China Daily | Finding a Third Way Forward

By Edward Tse | China Daily Asia

Agile Chinese entrepreneurs are emerging as business thought leaders with their ‘multiple jumping’ expansion strategy

Ever since Deng Xiaoping hit the gas pedal on China’s economic reform when he made his famous Southern Tour to Shenzhen in 1992, companies in China — big and small — have been looking for ways to better manage, develop strategies and capture value.
For the first 30 years of the People’s Republic of China, the country was organized under a planned economy. There was no notion of companies, shareholder value, management or strategy. So when China’s economic reform started and when entrepreneurs first emerged, they by definition would not have had any formal education in modern management or prior experience in actually running a company.

The rapid growth of China’s market and the emerging competition drove many of these entrepreneurs to look for ways to better plan and manage their businesses.
The first wave of management consulting firms and business schools came to China from the West in the early to mid-1990s, and brought along established knowledge, theories and frameworks. Chinese businesspeople were attracted to these new ideas as they searched for ways to help run their businesses better.

In the West, from the 1970s to 1980s, the notion of conglomerates was dominant. Companies like ITT and Tyco in the United States and Hanson Trust in the United Kingdom grew into large amalgamations of businesses, often across a range of unrelated sectors.

The notion was that “big is good”. After a while, the capital market decided that conglomerates were not such a good idea after all, because of the lack of synergies across the various businesses.

In 1990, Gary Hamel and CK Prahalad from the University of Michigan published an article called The Core Competence of the Corporation, focusing on this trend. They argued that well-performing companies compete based on their strengths, or what they called core competences or capabilities. This theory caught on quickly in the Western business community and became the governing thought for companies’ strategy formulations.

Today it is still the case. Using this theory, the capital market suggests that companies should focus on their areas of strength. And, by implication, companies should not expand arbitrarily beyond their areas of strength.

When management consulting firms and business school academics first came to China, they brought along these concepts and used them as guiding frameworks to advise Chinese clients. However, the Chinese executives, while intrigued, quickly came to the realization that something was missing.

While useful, these frameworks could not quite explain the overall context of doing business in China. The consultants and academics also quickly realized that business in China is somewhat different, although they could not explain exactly what the difference was.

In the meantime, the external operating environment was evolving fast, both in the world and particularly in China.

China’s fast economic growth, its gradual but consistent transition from planned economy toward market economy, the emergence of highly intensive competition in the open sectors, and the increasing prevalence of technology and the availability of angel investing and venture capital funds, all contributed to the emergence of waves of entrepreneurship and innovation in China that the country had not seen before.

In their search for growth strategies, these Chinese entrepreneurs were typically fast and agile. Some of them developed diversified conglomerates, and there were others that decided on a narrow focus, taking the core competence approach. The results have been mixed.

Interestingly, some of them, through trial and error, discovered a third way of strategy development. We call it “multiple jumping”.

When these entrepreneurs see new opportunities evolving, even if they do not have all the capabilities to fully operate the new business, they decide if they should jump over or not.

So far, some of the companies that have jumped have been successful in latching onto the new business sector. Often, they will repeat the process when newer opportunities turn up. When these companies jump, they try to fill their capability gaps either through their own efforts or by collaboration with other companies, or by using both approaches.

This multiple jumping approach to strategy is different from a conglomerate approach because, despite their involvement in multiple sectors, these companies generally keep their original heritage as their core.

On the other hand, multiple jumping clearly defies the core competence approach, because these companies are willing to enter new areas of business without having the expected core competences established.

So, this multiple jumping approach is another way to think about strategy beyond the conglomeration and core competence approaches. We call it The Third Way.

It provides another way for companies to decide how they should develop their business strategies in a fast-growing, discontinuous operating environment abounding with fertile opportunities.

A prime example of a company that has successfully adopted this approach is Alibaba, which has interests in industries including healthcare, the media and consumer finance as well as its core e-commerce business. Coincidentally, US companies such as Amazon and Google have also grown through this approach.

As China’s operating environment continues to rapidly evolve, innovation and entrepreneurship are thriving. Companies are looking for even more inspiration for growth. Many entrepreneurs continue to look at the West, especially at the US, for inspiration in technology, management and investment models. Some are also examining Chinese historical philosophies for guidance.

