谢祖墀 | 连续跳跃战略:企业发展的第三条路

连续跳跃战略:企业发展的第三条路
作者:谢祖墀 张钊谦 陈英麟 发表于《商业评论》6月刊

过去十几年里,一部分中国企业迅速崛起。它们当中有一些能够在复杂、动态和不确定的商业环境中,一次又一次抓住时代的契机,取得一波又一波的增长,比如阿里巴巴、乐视、腾讯、小米、滴滴出行等。纵观这些企业的发展历程,可见它们的领导者的思维是非线性、多维、跳跃性的。他们擅于捕捉市场机会,并理解社会发展中产生的新规律,在不知不觉中摸索了一条新的战略发展方法,形成了一套从中国实践出发的新的管理战略思想。我们将这种新的管理战略思想称作“连续跳跃”战略思维。它有别于我们熟知的两种主流管理战略理论——集团多元化经营和核心竞争力,我们又称之为企业管理战略思想的“第三条路”。

从定义上说,连续跳跃战略思维是指,企业面临新的(往往是非线性的)发展机会时,不再囿于核心竞争力所限定的范围,而是通过自身建立或外部获取来弥补能力空缺,进而抓住新的机会实现延续性的跳跃式发展。

企业在建立初始业务时,会打造一些相应的能力或核心竞争力。随着市场出现新的机会,而且这些机会往往以非线性的S形出现(在互联网时代尤为明显),企业当前的能力可能未必满足新业务的需求,但面对新机会,企业必须做出抉择。有的企业会选择跳跃,可能成功,也可能不成功。对于不成功的企业,需要以动态思维继续审视内外部环境的变化,并持续提升自身能力的空缺,以期未来的发展与跳跃。而有的企业可能选择不跳,因其尚不具备跳跃所需的能力体系,亦或在自身业务的时空范围内尚有发展的潜力,它们往往选择在自己领域内继续打造和提升核心竞争力。这些决定都取决于企业领导和班子对外部环境变化的判断,以及对弥补自身能力空缺进而实现跳跃的信心。

企业在跳跃之余,必须尽快弥补原有的能力空缺。企业可以在内部通过人才的培养、组织的重塑、流程的梳理等建立所需能力,也可以从外部来获取,包括并购其他企业,或建立联盟和合作关系,即构建生态系统。构建生态系统是近年来中国商业环境下中国企业家的一个主要思想。从外部来看,当今环境变化多维、剧烈且快速,这意味着企业把握新机会的时间窗口远比传统时代要短;从内部来看,企业实现跳跃发展所需的能力体系空缺很大,通过自身发展来填补,难度较大且需要较长过程。因此,生态系统的构建越发重要。

当然,企业要实施连续跳跃战略,也存在一些风险。首先,有些企业被逼跳跃。对于它们而言,万一误判契机而跳空,可能一去不返,同时对本身的核心业务产生严重影响。因此,在选择跳跃之前,企业是否应该考虑好后路? 第二,跳跃是要在旧有的基础上创新,建立动态能力体系,意识到机会的时机和突破点。跳还是不跳,跳不过怎么办,这些都关系到跳跃的机会成本。而跳跃后所造成的能力空缺也会带来不稳定性,企业要把握跳跃的节奏并及时填补能力空缺,避免风险。第三,与内部组织有关。在跳跃过程中,如何与中低管理层和员工沟通,传播跳跃战略思维,树立共同愿景,达到言行一致。最后,在跳跃过程中,要注意保持适当的弹性而非故步自封。

连续跳跃战略思维是集团多元化经营和核心竞争力之外的第三条路。这条路如果走得太快,就容易变为集团多元化经营而不受控制;反之,若停滞不前,就可能局限于核心竞争力的范围。归根结底,这体现了一种跳跃式思维,更考验企业领导者的能力。如果看不到外部市场环境的大趋势,只是简单囿于西方管理战略理论,最终导致的结果很可能是失去企业发展的黄金时代。

摘自《商业评论》(2016年6月刊)并保留所有权利

关于作者:
谢祖墀博士(Dr. Edward Tse)是高风管理咨询公司(Gao Feng Advisory Company)的创始人兼首席执行官。中国管理咨询业的先行者。过去的20年里,他创立并领导了两大国际管理咨询公司在大中华区的业务。外界评价他为“中国的全球领先商业战略家”和 “谢博士之于中国企业界就如大前研一之于日本企业界”。他已发表200多篇文章并出版了4本书,其中包括于国际获奖的《中国战略》和《创业家精神》。

