SCMP | Claim the Future

Hong Kong’s angry youth can find hope in innovation and entrepreneurship
Edward Tse says a chance of upward mobility through business may placate a young generation frustrated with the status quo, and they can learn from successful peers on the mainland

It is no understatement to say that, over the past several years, Hong Kong’s youth have displayed increasing frustration. Occupy Central, riots at Lunar New Year, campaigns against parallel goods traders, the Hong Kong independence initiative, along with the controversy over the Wang Chau housing plan, clearly reflect the frustrations of our young generation.

So, what’s behind this? There is probably no single reason, but rather a variety of political, social and economic factors.

Hong Kong’s young people today live in a city that is very different from the one their parents grew up in. Hong Kong in the 1970s and 1980s was tough, but the city was growing and there were plenty of opportunities for young people. There was potential for upward mobility and young people working hard could build a better life for themselves.

However, today’s youngsters have it pretty hard. Hong Kong’s economic structure has become much more narrow. There are still some good jobs available offering upward mobility, such as in the top-end financial services sector, but our youth do not have any distinctive edge over mainland or overseas competitors.

So, what is the best way for Hong Kong’s youth to find new opportunities for social mobility? I believe the answer lies in innovation and entrepreneurship.

Innovation is a process of creating substantial value through new ideas. These “new ideas” could come from existing concepts, tools or technologies. It is different from invention, which often refers to creating a product or introducing a process which is entirely new.

So, in business, it can take the form of product innovation, service innovation or business model innovation. Sometimes, the core of the innovation is due to the introduction of new technology; sometimes, it is simply enabled by existing technology; and, at other times, it can have no relationship to technology at all, simply a new way of doing things.

During the first dotcom era at the end of the 1990s, Hong Kong had a short period of pretty vibrant innovation and entrepreneurship. Quite a number of entrepreneurs emerged and some were able to create a mark for themselves. Unfortunately, those roots were not planted firmly enough.

When the dotcom bubble burst, Hong Kong’s wave of innovation and entrepreneurship vanished. The city’s economic structure reverted to being driven by property development, financial services, travel, tourism and retail and, in this process, the possibility of upward mobility for our youth faded.

Meanwhile, mainland China has thrived on innovation and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs are getting younger (many are post 80s or post 90s). They are not only in big cities like Beijing, Shenzhen or Shanghai, but also in Hangzhou (杭州), Chengdu (成都)and Chongqing (重庆). They are all over China.

From the end of the 1990s, the private sector in China has grown much faster than the state sector in terms of both overall revenue and profit. Many of the noteworthy entrepreneurial companies are in the internet sector, but there are also many in non-internet-centric technology areas, financial services, connected mobility, retail and health care. While some of these thrive on technology innovation, many derive their growth from business model innovations.

There are a number of reasons why China has become a major breeding ground for business innovation. The years behind the gradual transition from a planned to a market economy has created many discontinuities, exposing society’s “pain points” and thus providing many opportunities for observant entrepreneurs. The prevalence of technology, especially wireless internet, has acted as a major enabler. Coupled with that is the massive market allowing business innovation to rapidly scale up; and last, but not least, capital is abundant through well-funded venture capital and angel investors.

For Hong Kong’s youth, mainland China can provide real opportunities for entrepreneurial pursuits for those who are willing to see it in this way. Increasingly, the mainland is putting more value on knowledge and the environment is tolerant of multiple trials and errors. In terms of intrinsics, Hong Kong’s youth are not so different from those on the mainland. China’s operating environment for businesses has many flaws but those who make it are those who can achieve things in spite of these imperfections. Hong Kong’s youth just need to try. In fact, the mainland can become the platform for Hong Kong youth to become the world’s best in their own chosen area of focus.

There are cases of Hongkongers making it in China, such as Martin Lau Chi-ping, president of Tencent, and Victor Koo Wing-cheung, founder of popular video hosting service Youku.

Today, exponential value creation increasingly comes from entrepreneurs’ command of knowledge. Of course, there will still be people who can create wealth in other ways, both on the mainland and in Hong Kong. However, as technology and other factors drive down artificial barriers, knowledge is becoming more prevalent in value creation. And, innovation and entrepreneurship are merely the means to capturing and leveraging knowledge.

Hong Kong’s youth must focus on capturing knowledge, and use it for innovation and entrepreneurship to create value. Entrepreneurship is by definition difficult. Only a very small percentage will succeed. However, that small percentage could capture significant value and can become role models.

