企业战略 | 从能力到能力体系

自从1990 年,两个芝加哥大学商学院学者普拉哈拉德(C. K. Prahalad)和加里 · 哈默尔(GaryHamel)在《哈佛商业评论》发表了经典文章《公司的核心竞争力》(The Core Competence of the Corporation )和1992 年波士顿咨询公司(BCG)三位合伙人斯托克(George Stalk),埃文斯(Philip Evans)和舒尔曼(Lawrence Shulman)在同一刊物发表了文章《以能力来竞争:企业战略的新法则》(Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of Corporate Strategy)之后,核心竞争力或能力理论支配西方商界超过了20 年。此理论的基本观点是:企业的成功源自它们的核心竞争力(即能力)。从此观点引申出来的另一重要观点是:企业的战略定位必须建基于它的能力,亦即是说,在业务层面上必须聚焦而不应多样化。

这两篇文章发表以后,在过去20 年内,企业界掀起了“寻找我的能力”的活动,企业都在思索和寻找自己的能力。结果企业都说,我们的能力是我们的产品、品牌、渠道、生产、成本控制、等等。经过一轮运动之后,许多企业却发现大家列出来的能力都差不多,很难找到绝对的差异性;同时,所列出来的能力都倾向于一些能看得到、摸得着的“有形能力”,而这些能力在定义上却都是单独的、没有关联起来的概念。

在整整20 年之后,另一家咨询公司——博斯公司在2010 年提出了“能力驱动战略”(Capability-Driven Strategy)的概念,重申了芝大两位教授和BCG 三位合伙人的理念,就是企业成功的根本在于他们的能力。非常有趣,20 年过去了,在所谓领先的咨询公司里的战略理念还是原地踏步。况且,博斯对能力的定义相当有意思。在它们看来,一家公司做得好的任何事情都是该公司的能力。这种定义有点像“阿妈是女人”。这种说法当然是对的,但它说明不了所谓“能力”特别的地方在哪里。

尽管如此,博斯的理论做出了一项贡献,就是提出了“能力体系”(Capabilities System)的概念。这样的提法弥补了“能力是单独个体”的原始观念,“能力体系”理念指出了企业要成功的话,必须将他的少数关键能力(博斯建议3~6 个)通过公司的人、知识、系统、工具和流程关联起来,形成一种“体系”;当这体系舒畅地运作起来,企业就能制胜。

此理念相当好,但博斯并没有具体说明这种关联究竟如何做出来。而且它们提出来的所需的手段亦较多,具体如何着手却不太清晰。其实在芝大和BCG 的文章里已经提了相当类似的概念,只是没有提出“能力体系”一词,所以被一般读者忽略了。那两篇文章其实都提出了能力(即核心竞争力)是在公司内部通过流程和综合性学习达到跨部门效益的深层动力。这在理念上, 20 年前已经超越了博斯。

但无论是芝大,BCG 或是博斯,提出的理论的最大缺点是,它们本质上是静态的,也是从后视镜来看问题的——将以往的成功因素无限延伸作为同样的未来的成功因素。在一个静态、不变的环境里,此观点或许还可以说得过去。但在今天瞬息万变、快速变化的环境里,这种观念显然不合时宜。同时,检验某企业能力所在,和它的所谓能力体系,就是要从过往来看未来。这种思想和做法在今天充满非线性和非连续性发展的商业社会里,从逻辑的角度看亦是不对的。

故此,我们目前面临的挑战就是如何在目前和将来的经营环境里,提出一套合适的企业能力和能力体系的概念、框架和操作方法。

我们认为,今天已经在很大程度上颠覆了一些基本的战略和竞争的理念。就如上面所说,我们的经营理念已从静态转变到动态,而战略的根本已经不是在静态寻找一个最“优胜”的定位就可一劳永逸,而更多地是在动态中不断的在控制和混沌之间取得平衡。这不容易,但必须做得到。同时,行业的边界不断的改变,跨界竞争已经非常普遍。竞争态势亦不断调整,竞合时代已经来临,竞争已经不仅仅是企业之间的竞争,它更多是生态系统之间的竞争。

在此大前提之下,企业必须深入的反省究竟我们的未来应当如何,我们将是谁?我们要做什么?我们的追求和梦想是什么?我们将如何去做?这些问题都是前瞻性的,面向未来的,而未来往往是模糊的,不确定的,非线性的和多维的。对未来做出可靠判断必须始于从过往和当下的回顾,但更重要的是要深入地洞察未来的发展。在这个过程中,企业必须考虑未来它最佳的组织形态应该是什么?组织形态可以以不同的形式出现:可以是传统工业时代的垂直式、自上而下的;或是某种权利分布式的业务单位组织架构,或是以所谓的“互联网思维”方式来组织的平台式或网络式组织;甚至于所谓自组织的“亚米巴”组织形态。可以说组织形态没有绝对的对,亦没有绝对的错,但它必须匹配企业的追求、目标和战略。关键词是“匹配”。

