针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力外文翻译可编辑

《针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力外文翻译可编辑》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力外文翻译可编辑（18页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力外文翻译 外文翻译 Targeting a Companys Real Core CompetenciesMaterial Source: Journal of Business Strategy, 1993 volume13 issue 6 Author: Amy V. Snyder and H. William Ebeling, Jr. The twin concepts of core competence and business processes figure prominently in most discussions of corporate s

2、trategy. The core competence concept helps top managers answer the fundamental question What should we do? and the business processes perspective addresses the question How should we do it? Both concepts are indispensable in guiding firms to achieve enduring competitive advantage and superior profit

3、ability, and both are founded on a simple notion: that the firm is a system of activities, not a portfolio of individual products or services. Some activities are performed so much better than the competition and are so critical to end products or services that they can be described as core competen

4、cies. When a series of activities are organized into a system that works better than the sum of its parts, this business process can also create competitive advantage, even if component activities by themselves do not. While business process reengineers have achieved significant success in decreasin

5、g costs while simultaneously improving service levels, relatively few firms claim to have correctly identified and fully exploited their core competencies or key activities. Throughout this article, we will use the terms core competency and key activity interchangeably. Business process reengineers

6、have developed an analytically rigorous discipline that can be systematically applied and plainly communicated to others. For the core competency concept to achieve this same success, it must be linked to the underlying business economics that drive competitive advantage, and it must be applied in t

7、he same systematic manner as the business process concept. In the mid-1970s, corporate planners began to question whether the product-centered business unit was the most appropriate unit of strategic analysis. In work undertaken for a global chemical company in 1977, Braxton Associates redefined the

8、 unit of analysis from product-centered business units to activities and developed insights about how competitive advantage is created in the long run. In the course of our work with the chemical company, we demonstrated that gaining a strong relative share in key value-added activities is more rele

9、vant to competitive position than gaining share of the related product market. In the 1970s, we used the slicing knife schematic to demonstrate that assessing competitive advantage from a product perspective can lead to erroneous conclusions. The insight that underlies the activity perspective is th

10、at a firm can not be viewed only as a collection of individual products or services this merely describes the revenue-generating side of the firm. Equally important, the firm is a system of activities that must be organized and managed to imize the value of its offerings while minimizing their cost

11、that is, to create competitive advantage. The slicing knife example makes an important point, but a key question remains. Once it is determined that a firm enjoys a comparatively strong activity position, the next logical question is So what? Achieving strong activity position is critical to competi

12、tiveness only when the particular activity adds significant value to the end product or service. In the 1980s, Michael Porter documented the concept of the value chain and used it to show how a series of activities could be viewed as a system designed to create competitive advantagePorters work was

13、instrumental in popularizing the activity perspective and the importance of activity linkages However, the popular version of Porters value chain does not consider the value-added concept in sufficient depth. This is unfortunate,because the value-added structure determines which activities are criti

14、cal to success and which are not. It is usually a mistake to invest heavily in activities that represent only a small fraction of the overall value of a firms products or services. The company that produced the page you are now reading would be better off with a competency in printing and page setup

15、 than in packaging, even though the printed journal was delivered in a protective package, because packaging does not represent a significant fraction of the overall value of the delivered journal. FOUR IMPERATIVES OF CORE COMPETENCIES The GE and Honda examples demonstrate the importance of organizi

16、ng around real core competencies or activities and the implications of failing to do so. Once senior management develops the strategic intent to identify, nurture, and organize around activities that can be made unique and enduring, a few rules must be followed to transform this commitment into comp

17、etitive success. Rule 1: Avoid laundry lists If senior management settles on more than a handful of key activities or core competencies, it is probably over-reaching and certainly ignoring the intent of the word core. Many successful companies have targeted either one or two key activities Identifyi

18、ng key activities is one of the most important contributions senior management can make. In our view, proposed core competencies should: Contribute significantly to the ultimate value of the end product or service. Represent a unique capability that provides enduring competitive advantage Have the p

19、otential to support multiple end products or services Rule 2: Achieve senior management consensus on core competencies What business are you really in? Evaluating potential core competencies using the previously described screening approach is a necessary but insufficient step in building a competen