张钊谦博士( Robert Zhang)是高风咨询公司高级项目经理,常驻北京。他曾在西门子中国有限公司担任多年高级经理,领导整个集团层面的渠道战略变革项目,同时具有丰富的管理咨询经验,行业领域包括工业品、能源和汽车,涉及公司战略、销售渠道、本地生产和投资模式。

陈英麟 (Alan Chan) 是高风咨询公司的高级咨询顾问,常驻上海。他是高风数字业务部门核心成员,专注于中国商业模式创新,企业数字战略和车联网。他拥有在中国大陆、香港和英国与跨国企业及互联网初创企业工作的经验。

 

谢祖墀 | 重温组织DNA 理论

 

在博斯公司 (Booz&Company) 工作的时候,我们发展出了不少的管理理论。但我个人认为,最受企业界重视和最具应用价值的是“组织DNA”(Org DNA) 的理论。

该理论的提出者是加里·尼尔逊(GaryNeilson),博斯公司的一位高级合伙人。我与加里认识已经近20 年,他是一位美国人,常驻芝加哥办事处,是一位非常成功的企业组织的研究专家,在业界享有盛名。

“组织DNA”的理论是加里于2005 年正式提出来的。当年他和博斯的另外一位高级合伙人布鲁斯·帕斯特纳克(Bruce Pasternack) 合作出版了一本书,名为《Results》(《成效》)。于书里,他们全面介绍了“组织DNA”理论。

当年此理论在西方企业界受到了高度重视,不少企业客户都来请教博斯公司如何重塑它们的组织DNA。当时,我亦在中国企业界中推介了此理论,还与当时哈佛《商业理论》的忻榕教授合作,做了一次针对中国不同类别企业的组织DNA 的调查,调查结果在企业界很受重视。

十年过得很快,在此时间里,中国企业发展非常迅速,在管理理念上取得不少进步,同时不少企业家和观察者亦提出了不少新的观点,特别是在互联网时代,新的管理和组织概念层出不穷,让不少人眼花缭乱。

个人认为,在无数的貌似混沌的观点背后其实还有一些原则性极强、基石类的管理理论,它们的重要性是跨越时空的。我认为,“组织DNA”的理论既是这些基石理论之一。

在博斯的研究中,它们将企业自身的属性特征类比于生物体的DNA。就像生物DNA 的双螺旋结构由四种核苷酸分子的不同组合所决定一样,企业DNA
由组织架构、决策权、信息传导和激励机制四个基本要素组成,这些基本要素通过无数种组合方法形成企业的独特性。我们经常谈及的战略、创新、执行力、企业转型等焦点问题,无一不深深地根植于企业本身的DNA
之中。

根据博斯公司的研究,企业DNA有这七种类型:

1. 韧力调节型

这种企业非常灵活,能迅速适应外部市场的变化,但同时又能始终坚持清晰的经营战略,并围绕它开展业务。企业具有前瞻性,能经常预测未来的变化,并未雨绸缪地做好准备。它能够吸引积极进取、具有团队精神的人才,不仅为他们提供催人奋进的工作环境,还提供资源并授予他们权力以有效解决各种棘手的问题。
2. 随机应变型企业

这种企业对变化不能始终做到未雨绸缪,但仍然能在必要时显示出“随机应变”的能力,而且不会失去企业发展的大方向。尽管它能设法留住好员工,财务状况也尚可,但它仍然无法由“好”变成“卓越”。这种企业很容易与一些机会失之交臂,它的成功往往只是侥幸取得,而不是一种必然。然而,尽管有诸多令人失望的地方,它仍然是一个充满挑战、富有激情的工作场所。
3. 军队型企业

通常由少数有经验的高层管理团队领航,主要借助企业领导层的意志和远见卓识取得成功。企业有能力制定并执行极好的战略,有些时候还会反复执行。这类企业最重要的课题是做好充分的准备,以便在现任领导任期结束之后继续保持增长。企业内资历浅的人才通常是通过观摩而不是身体力行来学习,中层管理人才经常抛弃现有职位离开企业,让正处于上升阶段的新人们意识到他们必须离开企业才能获得实际经验。
4. 消极进取型企业

