Quantitative management can only be applied to situations where competition is fierce and there is little cooperation, such as labor-intensive manual manufacturing. It is neither realistic nor necessary to carry out meticulous quantitative management of the R&D team. The R&D team relies on mutual cooperation among members, and more of a cooperative relationship, not a competitive relationship; quantitative management forcibly obliterates the cooperative relationship and deliberately strengthens the competitive relationship. It should be noted that the whole is not the sum of its parts, and the R&D team is inseparable-can you disassemble the different organs of a person and discuss the contribution of the hands or the feet? What’s the point of really discussing a result? If the hands and feet can be separated, will they still be alone? Similarly, if programmers and planners can really be assessed individually, why should they stay in the team and why not create value alone? So, is the team still a team? In order to improve efficiency, the starting point is understandable, but it should be more focused on how to help members cooperate, help members communicate (most people are not good at communication), and encourage members to communicate. In most cases I have seen, members do not do things or progress slowly, not because they are not under pressure, nor because they are not motivated, nor because they want to be lazy; it is because of lack of communication that they do encounter obstacles in their work. As long as you help them clear the obstacles, they will happily move on. If you are an HR, then quantitative management is an inevitable task. Just take the form casually and don’t take it seriously. If you are a team leader, spend more energy on communication, which is much better than spending on assessment. In addition, I also agree with bluepy’s view that quantitative indicators are possible, but they should not be used for assessment. Quantitative indicators are used to measure the status of the entire project, like indicators during a physical examination. If you see abnormal indicators, you can arouse vigilance and see if there are any problems. The progress report that Zhang Chengyang asked, the time period and so on, is another very complicated issue. I will just talk about it briefly here. The progress is usually divided into several milestones. However, the requirement of each milestone must be an evaluation of the project as a whole, not the accumulation of work tasks after decomposition; it should be noted that the whole is not the sum of parts, and it is not the work that has been decomposed together to form a complete project; in the middle There is a lot of integration work, and the evaluation must evaluate the overall project after integration. Regarding the overall project, it is easy to come up with a lot of quantitative indicators. Just remember that the whole is not the sum of its parts. The accumulated indicators are unreliable.