Today, in addition to a growing number of consulting firms, business schools and training companies in China, many corporations have also set up their own “universities” or “academies”. Business executives, successful or not, are eager to share their experiences in running businesses and some have turned into modern philosophers.

Conferences and seminars organized around themes of business, innovation and transformation take place regularly in different cities throughout China. Airport bookstores, where business traveler traffic is heavy, stock a proliferation of business books. Videos showing various “experts” talking about the secrets of successful business are now commonplace.

Social media, in particular, has become a popular medium for people to share their points of view — freely critiquing others’ successes and failures, with or without any real business experience of their own. Online celebrities emerge from the corners and some have captured many eyeballs with their opinions on business trends and remarks on individual businesspeople.

A fair number of Chinese entrepreneurs are still relying on brute force and guanxi (relationships) to run their businesses, but increasingly, some regard knowledge as the key source for building their companies’ sustainable competitive advantages. To this end, they actively search for new ways of building businesses.

On the surface, these attempts may seem unsystematic and perhaps some will prove futile. But some are creating new patterns that could become cutting-edge thinking, and they could form a new cornerstone for business thought leadership that will bring about future inspirations for the rest of the world.

Edward Tse is founder and CEO of Gao Feng Advisory Company, a global strategy and management consulting firm with roots in China. He is also the author of China’s Disruptors (2015).

 

Common Goals : the US and China should Collaborate instead of Simply Focusing on Competition

Original published by South China Morning Post on May 6, 2019. All rights reserved

Embroiled in a trade war with China, the Trump administration, in February, signed an executive order aiming to spur the development of artificial intelligence, in response to the rising fear in academia and government that the US is losing the race for global AI leadership to China.

Such fears are not entirely unfounded. China has a well-funded commitment to the development of AI. The leadership in Beijing has outlined its ambitions in various development plans, including the initiative to build “advanced manufacturing”. According to Tsinghua University’s China AI development report, released last year, China has secured a leading position in the AI echelon in both technology development and market applications. China ranked first in the total number of AI research papers and AI-related patents, and second in terms of the size of its AI talent pool.

There are several key drivers of China’s progress. First, it enjoys a fundamental system advantage. In the past four decades since its “reform and opening up”, China has somewhat unconsciously evolved its own “three-layer duality” development model. At the top, the central government’s guiding hand sets goals and directions for the country, giving the rest of the nation clear targets to follow. At the grass-roots level, private-sector entrepreneurs have re-emerged and become a major force in driving economic growth.

In the spirit of driving the development of advanced manufacturing, provinces and cities across China have instituted preferential policies for AI start-ups. For example, Tianjin, a major port city in the northeast, launched a US$16 billion fund last year to bolster the local AI industry. Tech companies collaborate with local governments on AI initiatives such as smart city, health care and autonomous driving. Alibaba’s ET City Brain project uses AI to tackle traffic jams, reducing traffic delays by 15.3 per cent in parts of Hangzhou, the city in which Alibaba is headquartered.

Second, the massive size of the Chinese economy allows companies, especially AI companies, to rapidly scale up. China now boasts more than 800 million internet users, roughly 58 per cent of its total population and three times larger than the number in the US. According to the China Internet Network Information Centre, 98 per cent of them are mobile internet users. The large online population generates an abundance of data, on which algorithms can conduct large-scale research and experiments much faster and more intensely than is possible in the West.

For better or worse, Chinese are more relaxed about data privacy than Westerners, at least for now. What may be viewed as a violation of privacy by some could be advantageous for AI developers wanting to extract a large amount of data. This situation allows Chinese AI developers to achieve more accurate machine learning models in areas such as facial recognition, voice and gesture recognition, consumer behaviour analysis and robotics process automation.

Third, a “why not me” mindset drives Chinese entrepreneurs, who are eager to show that they too could succeed. Today, younger entrepreneurs view their successful predecessors as role models and want to replicate their success. China’s hypercompetitive environment harbours cutthroat commercial activities and transformative business models, allowing the fruits of AI to quickly spread across the economy.

China tops the list of the number of active AI companies and venture capital investment. Leading players, such as Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent, are investing heavily in AI technology. For example, in 2018, Tencent invested about US$120 million in Shenzhen-based humanoid robot designer UBTECH Robotics. Baidu not only poured US$1.5 billion into its Apollo Fund for autonomous driving, but has also developed a neural-network-based machine translation system that has at times achieved speech recognition accuracy higher than that of humans.