在新信息时代里,我们发现了一批快速增长的企业,它们的发展轨迹往往是非线性、向上加速的,我们称这种企业为“指数级组织”(Exponential Organizations)(相对而言,许多传统企业都只是线性组织,二者处于截然不同的轨道)。我们发现这些指数级组织的组织形态有它们的特征。它们一般比较有柔性、扁平、透明、民主、分散和平台化。同时它们擅长利用杠杆(Leverage)和科技,尤其是社交科技的力量。它们善于利用他人资源,在人力资源、资产和主要的客户或顾客资源等方面发挥杠杆作用。还有,它们的骨子里就是有一种不断创新的力量。

企业要取胜必须回归根本。在回顾过去和当下之余,亦要在新的信息时代里思考未来。未来的目标、追求和战略是什么,最适合我们的组织形态是什么,而在该组织形态下,所需的能力是什么,相关的能力体系又是什么以及如何打造该体系。没有经历这样的思考过程,而随便的在静态和昨天的基础上谈能力和能力体系是解决不了问题的。

SCMP | Hong Kong’s Way Forward is through Innovation

Edward Tse and Sunny Cheng
Monday, 02 March, 2015

Edward Tse and Sunny Cheng say setting up an innovation and technology bureau is a necessary first step for Hong Kong on the road to creating an ecosystem for entrepreneurs

Smartphones have changed the world. In many ways, they are more powerful than a personal computer because people carry them around all day, every day. App developers all over the world are constantly thinking of new ways to make them even better, doing things we never dreamed possible on a portable device.

After the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the subsequent nuclear disaster, many Japanese lived in fear of eating food contaminated with radiation, so they sought new ways to measure radioactivity and share the information with others. In less than six months, cheap Geiger counters emerged and Japanese were able to share their measurements online in real time.

Professor Nick Negroponte, the charismatic founder of the renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab, said the guiding principle for the lab was “demo, or die”. Twenty years ago, he had to demonstrate his idea of using a finger to move an object on a screen before anyone would believe it was possible. Today, even a toddler can do it on a smartphone. The world is changing rapidly and we cannot afford to lag behind. A couple of years ago, the Media Lab hired a new director, Joi Ito, and he changed their motto to “Deploy, or die.” The rapid deployment of a mass radioactive monitoring network is a good demonstration of that motto.

Ito visited Shenzhen last year and was surprised to find it a hub of innovation. While Silicon Valley remains the media’s star, Shenzhen is emerging as the centre for new devices. Ito said in his blog, “…I believe that Shenzhen, like Silicon Valley, has become such a ‘complete’ ecosystem that we’re more likely to be successful building networks to connect with Shenzhen than to compete with it head on.”

Shenzhen has much to offer. On Valentine’s Day, the media highlighted Chinese rock star Wang Feng’s proposal to movie actress Zhang Ziyi using a drone. That drone was made by DJI, a Shenzhen-based technology company founded by Hong Kong University of Science and Technology graduate Wang Tao. Today, it is the global leader in small consumer drones with sales of some 3 billion yuan (HK$3.78 billion).

Shenzhen and Hong Kong can emerge together as a strong, innovative hub for the world, and a gateway to the huge China market. Unfortunately, most people in Hong Kong are still napping; they need to wake up and seize the opportunities that China offers.

Our education system nurtured the birth of DJI and many others, but we must not stop there. Setting up an innovation and technology bureau is a necessary first step, but it will not be enough. We need the public and private sectors to work together. We must continue to set up incubators and provide the venture capital and angel investors so innovative firms can grow. We need an ecosystem like Silicon Valley, a place where entrepreneurs go to succeed and fulfil their dreams.

The HK$1 billion foundation set up by Alibaba’s Jack Ma to help young Hongkongers start their own ventures is an inspirational step. Hong Kong tycoons should consider giving back to the community, too. They need to inspire our young people. Hong Kong prospered in the 1970s when the immigrants who arrived in the 1950s and 1960s seized the opportunities and made the city a global trading hub. Our young people should seize their own future, as our forefathers did.

The civil service, meanwhile, needs to review where the Innovation and Technology Commission went wrong, and why. An innovation and technology bureau must be more than just a “renamed” commission. The government should also reflect on the West Kowloon Cultural District’s failings.

Legislators have already done enough damage with their filibustering. It’s time for them to stop interfering and using Cyberport as a reason for blocking the new bureau. We just need to make sure we learn from past mistakes. Lawmakers should help build a better Hong Kong, not kill any hope of a bright future.

It should also be remembered that failure is the master of innovation; all science and technology students can learn from failures and mistakes. So an innovation and technology bureau must allow for failure, without which there will be no innovation.

Just as Apple’s Steve Jobs advised college graduates to follow their hearts, the head of the bureau should also follow his or her heart and become a leader of innovation. Falling short of this mark would make the bureau useless, which is what the pan-democrats are campaigning about.

The idea to create such a bureau is the government’s first major move following the Occupy protests to help our youth secure a better future. The people of Hong Kong must leave the past behind. Only when everyone moves forward with a new vision can we foster real change. The time for change is now.

Edward Tse is founder & CEO of Gao Feng Advisory Company, a global strategy and management consulting firm with roots in Greater China. Sunny K. W. Cheng is an environmental technology consultant.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Innovate, or die