project’s internal goals. It will also suggest your team’s most likely avenues for improving its odds of a positive outcome. 自我检测工具 这个工具是一个互动式的Excel试算表，包含了38个我们问卷中提到的相关问题，同时有 着五个线性回归模型（分别都对到我们不同产出的分数）。使用的时候只需开启这个档案 ，然後回答38个黄色的问题。他就会指出团队的可能利润，明显成功，延迟，满足内部目 标。他也会建议团队应该采取来加强之处。 For an even better analysis, print out the questions, ask your fellow team members to take the survey anonymously, and then average the results. 更好的是，把问题印出来跟团队成员匿名调查，看看综合结果。 You can download the self-reflection tool here. 你可以下载自我检测工具在这个连结。 Conclusion By comparing hundreds of game projects side-by-side, the Game Outcomes Project has given us a unique perspective on game development. In the process, it has uncovered quite a few surprises. The study has shown clearly which factors contribute to success or failure in game projects and pointed the way toward many future avenues of research, which are listed on our Methodology page. 结论 把几百个游戏专案比较之後，游戏专案为何成功计画给了一个游戏制作上的洞见。内容中 也揭露了一些惊喜。研究结果清楚指出哪一个要素对游戏专案有帮助，也指出未来研究的 方向，这些列在我们的部落格页面中。 We believe that this kind of systematic, objective, data-driven approach to identifying the links between common practices on game development teams and discrete project outcomes points the way toward a new approach to defining industry standards and best practices, and hopefully helps lay some persistent fallacies and popular misapprehensions to rest. In the future, we hope to extend the study with a larger number of participants and continue to refine and evolve it annually. 我们相信这种有系统，有目标，透过数据在游戏开发团队的日常差异及专案产出之间来找 到关联的做法能为游戏产业指出一条全新的最佳化路线。希望也能帮助导正一些谬论或误 解。未来，我们希望能透过更大数量的参与者来继续这个研究，每年调整结果。 More than anything else, we hope that this project will help teams and their leadership see more clearly that the differences in teamwork and culture across teams are simply massive, and we have demonstrated that these differences have an overwhelming impact on the games we make and our success or failure as organizations. 我们希望这个计画能帮助团队与领导者看清团队与文化的差异，并且我们已经证明这些差 异会对游戏成功与失败带来巨大影响。 Although there is always an element of risk involved, the lion’s share of your own destiny remains within your own control. 虽然路程上总是充满风险，出发之路还是由我们所掌舵。 If you want to improve your team's odds of success, the factors we examined in this study are probably a very good starting point. 假如你希望增加你的团队的成功机率，这些我们提到的要素都可能是一个契机。 Future Work Stay tuned for our fourth article, due in one week, in which we will tackle the tricky and pervasive topic of crunch. We will analyze the data from a number of angles and we will see that it makes a clear and unambiguous case with regard to extended overtime. Anyone considering subjecting their team to “crunch” in the hope of raising product quality or making up for lost time would be well-advised to read it carefully. By popular demand, we will also be releasing an ordered summary of our findings as Part 5 one week after that. 未来计画 请期待我们的第四篇文章，在一周之後会释出，在其中我们会解析这个棘手且长久以来的 问题：加班。我们会用不同的角度来分析资料，清楚地用一个案例显示出超时工作的问题 。若有人对加班会提高品质，赶上进度抱持期待的话，千万要仔细阅读这篇文章。 在那之後我们还会继续把总结在第五篇文章释出。 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 "游戏专案为何成功"团队希望能感谢数百名现任开发者及前辈，让这个问卷研究能顺利进 行。我们也同时感谢IGDA生产力同好会的成员Clinton Keith与Chuck Hoover在问题设计 方面的协助；感谢Kate Edward，Tristin Hightower及IGDA协助推广此专案；感谢 Christian Nutt及Gamasutra编辑群对我们问卷的支持。对我们的进度有兴趣的话，不妨 追踪我们在Twitter上的帐号@GameOutcomes。 -- "May the Balance be with U"(愿平衡与你同在) 视窗介面游戏设计教学，讨论，分享。欢迎来信。 视窗程式设计（Windows CLR Form）游戏架构设计（Game Application Framework） 游戏工具设计（Game App. Tool Design ） 电脑图学架构及研究（Computer Graphics） --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 220.135.205.117 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/GameDesign/M.1421402262.A.05B.html ※ 编辑: NDark (220.135.205.117), 01/16/2015 17:59:38 ※ 编辑: NDark (220.135.205.117), 01/16/2015 17:59:50 ※ 编辑: NDark (220.135.205.117), 01/16/2015 17:59:57 ※ 编辑: NDark (220.135.205.117), 01/16/2015 18:00:25