这种企业看上去很协调,好像没有任何冲突,这是一种“决策一致,但无法得到实施”的企业。对于重大变革,要形成一致意见并不难,难的是实施变革。长期扎根于员工中的无形阻力可以让企业的所有心血付之东流。由于缺乏必要的权威、信息和激励措施开展有意义的变革,一线员工很容易忽视来自总部的指令,认为“这没什么大不了的”。面对这样一个缺乏热情的企业,高层管理只能对花了很大精力却不能实现预期价值而感到痛心疾首。
5. 时停时进型企业

这种企业内有许多人都非常聪明、才华横溢而且积极进取,但他们常常不能一起朝同一个方向努力。如果他们能够做到这一点,就能取得辉煌的、突破性的战略进步,然而这种企业内特别缺乏相应的制度和协调机制来保持辉煌。这种企业能够激发人的聪明才智和主动性,它能创造很多机会让那些具有企业家精神的人尝试自己的想法和挑起重任,但往往事与愿违,大家各行其是,导致企业濒临失控。
6. 过度膨胀型企业

企业的扩张超出了组织模式的负荷,导致运该转不灵。企业机构过于庞大和复杂,少数高层管理人员已经无法再有效控制企业,大部分的组织潜力无法发掘。企业权力的集中化容易导致企业步履维艰,企业常常发现自己“墨守成规。”这类企业经常会错失良机,战略总是无法得到有效执行。
7. 过度管理型企业

受多层管理的拖累,该类企业容易陷入“分析瘫痪”(analysis paralysis)的困境。即便企业确实取得进步,也是事倍功半,效率低下。在把握机会上常常落后于竞争对手。管理人员通常会捡了芝麻丢了西瓜,把大量时间花在相互检查工作而不是探索新的机会或防范潜在威胁上。这些企业常常带有官僚作风和强烈的政治色彩,易于挫伤主动进取和追求实效的人。

最优良的DNA是韧力调节型,而随机应变型和军队型是次佳,余下的四种DNA 都是非良性的。在过去几十年的发展中,中国企业们的发展和表现总体证明了这个观察在实践中是正确的。问题是在未来的发展中,企业家们如何在建设适合组织DNA 方面作出深刻的观察和塑造。一个组织的DNA 其实是会改变的,本来良性的DNA 可以变成非良性的,反之亦然。

在互联网时代,不少人提出了一些新的组织形式,但无论是“自组织”或传统自上而下的组织架构,核心仍旧是该组织的DNA。

十多年后重温组织DNA 的理念,仍觉对今天的企业非常受用。在此,我将这个理念推荐给每位中国企业家,也希望引起企业界更多的思考:你的企业的DNA是怎样的?

摘自《亚布力观点》(2016年6月刊)并保留所有权利

关于作者:
谢祖墀博士(Dr. Edward Tse)是高风管理咨询公司(Gao Feng Advisory Company)的创始人兼首席执行官。中国管理咨询业的先行者。过去的20年里,他创立并领导了两大国际管理咨询公司在大中华区的业务。外界评价他为“中国的全球领先商业战略家”和 “谢博士之于中国企业界就如大前研一之于日本企业界”。他曾为数以百计的公司(总部设在中国及其它地区)咨询过所有关键战略和管理方面的业务,涉及中国的各个方面和中国在全球的地位。他还为中国政府在战略、国有企业改革和中国企业走出国门等方面做过咨询。他已发表200多篇文章并出版了4本书,其中包括于国际获奖的《中国战略》和《创业家精神》。谢博士获得了加州大学伯克利分校工程学博士、MBA以及麻省理工学院的工程学学士、硕士。

谢祖墀 | 重温组织DNA 理论

在博斯公司 (Booz&Company) 工作的时候,我们发展出了不少的管理理论。但我个人认为,最受企业界重视和最具应用价值的是“组织DNA”(Org DNA) 的理论。

 

该理论的提出者是加里·尼尔逊(GaryNeilson),博斯公司的一位高级合伙人。我与加里认识已经近20 年,他是一位美国人,常驻芝加哥办事处,是一位非常成功的企业组织的研究专家,在业界享有盛名。

 

