Core Insights - The concept of human efficiency management has been in practice for about 10 years, but many companies have faced challenges in its implementation, leading to a halt in their initiatives [1] - A significant number of companies have fallen into similar pitfalls regarding human efficiency management, indicating a collective failure in understanding and execution [1] Group 1: Leadership and Strategy - Many company leaders lack clarity in strategy and business focus, leading to rigid budget allocation and ineffective human resource management [1] - Leaders often impulsively initiate human efficiency management without a clear understanding of its implications, resulting in unrealistic goals and quick abandonment of initiatives [2] Group 2: Human Resources Department Challenges - Human resources departments often focus on low-level metrics rather than high-level insights, failing to analyze the deeper business implications of human efficiency [3] - HR teams frequently lack the necessary tools and understanding of business operations, leading to ineffective support for business units in achieving human efficiency [4] Group 3: Internal Team Dynamics - Within HR teams, there is often a lack of unity and shared vision, with members hesitant to take risks and engage fully in human efficiency initiatives [6] - Some HR professionals may choose to disengage from challenging tasks, relying on traditional methods rather than innovating to improve human efficiency [6] Group 4: Business Department Resistance - Business departments typically resist human efficiency management, citing their unique circumstances and the perceived high standards imposed by HR [7] - For human efficiency management to gain acceptance, it must be perceived as fair and beneficial, particularly for high-performing business units [7]

Group 1 - The core issue in many companies is the misalignment between the aggressive efficiency standards set by HR and the operational realities faced by business departments, leading to resistance and conflict [1][2][3] - Companies often initiate efficiency management without a clear understanding of its complexity, resulting in a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to consider the unique circumstances of different departments [2][3][4] - Effective efficiency management should involve tailored performance indicators based on a deep understanding of the company's strategy and operations, rather than imposing uniform standards [3][4] Group 2 - Many companies mistakenly attempt to shortcut the efficiency management process, which can lead to pitfalls; a thoughtful approach is necessary [4][5] - Errors in efficiency assessment include treating it as a separate initiative or simply adding it to existing performance metrics without proper integration, which can undermine its importance [5][6][7] - Efficiency indicators should hold an independent status within the performance management system, acting as a "red line" that guides overall business performance [8][9] Group 3 - Companies should approach efficiency management reforms gradually, avoiding unrealistic expectations for immediate results [10][11] - Pilot programs are recommended to identify areas with potential for efficiency improvement, utilizing a mixed team of HR, business, and financial personnel to drive results [11][12] - The pilot team should focus on enhancing efficiency through collaboration and innovation, addressing operational bottlenecks and aligning financial metrics with restructured processes [12][13] Group 4 - Successful pilot projects can lead to the development of effective methods and the cultivation of talent, which can then be expanded across the organization [15]

Core Insights - The report indicates that 57% of companies assign the human resources department as the main responsible entity for human efficiency management, an increase from 45.2% two years ago [1] - Despite this, HR departments feel limited in their effectiveness in implementing human efficiency management, often facing dissatisfaction from business units due to challenging efficiency targets [1][2] Group 1: Information Management - Effective management relies on having sufficient information for decision-making, which is crucial for human efficiency management across various business functions [3] - HR must understand business strategies and operational details to set appropriate human efficiency standards that create competitive advantages [4][5] Group 2: Power Dynamics - HR departments do not possess the necessary authority to manage human resources effectively, as personnel decisions are ultimately made by top management [6][7] - The budgeting process for human resources is often dictated by financial and executive decisions, limiting HR's ability to make impactful changes [7][8] Group 3: HR's Willingness and Environment - The majority of HR professionals tend to focus on immediate returns rather than long-term strategic goals, which affects their engagement in human efficiency management [10][11] - A lack of support and a culture that discourages innovation can lead to HR professionals being overwhelmed and disengaged from meaningful human efficiency initiatives [11][12] Group 4: Responsibility for Human Efficiency - While 57% of companies assign HR to manage human efficiency, only 43% view HR as a value-creating department, indicating a disconnect in expectations [12][14] - Human efficiency management should be a strategic priority led by top management, with HR playing a supportive role rather than the sole responsibility [16][17]