Rising start-ups, on the other hand, have created tremendous value. Among those is the previously mentioned UBTECH Robotics, the world’s highest-valued AI start-up at US$5 billion. ByteDance, the company behind AI-powered news and information content platform Toutiao and popular short video platform TikTok, has grown 230 per cent in revenue in the past two years.

While the Chinese tend to favour applications of existing technologies, the West focuses more on the science and infrastructure behind AI. Fundamental research is high-hanging fruit that would take much more time and risk to achieve results than commercial applications.

However, there are signs that this is also beginning to change. The Chinese government is planning support for AI education, research and development. One of the newer projects, the Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan, offers a forward-looking blueprint for basic theory and common key technologies. Another project on brain science and brain-inspired research is comparable to Europe’s Human Brain Project and the US’ BRAIN Initiative. Inevitably, some of these technological experiments will fail but others will make it. It is through experimentation that progress can be made.

Should we simply focus on the winner of the “race” between China and the US? “Race” implies a zero-sum game, as if the two countries must treat each other as “strategic competitors” and acknowledge a mutual threat. While there is competition, there is also plenty on which to collaborate. In today’s increasingly interconnected world, we need organisational means to address issues that transcend national borders, including those of AI development and governance.

Some level of collaboration in AI among American and Chinese researchers is already under way. For example, the Partnership on AI, an organisation founded by Amazon, Google, Facebook and others, announced last year that Baidu would join its network. The consortium of companies recognised the importance of global discussion around the future of AI and showed a desire to counter the arms-race narrative. There is a need for China and the US to focus more on similarities and common goals for the betterment of the entire world.

Picture Source | Google

头条 | 《外商投资法》的启示

刚刚通过的《中华人民共和国外商投资法》(下称《外商投资法》),是一项将取代现有外商独资、中外合资企业管理制度的新法律。为了应对不断变化的全球商业环境,进一步满足经济开放的需要,该项法律增加了许多致力于为国内外企业创造公平竞争条件的新规定。

《外商投资法》不容许“强制技术转让”,“强制技术转让”是一直以来被美国政府方面用以推动中美贸易摩擦的主要理由之一。 新法律还强调保护外国投资者和外商的知识产权,鼓励技术合作。其他激励政策包括建立具有税收和商业制度吸引力的经济特区、允许利润与资本收益外移,并缩短外商投资项目的负面清单。除此之外,中国还将鼓励外国投资者积极参与国有企业的“混合所有制”改革。

这些政策变化对于外国投资者和外商来说无疑是个好消息。长期以来,不少外企一直抱怨在中国缺乏市场准入的机会。可是如今,对于许多外国跨国公司而言,中国即便不是最大的市场,也已成为它们最大的市场之一。即使对于一些还未进入中国市场的公司来说,缺席了中国市场,它们全球的商业模式也不完整。然而,我认为仅仅依靠政策和法律层面的改革并不能确保外企们最终能在中国市场上取得成功。

在过去的十多年中,中国的市场环境早已发生了翻天覆地的变化。中国本土企业(不论是国有企业还是民营企业)的实力实现了大幅的提升,不少早已成为外国跨国公司强劲的对手。不可置疑的是,即便在一些领域(如:奢侈品、高端汽车、原创药等),外国跨国公司依旧占有较大的优势和份额,但中国的本土企业已经在电商、金融科技、移动出行等新兴市场领域上成为主导者。

在这些来自中国的竞争对手中,有一些是大型的国有企业,尤其是在较多依赖国家和政府政策支持的行业,如能源和电信等。然而在其它更加开放、公平的领域(如:快消品、零售、消费电子等)中,大多数最具竞争力的公司则是由民营企业家创立的。领先的民营公司均高速发展,并具有极强的敏捷性和创造力。

这些现象是中国过去几十年改革开放和商业创新兴起所取得的成效,并还是方兴未艾;是日益普及的技术与地方、中央政府政策及基层创业的综合结果。通过发展新的互联网模式和技术——从共享出行到电子商务、机器人和人工智能,中国的企业家正逐渐摆脱中国过去“模仿者”的形象。