“组织DNA”的理论是加里于2005 年正式提出来的。当年他和博斯的另外一位高级合伙人布鲁斯·帕斯特纳克(Bruce Pasternack) 合作出版了一本书,名为《Results》(《成效》)。于书里,他们全面介绍了“组织DNA”理论。

 

当年此理论在西方企业界受到了高度重视,不少企业客户都来请教博斯公司如何重塑它们的组织DNA。当时,我亦在中国企业界中推介了此理论,还与当时哈佛《商业理论》的忻榕教授合作,做了一次针对中国不同类别企业的组织DNA 的调查,调查结果在企业界很受重视。

 

十年过得很快,在此时间里,中国企业发展非常迅速,在管理理念上取得不少进步,同时不少企业家和观察者亦提出了不少新的观点,特别是在互联网时代,新的管理和组织概念层出不穷,让不少人眼花缭乱。

 

个人认为,在无数的貌似混沌的观点背后其实还有一些原则性极强、基石类的管理理论,它们的重要性是跨越时空的。我认为,“组织DNA”的理论既是这些基石理论之一。

 

在博斯的研究中,它们将企业自身的属性特征类比于生物体的DNA。就像生物DNA 的双螺旋结构由四种核苷酸分子的不同组合所决定一样,企业DNA
由组织架构、决策权、信息传导和激励机制四个基本要素组成,这些基本要素通过无数种组合方法形成企业的独特性。我们经常谈及的战略、创新、执行力、企业转型等焦点问题,无一不深深地根植于企业本身的DNA
之中。

 

根据博斯公司的研究,企业DNA有这七种类型:

 

1. 韧力调节型

这种企业非常灵活,能迅速适应外部市场的变化,但同时又能始终坚持清晰的经营战略,并围绕它开展业务。企业具有前瞻性,能经常预测未来的变化,并未雨绸缪地做好准备。它能够吸引积极进取、具有团队精神的人才,不仅为他们提供催人奋进的工作环境,还提供资源并授予他们权力以有效解决各种棘手的问题。

2. 随机应变型企业

这种企业对变化不能始终做到未雨绸缪,但仍然能在必要时显示出“随机应变”的能力,而且不会失去企业发展的大方向。尽管它能设法留住好员工,财务状况也尚可,但它仍然无法由“好”变成“卓越”。这种企业很容易与一些机会失之交臂,它的成功往往只是侥幸取得,而不是一种必然。然而,尽管有诸多令人失望的地方,它仍然是一个充满挑战、富有激情的工作场所。

3. 军队型企业

通常由少数有经验的高层管理团队领航,主要借助企业领导层的意志和远见卓识取得成功。企业有能力制定并执行极好的战略,有些时候还会反复执行。这类企业最重要的课题是做好充分的准备,以便在现任领导任期结束之后继续保持增长。企业内资历浅的人才通常是通过观摩而不是身体力行来学习,中层管理人才经常抛弃现有职位离开企业,让正处于上升阶段的新人们意识到他们必须离开企业才能获得实际经验。

4. 消极进取型企业

这种企业看上去很协调,好像没有任何冲突,这是一种“决策一致,但无法得到实施”的企业。对于重大变革,要形成一致意见并不难,难的是实施变革。长期扎根于员工中的无形阻力可以让企业的所有心血付之东流。由于缺乏必要的权威、信息和激励措施开展有意义的变革,一线员工很容易忽视来自总部的指令,认为“这没什么大不了的”。面对这样一个缺乏热情的企业,高层管理只能对花了很大精力却不能实现预期价值而感到痛心疾首。

5. 时停时进型企业

这种企业内有许多人都非常聪明、才华横溢而且积极进取,但他们常常不能一起朝同一个方向努力。如果他们能够做到这一点,就能取得辉煌的、突破性的战略进步,然而这种企业内特别缺乏相应的制度和协调机制来保持辉煌。这种企业能够激发人的聪明才智和主动性,它能创造很多机会让那些具有企业家精神的人尝试自己的想法和挑起重任,但往往事与愿违,大家各行其是,导致企业濒临失控。

6. 过度膨胀型企业

企业的扩张超出了组织模式的负荷,导致运该转不灵。企业机构过于庞大和复杂,少数高层管理人员已经无法再有效控制企业,大部分的组织潜力无法发掘。企业权力的集中化容易导致企业步履维艰,企业常常发现自己“墨守成规。”这类企业经常会错失良机,战略总是无法得到有效执行。