The Hong Kong government’s creation of the Innovation and Technology Bureau is a good move. It allows a top-down approach of driving innovation and entrepreneurship. However, this isn’t enough. Success requires a partnership between the public and private sector, as well as collaboration between Hong Kong and the mainland. Shenzhen and neighbouring cities in Guangdong, given their proximity to Hong Kong, would make the most natural partners.

For this to take off, it only needs a few successful cases of Hong Kong youth making it big, serving as role models for the next generation of entrepreneurs. This multiplier effect can lead to significant upward mobility for Hong Kong’s youth and is a way for them to truly take back the initiative for their future.

Edward Tse is founder and CEO of Gao Feng Advisory Company, a global strategy and management consulting firm with roots in Greater China. He is the author of China’s Disruptors

 

新浪财经 | 谢祖墀:战略的全面性和背景的重要性

文 | 谢祖墀 高风咨询公司董事长

源自于西方传统的企业战略理论在今天快速变化的商业环境里已经不再适用。从迈克尔.波特(Michael Porter)的五力法到布鲁斯.亨德森(Bruce Henderson)的波士顿矩阵,以及到C.K.普拉哈拉德(C.K.Prahalad)与加里.哈默尔(Gary Hamel)所提倡的核心竞争力(CoreCompetence)理论都是“定位论”经典。这些理论支配了西方企业CEO们和资本市场的思想近30年,到今天还有不少市场,特别是核心竞争力理论。

此外,由欧洲工商管理学院的W.钱.金(W.Chan Kim)和勒妮.莫博涅(Renée Mauborgne)于2005年提出的蓝海战略(BlueOcean Strategy)亦是定位论之一,本质上与上述的理论没有很大的分别。

核心竞争力理论最大的问题就是究竟什么是企业的核心竞争力?原先作者和后来呼应他们的其他作者,诸如BCG的乔治.斯托克(George Stalk)和菲利普.埃文斯(Philip Evans)定义核心竞争力为该企业与其他企业与众不同的能力,有差异性的和能为企业带来持续价值的。骤眼看来,但却很合理。但深入研究一下,我们却发现不少问题。
首先,什么是核心竞争力的自然表达方式?
那是透过一家企业的产品、品牌、渠道、技术抑或规模,说不清楚。其实在普拉哈默德和哈默尔的原著里的案例就已经看出来这个问题。BCG文章里的案例太少根本没有说出问题。我曾经亲自向某咨询公司的CEO询问此问题,他和某合作者于核心竞争力理论原著发表将近30年才讲同一理论,美其名“以能力为驱动的战略”(Capabilities-DrivenStrategy)。他说一家企业什么做得好的都算是它的核心竞争力。“这是阿妈是女人”的理论,缺乏严谨的逻辑性。

核心竞争力理论背后是指出企业必须聚焦(Focus),西方的资本市场非常喜欢这种想法。“聚焦等于好”已成西方资本市场过去几十年的金科玉律。但聚焦的衡量标准是什么呢?众所周知,可口可乐(Coca-cola)和百事(Pepsi)是强劲的竞争对手。可是可口可乐只做饮料,而百事除了饮料之外亦做食品,那谁对谁不对?谁聚焦谁不聚焦?于2012年,美国的一家食品公司卡夫(Kraft)一分为二,一家改名为亿滋国际(Mondelez)业务包括休闲食品(snack food),而另一家保持卡夫原名,业务保留了原有的其他类别的包装食品。为什么“食品”不是已经相当聚焦的呢?为什么在如此具有核心竞争力的前提之下,企业还需要去被分割?

在另一个国度里,数年前某经营生活用纸的企业收购了某休闲食品公司。市场上有某些分析员对此提出疑问,该企业的回应是生活用纸和休闲食品都是面向消费者的,特别在渠道上拥有共同的核心竞争力。是吗?
其实,核心竞争力理论最大的问题就是核心竞争力本身的定义可以随着时空以及随着企业决策者和资本市场分析员的喜好来随意定义的。
谁如何定义看谁觉得如何能获得利益,不一定与企业的根本差异性和持续性实际挂钩。这是此理论最大的问题所在。另外,此理论只是从企业内部能力来做战略判断,对外界环境的变化居然完全没有考虑。从这点来看,真相当啧啧称奇。

动态战略的核心其实是在混沌与有序之间的不断取得平衡

在今天的瞬息万变的商业社会里,这些静态思维为主的定位论已经不合时宜。以寻找到一种可一劳永逸的定位为依归根本上不可能。动态战略的核心其实是在混沌与有序之间的不断取得平衡,亦即是说structured chaos。