20、cy driven organization. If competencies are to be nurtured and shared widely throughout the firm, senior management must reach consensus on which these are and act on the results of their selection process In working to build senior management consensus on key activities, we have achieved good resul

21、ts using the following approaches among others: Activity-based benchmarking. Employee and asset distribution. What if scenario development. Activity-based benchmarking is a technique that can steer debate away from subjective opinions and toward hard facts. For example, if the vice president of oper

22、ations claims that order processing and fulfillment is a core competency, he could develop a persuasive argument by demonstrating an enduring competitive advantage in order processing speed, cost, and customer satisfaction. A compelling argument can also be built by answering some simple questions a

23、bout an organizations internal configuration, for example: What do your employees do? Where are your assets? If 80% of a companys employees are on the plant floor, the marketing vice-president must argue persuasively to convince his colleagues that marketing and sales is really a key activity. After

24、 all, people embody the collective learning so extolled today, and learning becomes a formidable competitive weapon when it is built up and shared among a large number of employees What if approaches are also useful in working with a group to select core competencies. A senior management deadlock ca

25、n often be broken by working out the implications of selecting a single core competency as a guide for future actions. In a deadlocked situation, one might ask What actions are implied by the adoption of core competency X? What products and markets are most attractive given this core competency? Wha

26、t will the company look like five years from now if competency X guides our actions? These same questions should be answered for each proposed core competency. While this approach may seem simplistic, it can be combined with other, more analytical approaches to help the group reach consensus on a co

27、re competency or two that makes the most sense for the corporation. Rule 3: Leverage core competencies inside the organization Once senior management identifies and agrees on the firms core competencies, it must work zealously to ensure that competencies are continually strengthened, shared widely t

28、hroughout the corporation, and managed in a way that best preserves the competitive advantages they create. The importance of this mandate cannot be stressed enough-if senior management fails to organize around key activities, they will disappear. Recall the slicing knife example: while the electric

29、 motor manufacturing activity enjoys a strong relative activity share, motor costs will not necessarily be lower than that of the competition. Only if this company organizes and conducts its operations so as to capture the collective learning taking place in the motor manufacturing activity will it

30、drive costs down as cumulative experience increases. Actions that may be necessary to best exploit identified competencies run the spectrum from physically reconfiguring disparate manufacturing processes to simply communicating more effectively. Consider the case of a leading international manufactu

31、rer of electrical products. Division A developed expertise in the design and manufacture of surface-mounted printed circuit boards and used this skill to reduce the costs of its products. Division B had an outmoded, expensive production process, in part because it was several generations behind in p

32、rinted circuit-board design. Division B could have benefitted from Division As surface-mount expertise and in return could have driven down costs for both divisions by increasing overall volume. Instead, Division A jealously guarded its capabilities, and Division B continued to struggle. This behavi

33、or cannot be tolerated if key corporate skills are to be exploited to their fullest potential. New approaches to project coordination and interdepartmental communication can help to break down the barriers. Today, corporate planners are applauding adaptive organizations, which retain some vestiges o

34、f the old hierarchy and maybe a few traditional departments But rely on a pattern of constantly changing teams, task forces, partnerships, and other informal structures. The goal of the adaptive organization is to ensure that the best core competencies, whether embodied in technologies, processes, o

35、r employees, are linked to the most promising market opportunities so that learning is imized and travels quickly throughout the corporation. Rule 4: Share core competencies outside the corporation as well Sometimes sharing and nurturing core competencies within a corporation is not enough. As marke

36、ts evolve, new activities may be required. Moreover, in todays global marketplace, even giant corporations blanch at the cost of launching new products and entering new markets. With product lifecycles shrinking and R&D costs skyrocketing, some companies find it easier to embrace their competitors r

37、ather than fight them. Collins and Doorley have studied multinational alliance behavior and observe that The corporation of the future will need to take a more dynamic view of its business. There is often insufficient time to switch from one mode of operation to another as markets evolve through the

38、ir product lifecycles. From the very start of a new business, companies must find ways of building competence in each area of competitive advantage even if they are not well placed to do so on their own. Thinking about alliances from the perspective of key activities that can be shared adds clarity

39、to a complex and difficult partner identification process. As senior executives have begun to focus on imizing the value of the core competencies they identify, alliance activity has increased substantially. REDEFINING CORE COMPETENCIES Identifying core competencies and inspiring the organization to