7. 过度管理型企业

受多层管理的拖累,该类企业容易陷入“分析瘫痪”(analysis paralysis)的困境。即便企业确实取得进步,也是事倍功半,效率低下。在把握机会上常常落后于竞争对手。管理人员通常会捡了芝麻丢了西瓜,把大量时间花在相互检查工作而不是探索新的机会或防范潜在威胁上。这些企业常常带有官僚作风和强烈的政治色彩,易于挫伤主动进取和追求实效的人。

 

最优良的DNA是韧力调节型,而随机应变型和军队型是次佳,余下的四种DNA 都是非良性的。在过去几十年的发展中,中国企业们的发展和表现总体证明了这个观察在实践中是正确的。问题是在未来的发展中,企业家们如何在建设适合组织DNA 方面作出深刻的观察和塑造。一个组织的DNA 其实是会改变的,本来良性的DNA 可以变成非良性的,反之亦然。

在互联网时代,不少人提出了一些新的组织形式,但无论是“自组织”或传统自上而下的组织架构,核心仍旧是该组织的DNA。

 

十多年后重温组织DNA 的理念,仍觉对今天的企业非常受用。在此,我将这个理念推荐给每位中国企业家,也希望引起企业界更多的思考:你的企业的DNA是怎样的?

摘自《亚布力观点》(2016年6月刊)并保留所有权利

关于作者:

谢祖墀博士(Dr. Edward Tse)是高风管理咨询公司(Gao Feng Advisory Company)的创始人兼首席执行官。中国管理咨询业的先行者。过去的20年里,他创立并领导了两大国际管理咨询公司在大中华区的业务。外界评价他为“中国的全球领先商业战略家”和 “谢博士之于中国企业界就如大前研一之于日本企业界”。他曾为数以百计的公司(总部设在中国及其它地区)咨询过所有关键战略和管理方面的业务,涉及中国的各个方面和中国在全球的地位。他还为中国政府在战略、国有企业改革和中国企业走出国门等方面做过咨询。他已发表200多篇文章并出版了4本书,其中包括于国际获奖的《中国战略》和《创业家精神》。谢博士获得了加州大学伯克利分校工程学博士、MBA以及麻省理工学院的工程学学士、硕士。

—————————————————

高风管理咨询公司

北京办事处

电话: +86 10 8441 8422

传真: +86 10 8441 8423

邮箱:info@gaofengadv.com

香港办事处

电话: +852 2588 3554

传真: +852 2588 3499

邮箱:info@gaofengadv.com

上海办事处

电话: +86 21 6333 9611

传真: +86 21 6326 7808

邮箱:info@gaofengadv.com

更多资讯欢迎访问以下平台:

高风微信公众平台号:Gaofengadv

高风官方微博:高风咨询公司

高风官网:www.gaofengadv.com

Forbes | The Merger Of Uber China And Didi Chuxing

Aug 5, 2016 @ 06:13 AM
By Dr. Edward Tse and Bill Russo

Disrupting The Disruptors: The Merger Of Uber China And Didi Chuxing

On August 1st, Didi Chuxing and Uber China announced a plan to merge their businesses in China, effectively putting Didi in control of their combined ride-hailing business for the China market. The deal has attracted a great deal of attention since the announcement and a number of critical questions have been raised. We would like to share our perspective on some of these questions.

What does the merger mean to anti-trust?
While the China government is typically very actively involved in industrial policy and development, they have actually resisted getting in front of developments related to mobility services. This is mainly resulting from the very favorable public response and popularity of these services. Ride-hailing, or On-Demand Mobility (ODM), services address “pain points” associated with the expanding demand for mobility in an increasingly urbanized China, and are empowering both users and drivers. Services such as Didi Chuxing, Yidao, UCar, and Uber China have until now gone unregulated. New draft regulations have recently been circulated, but this is notably after the emergence of the services and there’s been no attempt to curtail them in any way.
Can foreign tech companies compete in China?
Of course they can, but it won’t be easy. Tech companies such as Apple AAPL +1.49% have had success in China, but foreign companies must be prepared to adapt their approach to the China context. The usual cause for failure is when the companies are either unaware of the local context or unwilling to seriously consider it. Unlike traditional manufactured products, Chinese tech players – especially the tech giants like Baidu BIDU +3.05%, Alibaba and Tencent (BAT) and their ecosystem partners – are very well embraced by Chinese consumers. This success comes not as a result of favored treatment by the government, but rather from their ability to tailor solutions that are relevant to the “pain points” experienced in the market. This is certainly the case for the mobility solutions players. Didi has over 85% share because they simply were faster and smarter at delivering a solution to the market than other local and foreign competitors – not because they were given any favorable treatment by the government or by policies (which, as noted earlier, did not exist in the early stage of development).