令人遗憾的是,大多数在中国经营的外国跨国公司很大程度上只是中国创新的旁观者,没有大幅度参与中国创新的历程。但中国近年来充满创新并快速变化的商业环境迫使它们对此做出相应的反应。例如,在汽车出行行业,诸如电动化、自动驾驶、智能车联网及出行服务等变革趋势推动了全球领先的汽车制造商和出行服务提供商进行调整和变革。不仅如此,不少外国跨国公司也渴望通过中国创新模式,诸如微信、支付宝等在线生态系统,与中国消费者建立更密切的联系。

在中国经营的外国跨国公司如今也意识到它们需要向中国学习,在中国,乃至世界的市场上不断创新。但这并非易事,因为有此战略的外国跨国公司需要将中国视为创新的温床和战略的核心。要做到这一点,它们必须将中国置于其全球战略的核心,而不仅是其众多地理区域的其中一个(即便是其中很重要的一个)市场。

目前为止,大多数外国跨国公司的“本土化”依旧做得比较表面,就是在全球总部或是地区总部制定战略规划,安排中国本土的管理者执行下达的任务。这种决策过程和模式不仅不够迅速,并且忽略了整个中国市场环境的快速变化。这些变化很可能对中国乃至全球的战略都产生重大影响。要想达到真正的“本土化”,外国跨国公司应在中国安排具有战略思想能力的领导者,给予足够的决策权和资源,从而让公司在中国深入地了解和适应其独特的商业环境。

新的法律标志着更加友好的环境,将使外国跨国公司的潜力在中国得以释放。在这个不断变化、竞争愈发激烈的环境中,创新尤为宝贵。

近年来,越来越多的外国跨国公司开始意识到这一点并进行改变。起初,它们仅在中国试水,将国外持之以恒的产品或商业模式带到中国来,不做任何调整。经过一段时间之后,当它们逐渐意识到中国的特点从中积极学习,会开始改变自身,逐渐地适应中国市场。近年来,越来越多的外国跨国公司开始汲取中国创新者的经验,采取以中国为核心的本土化战略,积极与当地公司携手搭建庞大的生态系统,以便真正立足于中国市场。

对于中国的企业家与投资者而言,新的《外商投资法》带来的既是挑战也是机遇。更加开放的中国市场将涌入更多的竞争者,让市场竞争更为激烈。中国企业家必须保持其源源不断的创造力才能在这个瞬息万变的环境中保持自己的竞争力。与此同时,中国本土企业也需保持开放的态度,尝试探索与外商合作的可能性。尽管部分外国跨国公司在中国依然存在水土不服的状况,但在一些领域上(如:核心技术、企业管理、品牌、文化与价值观等),比较优秀的外企依旧有许多值得中国企业借鉴和学习的地方。

对投资者来说,该法律也带来了许多机遇。在适应中国独特环境的过程中,一部分外国跨国公司会对自身业务进行调整,出售一些业务单元。在资本的支撑下,本土的投资者可以利用外企的基础(如:知识产权、产品、品牌等)和自己对中国市场的了解进行投资,通过庞大的潜在市场来提升公司的价值,从中得到相应的回报。

新的法律标志着更加友好的环境,将使外国跨国公司的潜力在中国得以释放。在这个不断变化、竞争愈发激烈的环境中,创新尤为宝贵。不论是身处中国的外国跨国公司,还是中国本土的企业,都需时刻依据市场环境和宏观政策及时调整战略,提升竞争力,从而把握机会,获得更大的优势和利益。

原文发表于《亚布力观点》(2019年4月刊)并保留所有权利

(注:本文图片均来自网络)

Clariant | What Drives Business and Innovation in China?

What Drives Business and Innovation in China?

We are pleased to share with you an interview report on the topic of What Drives Business and Innovation in China?, which was published on Clariant Integrated Report 2018. It includes an interview with us that covers our perspectives on China’s innovations.

Q: Edward, what’s the biggest misconception Western companies have about China?

It’s the presumption that China’s development will follow the path of the West, and that they can simply copy and paste their strategy and business model to China. The typical Western stance is, ‘If this cookie-cutter approach results in success, that’s great and we know what we are doing! However, if it doesn’t, then the problem has got to be with China, and not our strategy’.

Q: What makes China so different?