同时,战略的发挥是有其阶段性的,或我称之为“战略的背景”的,以英语来说,就是所谓”context”。
在不同的背景下,同一家企业的战略其实可以甚至应该是不一样的。战略随着背景的改变而应有所转移是一天公地道的原则。最近阿里巴巴集团总参谋长曾鸣教授在一场合里谈及这方面,说明了一家企业的战略是应根据其发展阶段而有所不同的,此观点甚有道理。而在动态战略的框架里,同一家企业在不同发展阶段里在本质上就是要在混沌与秩序之间进行不同程度的平衡。在创业初期,可能混沌比秩序更多,企业可以承受更多的混沌和无序。另一方面,在企业发展了较为成熟的时候,秩序和架构可能比混沌更为重要,企业该更为倾向于建立相当的秩序。
战略必须与组织的DNA 匹配, 具有一致性

当然,企业的发展往往不是单向线性的,许多时候它的发展轨迹是有所起伏,甚至走回头路。在改变轨迹和速度时,亦即不少人称为“企业转型”的时候,其实企业就是在调整于混沌与有序的平衡,或可称“再平衡”(re-balancing)。(图一)

于此,企业的领导者的视野和能力是界定企业能否在不同背景里选择适当的战略和执行它的最主要原因。而战略必须与组织的DNA匹配,具有一致性。对许多中国企业而言,持续地做到这一点是极大的挑战。

优秀的领导者不一定能够将未来的每个细节都能准确的预测,但他必定对于未来的发展方向和趋势有足够的掌握。同时他知道战略的设定和执行是应企业不同发展阶段而有所不同,而如何带领企业经历不同阶段的演变其实就是战略的核心所在。简单的说,企业找到某一个成功的定位就能一劳永逸这是一个错误的观点。

领导者有许多类型,在我遇到的中国和国际企业都遇过很多不同的领导者。有线性思维,僵硬思想者,有只是关注日常运营而忽略了战略转型者,有虚无缥缈者。只有所谓梦想,不顾实际者,但亦有能在貌似混沌中的前景中看到秩序并能有技巧地带领企业按不同阶段成功前进的出色领导者。此类领导者对于企业每个阶段的DNA、能力和资源带宽(bandwidth)有着深入的理解,而所提出的阶段战略会与同阶段的企业DNA、能力和资源带宽紧密地匹配。这就是战略一致性的重要性。似乎在西方传统的战略理论中这一点一直没有很明显地被提出来。

本文发布于新浪财经,原文摘自《亚布力观点》(2016年11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 | 立体的一带一路

 

众所周知,“一带一路”是习近平主席自2013年9月到10月出访中亚和东南亚国家期间开始提出的重大倡议,是中国的国家战略,亦是对外开放的总抓手和新引擎。“一带一路”战略不仅对中国经济的发展意义重大,同时也为企业带来了新的机遇。

战略推动经济转型升级
首先,“一带一路”战略推动经济转型升级,通过对外开放参与国际分工与合作来提高中国商品质量和完善服务体系。

开拓了行业投资机会
其次,开拓了行业投资机会,“一带一路”通过渐进式的大规模基础设施建设、资源能源开发利用、全方位贸易服务往来等合作方式,为中国资本市场带来多产业链和多行业的投资机会。对于中国的民营企业而言,“一带一路”的意义何在呢?高风咨询公司荣幸受亚布力中国企业家论坛委托,研究“一带一路”对中国民营企业的意义,研究成果于今年八月在西安市举行的夏季峰会上公布。

首先,“一带一路”对于民营企业意味着巨大的发展机遇,但同时也会面临很大的挑战。民营企业具有高的决策效率,与国企相比更能根据投资环境的改变及时地做出有利于企业发展的对外投资决策。另外,民营企业的创新欲望和能力都非常强,可以根据市场需求进行商业模式等方面的创新、以此开拓当地市场。由于这些优势,民营企业在“一带一路”中的角色正变得日益重要。但另一方面,现有的环境和条件还满足不了民营企业对信息全面性、及时性、有效性等方面的需求。而且,跨国经营中将面临政治、经济、金融等方面的风险。这些风险和挑战的背后也意味着民营企业自身在走出去的过程中要在多方面进行战略转型。

由此可见,民营企业走出去机遇很大,但风险也不小。民营企业应勇于尝试,而国际化恰恰是企业发展的必经之路。从大的趋势来看,目前民营企业的国际化正进入一个新的时代,即从中国公司到世界公司。而中国也已经进入一个新的以创新创业为代表的大时代,创新的背后代表着知识经济的到来,企业间竞争的焦点已经逐渐从有形资本转向无形资本,知识在企业价值创造中的作用日益凸显。在这个新的转折点,在这个创新知本时代,民营企业拥有了一个极佳的从中国公司跳跃到世界公司的机会。“一带一路”战略的全面实施,对于民营企业大跨步发展是一个很好的契机,借此机会从中国公司成长为世界公司,这对民营企业战略转型意义重大。