If foreign companies want to join the game, they need to think and act like the entrepreneurial Chinese companies like Didi who are rapidly emerging and growing exponentially. They must learn to compete in or cooperate with the BAT ecosystem players or other tech companies who are often open to local or global collaborations with foreign tech firms.

Did Uber China win or lose? Could Uber China ever become the dominant player in the country if it decided to press ahead?
Win or Lose is a judgment call. We think they both get something which they can call a win. Didi has more than 85% share of China’s ride-hailing market and over 7,000 employees. Uber could not possibly match that without enormous investment and heavy discounting. The merger was a way forward that at least makes Uber Technologies a large shareholder of Didi. They have a seat at the table and can collaborate with Didi locally and globally.

Internet companies can make as much or more money from licensing IP as they can from being the brand that commercializes the technology. Uber gets a big share of a huge Chinese start-up that will go up in value and now has the option of licensing them advanced technology for transportation systems. In return, Didi gets a global mobility solutions partner that can help them expand internationally. Didi is also well positioned as the mobility company that can commercialize offline services related to mobility (because they have access to a digital ecosystem from their BAT partners, which Uber lacks in China).

What does the merger mean to anti-trust?
It depends on the how the boundary of the relevant market is defined. In terms of the ride-hailing service market, Didi is the dominant player. But if we are talking about the broader transportation market (which also includes bus, metro, train, etc.), Didi is not dominant. Looking back to 2009, China’s Ministry of Commerce rejected Coca-Cola ’s acquisition of Huiyuan, a Chinese juice-maker, stating that the deal would give Coca-Cola a dominant position in the market. Coca-Cola argued, unsuccessfully, that the position would not be as dominant when contrasted with the larger FMCG beverages market. Clearly, every case is different and up till now, it is unclear how the Ministry will view the Didi-Uber case.

What will this deal mean to Uber and Didi’s global strategies?
So far, the focus of this transaction is on China, but it is interesting to consider how Didi and Uber’s strategies will be impacted elsewhere. Didi and Uber could expand their collaboration and become a global ODM services partnership, where each offers branded services for specific regional markets, with Didi dominating China and Asia and Uber leading in the US and Europe.

They may also choose to leverage complementary capabilities from each party where Uber focuses on advanced transportation technologies and development of algorithms for movement of people and things, while Didi delivers the actual mobility service to the consumer. Apple’s recent US$1Bn investment in Didi also raises an interesting question of what role they may eventually play in this alliance.

In any case, both companies can now better focus their resources in building a profitable business in their respective markets. Didi can work to cement its dominant position domestically in a bid to further distance itself from other local rivals in China. Uber can now invest in expanding its own services, while pivoting from low-end ride-hailing to more sophisticated transportation and perhaps building out its autonomous transportation capabilities. It is clear that other companies will start feeling the heat, especially Lyft in the US, should Uber decide to redouble its efforts on its home turf.

The global implications of the relationship remain to be seen, especially among the stakeholders of the respective companies. This raises the core question: how will this rapidly evolving landscape of partnerships reshape the future of mobility? And for sure, we can look forward to even more exciting developments in the future.

About the Authors:
Dr. Edward Tse is founder & CEO, Gao Feng Advisory Company, a global strategy and management consulting firm with roots in China. A pioneer in China’s management consulting profession, he led the Greater China operations for two major international management consulting firms for 20 years and is widely known as China’s leading global business strategist. He is author of The China Strategy (2010) and China’s Disruptors (2015).
Bill Russo, Managing Director and Auto Practice Leader at Gao Feng Advisory Company.

Forbes | When Big Apple Meets Didi’s Little Orange

MAY 23, 2016 @ 09:35 PM | FORBES.COM
Co-authored by Edward Tse, Bill Russo and Alan Chan

On May 13, Apple announced a USD 1 billion investment in China’s leading on-demand mobility (ODM) service, Didi Chuxing (Didi). Didi’s legal name in Chinese means “little orange”, and an internal announcement made to Didi’s employees literally welcomed the apple to the orange family.