It’s an ancient civilization going back 5 000 years, but its modern business development is exceptionally young. Only since the reforms and opening of the late 1970s has China started to reconnect with the rest of the world. That development is far from perfect, but it has lifted 700 million people out of poverty. The China that you’re seeing now comes from a rather unique background and makes for a very different context compared to that of the West.

Q: Is the role of the government as big as we think?

Going from a Soviet-style planned economy to a market economy takes time, and China is not entirely there yet. But today, relative to the state sector, China’s private sector is by far the bigger job creator and contributor to the country’s GDP. It’s also the primary source of business innovation. The reemergence of the Chinese entrepreneurial spirit is probably the most profound development in China’s recent history.

Q: It led you to write a book in 2015 about ‘China’s Disruptors’ What contributed to their success?

What certainly helped was the size and growth of the China market, which allowed for rapid scaling of their business models. The prevalence of digital technology, specifically the wireless internet through smart devices, was the critical enabler.

Q: What chapters would you like to add to this book today?

What’s special today is the fact that entrepreneurship is not just for the privileged. It has become the fabric of Chinese culture today. State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) still play an important role, but many young people have realized that starting a business or working for a start-up rather than an SOE is a path for them to get where they want to be. If I were to write a new book about Chinese innovation today, it would be about the new era we’re entering with technologies like artificial intelligence, the internet of things, blockchain technology, and 5G. Those will have a profound impact on China’s innovation and business. The Chinese entrepreneurs will be at the forefront of that.

Q: Are Western executives in China less open to innovation?

Western executives are very keen – I would even say indoctrinated – to base their strategy on the doctrine of core competencies: ‘Focus on what you are good at and don’t divert your attention to anything else’.

Q: Why is that bad for innovation?

Because it limits what the company is willing to consider. Chinese entrepreneurs don’t necessarily have that ideological baggage. Many of them are happy to develop multiple business ecosystems even if they don’t have all the capabilities in place themselves. When they feel a new opportunity is worth pursuing, often they would rather jump before anybody else does and then fill the capability gaps along the way.

Q: Are the gold rush days over for Western companies in China?

China continues to evolve and to open up. China today is very different from China ten years ago, and it will again look very different ten years from now. There is major potential for more growth. But if you want to make the most out of that, you need to put China at the core of your global strategy and organization, which means making China a part of your corporate brain. Including the ability to evaluate opportunities and to design, innovate, and execute new ideas. It’s impossible for a corporate headquarter that is thousands of miles away to fully appreciate what’s going on on the ground in China.

新浪财经 | 谢祖墀:边界 = 机会 vs 能力

商业的根本在于对客户抱有“以客户为中心”的理念

有限的游戏 vs 无限的游戏

今年来,美团收购摩拜单车,美团、高德和携程进入网约车市场等新闻冲击着媒体的热点。企业的核心与边界问题再次成为大家热议的话题。

此前,一篇名为《王兴的无限游戏》的文章在此问题上进行了讨论,大意如下:

美团创始人王兴曾说:“太多人关注边界,而不关注核心。”关于业务和竞争,他认为不要期望一家独大,也不要期望结束战争,所有人都要接受竞合才是新常态。同时,他认为太多思考边界和终局是错误的。既然大多数人的思考都是错误的,那什么才是正确的思考呢?答案或许隐藏在一本名为《有限和无限游戏》书中,有限的游戏以游戏的终结为目的,旨在以参与者的胜利终结一场比赛;而无限的游戏是有限游戏的延伸,没有终结,游戏本身就是对边界的不断探索。而王兴的思维也正是来源于此,我们急需一个关于“游戏观”的转变,即从有限的游戏转向无限的游戏。

在今年二月的亚布力中国企业家论坛第十八届年会的《激活:个体与组织》会议上,我曾对北京大学国家发展研究院的陈春花教授就组织的边界问题进行提问:“一个组织在一个新的时代中,它的组织边界在什么地方?”陈教授认为,“顾客在哪里,你的组织边界就在哪里”;“提供这个边界的能力可能不是你自己,你要跨界,你要跟别人合作,所以你自己的边界可能就要先被打开。”