“一带一路”战略不仅对中国经济的发展意义重大,同时也为企业带来了新的机遇

民营企业成长为世界公司,软实力的打造至关重要。优秀的民营企业不但要能够整合硬实力,还要把软实力提升到全球层面上。我认为,除了传统的“一带一路”,还有第三条“丝绸之路”,可以助力民营企业提升软实力。这是一条虚拟的丝绸之路,为民营企业实现跳跃式发展提供了另外一个思路。与传统意义下“一带一路”为企业提供的硬实力机会不同,第三条“丝绸之路”是企业提升软实力的知识平台,即促进企业思考价值观、扩展国际视野进而实现战略转型。总的来说,民营企业在思考“一带一路”国际化之时,不仅要考虑有形的东西,还要考虑这些无形的、摸不着的东西,以此全面提升企业竞争力,实现跳跃式发展。貌似平面、线性的“一带一路”实际上是立体的、非线性的。

未来全球市场上的竞争不再仅仅是公司与公司之间的竞争,而是生态系统与生态系统之间的竞争。生态系统内的参与者之间是多方共赢的,需要共同推动构建一个新型全球治理架构。软实力的打造将助力民营企业构建生态系统,参与全球竞争与治理,并促进全球商业治理水平的提升。民营企业需要尝试超越传统观念,让企业有足够的社会责任感,成为世界公民,真正做到站在全球的角度思考问题。可喜的是,民营企业中已经有一小批领先的企业家走在前列,开始积极的参与全球治理方面的工作。

当然,生态系统的打造也需要政府的支持。自从“一带一路”战略提出以来,中国政府做出了很多的努力,收到了很好的效果。但也存在一些需要改进提升的地方,举例来说,政府应发挥引导角色,拉动民营企业走出去,包括加快沿线国家地区谈判合作的步伐,战略宣传商业共赢,支持建立植根于中国但又具有全球视野的“一带一路”智库机构等等。

把“一带一路”战略和企业的长期发展规划结合起来

最后,针对民营企业“一带一路”走出去的战略落地问题,有一些具体的建议来帮助民营企业提升自身能力,增强国际竞争力:

民营企业要以全球视角,提升企业品牌认知和竞争力;
积极创新,提升企业整体治理水平;
积极培养跨文化人才,寻求更好的发展;
提高风险意识,健全风险防控机制;建立跨境电商平台,实现全球业务运营;
加强企业外部多方合作,抱团出海。民营企业与政府合作,提供奖学金共同打造人才培养平台;
大型民企带动中小民企走出去,促进产业链上下游“走出去”的协同发展;打造高端智库,强化企业外脑资源等等。

民营企业要逐渐培养国际视野,生态思维,要用国际视野来看待未来的发展,从战略层面把对“一带一路”战略的理解提升到一个高度,开始以构建全球生态的战略思维进行战略布局。虽然从中国公司到世界公司不可能一蹴而就,但这是未来的大趋势,通过把“一带一路”战略和企业的长期发展规划结合起来真正参与国际治理,一些优秀的民营企业一定会走到这一步。

摘自《亚布力观点》(2016年10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。

Nikkei Asian Review | Newcomers Shake up China’s Mobile Payment Industry

September 22, 2016 12:00 pm JST
Dr. Edward Tse, Ian Meller and Jackie Wang

Mobile payments have been embraced in China at a rate unseen anywhere else in the world, reaching approximately 16.3 trillion yuan ($2.5 trillion) in 2015. Whether it’s buying plane tickets or electronics or even paying utility bills, the Chinese consumer instinctively reaches for his or her smartphone. This is largely due to a consumer class that has leapfrogged the era of the personal computer and jumped directly into the smartphone age. China’s mobile payments industry has entered a new and exciting phase.

There have always been alternatives to the dominant Alipay and WeChat Pay sevices, but in the past year credible challengers have started to emerge. February saw the launch of Apple Pay, in partnership with state-owned payment processor China UnionPay. Samsung Pay arrived a month later. Viable alternatives backed by companies including Huawei Technologies, Xiaomi and LeEco are the latest to arrive.

Alipay, owned by Ant Financial Services Group, an affiliate of Alibaba Group Holding, remains the largest mobile payments player in China. It had a market share of 68% at the end of 2015 and has more than 400 million registered users, thanks to its links with Alibaba’s Taobao and Tmall shopping sites. WeChat Pay also has backing from parent Tencent Holdings that helps its reach. It is linked into WeChat, China’s largest instant messaging and social media platform.