To understand the logic of this investment, it is important to first understand the popularity and explosive growth of such services in China – along with the role that Didi plays inside the expanding ecosystems of its largest investors, Tencent and Alibaba.

Originating from separate taxi-hailing services in 2012, Didi is now a one-stop mobility solutions provider that provides a variety of services including taxi-hailing, private-car hailing, on-demand bus, peer-to-peer ride-sharing, designated driver and test driving. Didi currently has 14 million registered drivers, completing over 11 million rides per day in over 400 cities across China. With over 87 percent share of the Chinese private car-hailing market, Didi is far larger than all the other ODM service providers in China, including Uber.

As a global leader in smart connected device technology, Apple has been exploring opportunities to expand the reach of its iOS ecosystem. It is an “open secret” that Apple is working on its own vehicle program, code-named Project Titan, investing billions in R&D and poaching talent from leading automakers including Tesla, General Motors and Ford. As a manufacturer of intelligent devices, Apple is a “serial disruptor” of industries ranging from media to telecommunications, and views smart transportation as a key target.

The logic of this collaboration is quite evident: the premier global smart device maker (Apple) has set its sights on disrupting transportation in partnership with the dominant mobility services platform (Didi) in the world’s largest car market with the largest number of mobile internet users. Through this partnership, Apple and Didi will have the opportunity to shape the connected mobility ecosystem for China as well as the rest of the world.

A Collaboration Model for Connected Mobility Innovation
The traditional owner-centric business model of the car industry is being disrupted by shared ODM services. As a result, we have witnessed the rapid emergence of a user-centric business model served by mobility services platforms dominated by Uber and Didi. Apple’s investment in Didi will ensure that they will be able to access China’s dynamic internet and mobility ecosystem.

Apple gains a Chinese partner not only with a strong mobility services brand, but also with a proven market sensing capability and keen understanding of how to address mobility pain points. Apple can leverage this to launch a car that delivers the perfect connected mobility user experience, and this can be leveraged both inside and outside of China. Didi will benefit from being affiliated with the world’s premier smart device company, and also gains a major global strategic partner to help penetrate into overseas markets and compete globally with Uber.

While not the primary motivation, Apple’s investment in Didi can also help foster goodwill in China, signaling a willingness on the part of Apple to collaborate with leading Chinese companies. The importance of maintaining such goodwill was underscored recently when Chinese regulators shut down access to some of Apple’s online media stores, triggering concerns among investors. In addition, Didi expects to turn a profit next year and eventually list their shares, which could provide Apple with a fast return on their capital investment.

The recent loss of momentum in Apple’s profit growth and share price performance has raised concerns among investors that the Apple may not be able to recover its shine. The deal with Didi brings hope that Apple can disrupt the auto industry in the world’s largest auto market.

From Connected Mobility to Connected Lifestyle
However, connected mobility is just one segment of the larger “connected lifestyle” opportunity. The convergence of disruptive technologies such as autonomous driving, artificial intelligence and virtual reality will have the power to transform our everyday lives. The implications of this go far beyond mobility, which is just one of the spaces where we will be connected through a smart device or platform.

Cars will increasingly become smart, connected, electronic and autonomous – and increasingly accessed through a mobility service. A logical interpretation of Apple’s strategy is that it views the car as a “third place” after home and office where people are connected to the internet. Its investment in Didi should be viewed as a strategic opportunity for Apple to capture a larger share of a mobility user’s time online, thereby generating recurring revenue. By creating a more personalized mobility solution, Apple also hopes that the users of such a mobility service would eventually prefer an Apple hardware platform when they are on wheels.

More than just a taxi-hailing service, Didi is a technology-enabled platform. With advanced algorithms to match supply and demand, surge pricing and real-time route optimization, Didi is efficiently moving people and things by maximizing the utilization rate of vehicles. More importantly, with big data and machine learning capabilities, Didi’s competitive advantages are constantly evolving and being reinforced.