战略的第三条路:打破战略的困局

去年,美团创始人王兴和携程联合创始人梁建章以及饿了么创始人张旭豪,关于“企业走多元化之路和专注之路哪个更好”的问题进行了隔空交锋,成为商界关注的一个热门话题。王兴的观点在于,企业不应太多受限于边界,应借助多业务发展和整合来释放更多红利。梁建章、张旭豪的观点则是多元化不利于创新,中国企业更应考虑专业而非多元化发展。

王和梁张之辩的背后,反映了长期存在于广大中国企业家心中的一个非常普遍的困惑,那就是对企业发展来说究竟多元化发展好还是专注好。我们称之为“战略的困局”。

在过去三十年间,核心竞争力理论(即“专注”理论)和多元化集团式经营理论几乎占据着典型西方商学院和咨询公司企业战略的全部。

这些理论都只是考虑企业的内部能力,对外部环境变化几乎完全没有涉及。而全球宏观环境却在过去的5到10年间发生了很大的变化,特别是中国呈现出了快速的增长,及美国尤其是西海岸创新科技的涌现带来了新发展。新的背景下,有两大驱动力在改变和重塑新的格局:一是中国市场的崛起,二是科技的迅猛发展。

科技和数据是企业在连续跳跃和调整边界过程中的主要促进因素

在这种新的背景下,多元化集团式经营和依托“核心竞争力”为本的“专注”化经营已经不能给企业家提供全部的答案,战略的第三条路则弥补了这个空白,我们称之为连续跳跃战略。连续跳跃是指企业面临新的(往往是非线性的)发展机会时,不再囿于现有能力所限定的范围,而是通过不同路径弥补能力空缺,进而抓住新的机会实现延续性的跳跃式发展。当企业通过自建、并购或组成生态系统等多种方式成功跳跃后,它会在新的领域不断地重塑业务边界,不断地进行动态调整。在这动态调整过程中,企业的边界会扩张、膨胀,亦有可能收缩。而谁是你的客户亦会因边界的改变而改变。没有企业拥有无限的资源和能力(这里指调动生态系统的能力)。故此,企业的边界是不会无限扩张的。

当市场上出现新的机会时,企业往往会考虑要不要“跳过去”来抓住这些新的机会,即便它们并不拥有经营新业务所需要的所有能力。有些企业跳跃并成功地跳了过去;亦有一些企业曾尝试却没跳成功。跳跃成功的关键是什么?它是机会与能力之比。这里的能力并不只是企业自己的能力而已,它亦包含企业自建、并购或组成生态系统等隐性能力。

科技和数据是企业在连续跳跃和调整边界过程中的主要促进因素。能够掌握好这些因素而成功,成为大数据型数字竞争者都会遵循以下四大核心原则:

一、无处不在(Ubiquity):海量的客户覆盖,在几乎所有主要线上触点上实现与客户的直接接触。商业活动同时存在于线上和大量线下,能够实时实地为用户提供服务。

二、单客经营(Segmentof One):针对每一个客户的个性化需求,提供定制的产品与服务组合,提高体验感。例如通过数据分析,实现定向推送推荐。

三、全面连接(Connectivity):通过生态系统与客户保持不间断的连接(移动智能设备、物联网等)。

四、互联互通(Interactivity):借助社群把具有相同爱好和诉求的客户聚集起来,进行相互交流,从而增加对品牌的归属感和粘度。

边界的动态调整

美团能够通过收购摩拜,进入网约车领域等行动来调整边界,是因为它做到了以上的四大原则。它以科技和数据作为核心,通过不断的连续跳跃,构建了庞大的生态系统,重塑了企业的边界,亦扩大了自己的用户范围。简而言之,美团玩的是一套“改变游戏规则”的战略。

商业的根本在于对客户抱有“以客户为中心”的理念。许多人都很羡慕亚马逊的业绩表现,但有多少企业和企业家真正理解贝索斯所推崇的“对客户的疯狂热爱”(Customer Obsession )的信条呢?

今天,谁都说要做亚马逊,要“以客户为中心”,但实际却不一定做得到,不少企业们在对客户为中心的理解和实践往往有着巨大的差距。对不少企业来说,“以客户为中心”仅仅只是一句口号而已。

你的边界在哪里?是你在机会和可获取能力之间的选择和两者之间博弈后出现的结果。而谁是你的客户亦是如此。

原文发表于《亚布力观点》(2018年4月刊)并保留所有权利

(注:本文图片均来自网络)

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。