Last year, WeChat Pay’s market share was 20%, making it a distant second to Alipay. But WeChat’s growing number of users and the increasing popularity of social media are helping it gain market share. This past Chinese New Year’s eve, some 8 billion “red packets,” gifts of cash traditionally exchanged at the holiday, were given through WeChat Pay.

The competition between Alipay and WeChat Pay has reached new heights as both are transforming into global e-wallets not only for Chinese domestically but also overseas. Both services have been building partnerships with foreign retailers and e-commerce platforms allowing customers to purchase products in yuan while abroad and on foreign websites. Travelers can also get tax refunds abroad through Alipay, which can save time at the airport.

NEW PLAYERS The emergence of Apple Pay in the China mobile payments market is significant, marking the arrival of the first legitimate foreign competitor to Alipay and WeChat Pay. For once, the two incumbents face a competitor whose ecosystem can rival their own.

Apple is one of the top smartphone companies in China, where it has been aggressively expanding. Yet before Apple Pay had even launched in China, analysts had discounted its ability to match the range of functions offered by Alipay and WeChat Pay and noted the lack in China of near-field communications, or NFC, terminals for contactless payment. When Apple revealed a partnership with UnionPay rather than Alipay, analysts again called it a mistake.

Within two days of Apple Pay’s launch in China, more than 30 million bank cards were connected to the service, implying linkage with one-third of the phones in the country then equipped to support NFC payment. By partnering with UnionPay, Apple gained access to China’s largest banks and thus a majority of China’s consumer class.

Before Apple Pay’s launch in China, Apple had already ensured that popular Chinese apps, such as those of food delivery service Meituan, e-commerce site JD.com and online travel agent Qunar, would support its payment service. Crucially, Apple Pay could soon be used on Tmall due to a new Chinese law requiring that e-commerce websites allow payments via competing systems, eliminating one of Alipay’s major competitive advantages.

PHONE MAKERS Apple isn’t the only one diving into China’s mobile payments market. Samsung Electronics, Huawei, Xiaomi and LeEco, the parent of Leshi Internet Information & Technology, are all making their own plays. Samsung followed Apple by partnering with UnionPay and getting the backing of China’s major banks for Samsung Pay, but Samsung has also integrated Alipay into its e-wallet.

When Huawei, now the largest smartphone company in China, originally announced its mobile payment service in March, it had the backing only of Bank of China(BOC). But by the time it launched in August, Huawei had added another 24 banks. In addition, its latest flagship smartphone, the Huawei P9, allows users to directly activate HuaweiPay through a fingerprint scanner on the back of the phone, even when the keypad is locked.

Other Chinese companies are in various states of building their own mobile payment systems. Xiaomi, one of China’s highest valued startups and the creator of the popular Mi series of smartphones, launched Mi Pay in early September. LeEco, which recently started offering mobile phones, has been building up its payment infrastructure by hiring a think-tank in Beijing to study internet finance and mobile payments.

For dedicated hardware providers like Xiaomi, Samsung, Apple and Huawei, mobile payments are another node of their ecosystems. The payment systems are features designed to increase the loyalty of consumers and help keep them hooked on the companies’ hardware.

Internet companies like Tencent and Alibaba are playing a much longer game, with mobile payments just a starting point for their bigger ambitions in internet finance.

Ant Financial has built an intricate and elaborate ecosystem that offers a variety of financial services and products to Chinese consumers including Sesame Credit, a credit scoring system based on Alipay payment histories, and policies from Zhong An Insurance. Alipay also offers loans to consumers based on online purchasing records on Tmall and Taobao. WeChat Pay users can also buy investment products.

The early success of Apple Pay in China and its ability to change the mobile payment behavior of the Chinese consumer is the largest threat that Tencent and Alibaba have yet faced on the mobile shopping front.

We are witnessing companies with different ecosystems clashing over the Chinese consumer’s wallet. This is an exciting and innovative period in China’s mobile payments sector. While Alibaba is the dominant player now, new entrants, both local and foreign, which are bringing their own service portfolios and a culture of innovation and disruption, are more than capable of challenging the status quo. It remains to be seen if these new players can ultimately unseat incumbents whose ambitions go far beyond simple mobile payments.

Dr. Edward Tse is founder and CEO of Gao Feng Advisory Co., a global strategy and management consulting company, and the author of “China’s Disruptors” (Portfolio, 2015).

Ian Meller and Jackie Wang are consultants at Gao Feng.