Like WeChat and Alipay, Didi has emerged as one of the few “Super Apps” holding a vital part of Chinese consumers’ daily connected lifestyle. These Super Apps typically start by addressing a major pain point and eventually evolve into ecosystems of connected lifestyle services for potentially billions of users. They possess valuable “big data” on a user’s mobility patterns that are of high commercial value.

“Apple + Didi” vs. “LeEco + Yidao”
In fact, the “Apple + Didi” model is already being experimented by LeEco, a leading Chinese internet media company founded (as LeTV) in 2004. Last year, LeEco purchased a 70 percent stake in another Chinese car-hailing app Yidao Yongche. LeEco is also the principal investor in Faraday Future, a U.S.-based electric vehicle startup that is featuring a “subscription model” where users can enjoy the flexibility and convenience of mobility on-demand without having to own the vehicle. Apple’s recent monthly paid iPhone subscription program indicates that they may already be considering such a business model for other smart devices.

The usage-based model effectively eliminates the problem of up-selling features to individual owners by allowing the businesses that generate revenue from the device to cover the cost for adding the technology.

LeEco’s vision is to cover all aspects of consumer’s connected lifestyle by establishing an extensive business portfolio with mobile internet, e-commerce, sports, internet finance, entertainment and others. It is rapidly building a vertically-integrated ecosystem comprised of “Content, Devices, Platforms and Applications” offering premium user experience across multiple screens (i.e. mobile, tablet, computer, cinema, TV and cars).

Disrupt or Be Disrupted
Going forward, we expect to see increasing levels of coopetition, and more cross-border, cross-industry collaborations:

Coopetition: Google is an early investor in Uber while Baidu is a strategic investor in Uber China. Alibaba is a major investor in Didi. Meanwhile, Ant Financial Services Group, Alibaba’s affiliate that runs Alipay and other financial services, has partnered with Uber to enable Alipay globally. Apple’s deal with Didi could potentially challenge both Uber and Google. In addition, Didi is a member of an “anti-Uber alliance” including Lyft in the U.S., Grab (formerly GrabTaxi) in Southeast Asia, and Ola in India. With Didi’s aspiration to become a global company, Apple could eventually extend strategic partnerships to other companies in the alliance as well.

Cross-border: China (Beijing) and U.S. (Silicon Valley) will be the leading innovation hubs for connected mobility and beyond. The Chinese government is keen to promote electric vehicles adoption and digital transformation to improve urban mobility and address environmental issues. China could leapfrog and become the epicenter for connected mobility innovation on a global scale, with its massive population serving as a fertile ground for technology commercialization, as well as connected lifestyle. Permutations and combinations of cross-border alliances for connected lifestyle will create tremendous value for Chinese internet users as they trade-up for better products and services.

Cross-industry: The boundary between automotive and internet technology industries will become increasingly blurred. General Motors, as one of the most forward-looking incumbents, has formed a strategic partnership with Lyft, acquired self-driving start-up Cruise Automation and established a new business division named Maven to experiment with new mobility services. Other automakers are also catching up by piloting ODM services, including Daimler’s Car2Go, Ford’s Go!Drive and Ford Pass, BMW’s DriveNow, and Audi On-Demand. We have already seen emerging “disruption clusters” in China, including (1) LeEco, Faraday Future, Aston Martin and Yidao Yongche, (2) Future Mobility, Tencent and Foxconn, (3) NextEV, Tencent and JD.com, and (4) Alibaba and SAIC.

A Partnership to Reimagine Mobility
China is at the epicenter of a disruptive wave of automotive innovation and beyond. The mobility experience is being redefined with innovative usage-based business models. Incumbents and new players must re-evaluate their connected mobility strategies with a new lens for delivering the perfect connected mobility experience. Past success in the old automotive game is not a guarantee for future success. In fact, one would surmise that past legacy could often become a barrier for swift and innovative moves going forward. It is time for the leading companies from China and Silicon Valley to join forces to re-imagine mobility and the marriage between Apple and Didi could offer the promise of doing just that.

About the Authors:
Edward Tse is founder & CEO, Gao Feng Advisory Company, a global strategy and management consulting firm with roots in China. A pioneer in China’s management consulting profession, he led the Greater China operations for two major international management consulting firms for 20 years and is widely known as China’s leading global business strategist. He is author of The China Strategy (2010) and China’s Disruptors (2015).
Bill Russo, Managing Director at Gao Feng Advisory Company and Alan Chan, Senior Consultant.