"人效管理"无疑是当下人力资源专业中最火的热词，细细算来，这个词火了已经超过十年了。每年穆胜 咨询的《中国企业人力资源效能研究报告》里，60%左右的样本企业都承认，他们的老板或高管频繁提 及"人效"或"人效管理"。 一、哎，尴尬的人效管理 三、人效指标的两个计量口径 与概念的火爆相比，企业在实践领域的进展却有点尴尬，大量的人效管理项目都是以各种方式偃旗息 鼓。操盘项目的人力资源部一度认为，只要将企业整体的人效目标（如提升20%）分解到业务单元，自 然可以挤出编制和人工成本的水分，但结局却是高压指标之下的法不责众。 这自然引起了业务部门的强烈反感，他们反感HR刻舟求剑，也反感老板简单粗暴，甚至认为HR充当了 老板砍向员工的那把刀。于是，好好的一个人效管理，变成了老板和HR的阴暗合谋，实在是让人唏 嘘。 如果人效管理再按这个思路走下去，必然成为专业的自嗨，甚至会成为专业沦落前的最后疯狂。如果预 料到这样的结果，我们是不是应该重新审视人效管理？ 二、人效管理为何炙手可热？ 人效管理这个概念能够大火，有两个阶段的环境因素在助推： 第一阶段，互联网商业浪潮袭来，各大企业面临不确定性，要求HR能够交付更加直接的工作结果， ...

Core Viewpoint - Sally's has managed to grow and expand rapidly in a challenging consumer environment by offering affordable yet quality dining options, akin to the "Uniqlo" of the restaurant industry [1][3]. Group 1: Pricing Strategy - From the 1990s to 2020, the price of baked rice decreased from ¥30 to ¥18, and Italian ham dropped from ¥36 to ¥18, showcasing a significant reduction in menu prices [2]. - Despite lower prices, Sally's has increased its net profit to 8.1 billion yen in 2024, a 58% year-on-year growth, with annual customer traffic reaching 200 million [3]. Group 2: Product Quality and Localization - The concept of "quality" at Sally's refers to being a value-for-money restaurant rather than gourmet dining, offering dishes that are enjoyable but not overly rich or small in portion [4][5]. - The company adapts its menu to local tastes, such as introducing spicy pasta dishes unique to China [7]. Group 3: Supply Chain and Cost Control - Sally's maintains control over its supply chain by producing its own ingredients, such as lettuce, corn, and rice, ensuring quality and cost efficiency [8]. - Innovations like the "Sally's No. 18" lettuce allow for more servings per head of lettuce, and strategic farming practices have reduced rice costs by 5,000 yen per bag [9]. - The integration of logistics, cold chain transport, and central kitchens minimizes logistics costs and reduces the need for extensive kitchen staff training [9][10]. Group 4: Operational Efficiency - The company has streamlined operations, reducing the preparation time for opening a store from one hour to 45 minutes, saving significant costs across its numerous locations [11]. - Instead of using traditional KPI metrics, Sally's employs a flexible reward system that encourages employees to focus on beneficial operational practices [12]. Group 5: Lessons for Other Companies - Key takeaways for Chinese companies from Sally's success include the importance of extreme cost-performance ratios, effective offline store strategies, and high execution efficiency to maintain low prices [13].

Core Insights - The economic downturn is driving companies to undergo organizational changes to reduce costs and improve efficiency [1][3] - There is a noticeable shift in demand for organizational transformation consulting, with companies showing strong commitment to change [1][2] - Companies that previously attempted innovative organizational structures are now reverting to traditional models due to practical challenges [3] Group 1: Organizational Change Trends - This year has seen a resurgence in demand for organizational transformation consulting, indicating a shift from previous years focused on employee efficiency management [1][2] - Companies are increasingly interested in "platform-type organizations," demonstrating a basic understanding and prior attempts at similar transformations [1][2] - The disparity in organizational capabilities among companies becomes more evident as they face the challenges of the economic environment [1][3] Group 2: Performance Disparities - Many companies are experiencing setbacks in their organizational structures, reverting to pyramid models and abandoning innovative practices [3][4] - A minority of companies are excelling by refining their organizational strategies and creating interconnected initiatives across various sectors [4] - Successful companies are characterized by a culture of learning and adaptation, contrasting with those that struggle and revert to outdated practices [4][5] Group 3: Challenges and Solutions - The difficulties of organizational change are apparent, with companies needing to build a solid understanding and take actionable steps to differentiate themselves in a challenging economic climate [5] - The fourth China Enterprise Platform Organization Forum aims to provide solutions for companies navigating these challenges [5]