40、 nurture and organize around them is one of the most important contributions senior management can make. The reverse is also true: selecting the wrong competency or too many core competencies is one of the worst conceivable management errors. It is our experience that an effort like this should be u

41、ndertaken every three to five years, as part of a periodic review of corporate strategy. However, when an industry undergoes a fundamental change in its value-added structure, a reassessment is critical. Often management cannot respond fast enough and heavy losses result Western Union could not make

42、 the transition into the information age because it failed to recognize the growing importance of the transmission infrastructure; it eventually fell into bankruptcy. However, when the core check printing business of Deluxe Check Printers became threatened by electronic funds transfer EFT, Deluxe co

43、rrectly perceived that it had to cultivate new skills to preserve its historical performance. Senior management redefined its core competency from printing checks to facilitating financial transactions and built a successful EFT and data processing business. In redefining its business, Deluxe recogn

44、ized that its role in check clearing and processing and its financial institution marketing expertise might offer more enduring value to its customers than printing checks. Deluxe combined these enduring skills with acquired skills in computer automation, and it moved successfully in a new direction

45、. Companies with a widely shared understanding of their unique and enduring capabilities and the evolving value-added structure of their industries will rise above the competition, just as Deluxe and Honda did. By whatever name activities, core competencies, or value-chain elements, firms that defin

46、e their competitive advantage based on structural superiority in the discrete activities they perform are more often than not long-term winners; these companies turn their core competencies into competitive weapons, not competitive traps.译文针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力资料来源: Journal of Business Strategy(商业策略期刊),19

47、93 volume13 issue 6作者:Amy V. Snyder and H. William Ebeling, Jr. 核心竞争力和业务流程的这两个双胞胎概念在多数关于公司策略的讨论中被突出地计算。核心竞争力概念帮助高层管理者回答这个基本问题, “我们该怎么办呢?”和业务流程的角度论述了问题,“我们该怎么做它呢?” 两个概念都是必不可少的指导公司实现持久的竞争优势,超额利润,两者都是建立在一个简单的观念:我们是系统的一个公事包的活动,不是个人的产品或服务。很多活动比竞争执行的更好,那么重要终端产品或服务,他们可以被描述为核心竞争力。当一系列活动被组织成一个系统可以比各部分的相加运作得更

48、好,这个业务流程也可以创建竞争优势,即使组件本身是没有活动。 当业务流程重新建造时在降低成本方面取得了重大成功,同时,提高服务水平,相对的很少公司宣称他们已经正确地识别出和充分开发核心竞争力或关键活动。(在业务流程再设计已经发展了一种分析严格的学科,因此可以被系统地应用和清楚的与他人沟通交流。这篇文章中,我们将会交替地使用术语的核心竞争力和关键活动。)至于核心竞争力的概念要达到同样的成功,要像业务流程的概念一样,它必须被连接到潜在的商业经济学,推动竞争优势,而且必须应用相同的系统的方式。 在20世纪70年代中期,公司计划者开始询问是否产品被集中的营业单位是战略分析最适当的单位。1977年在为一

49、家全球性化工公司承担工作时,Braxton公司重新定义了分析单位从产品被集中的营业单位到活动单位,并且开发了关于怎样最终创造竞争优势的深刻见解。 在我们的与化工公司的工作期间,我们表明在关键增值活动获得强有力的相对分享中,竞争地位比获取相关产品市场的份额更有关系。在20世纪70年代,我们用刀原理来证明从一个产品角度来评估竞争优势会导致错误的结论。活动背后的洞察力是企业是不能被看作为收集个人的产品或服务,这种仅仅描述税收一方面。同样重要的是,该公司是一个活动的系统,必须被组织和被管理以达到在降低其成本时使产品价值最大化,最终创造竞争优势。 切片刀的例子提出了一个重要的观点,但一个非常关键的问题依

50、然存在。一旦确定了公司具有较强的活动的位置,接下来的逻辑问题是“那又怎么样?” 对竞争力而言实现活性较强的位置是关键,只有当详细的活动时增加了显著的价值到最终产品或服务。 在20世纪80年代,迈克尔?波特记录了价值链的概念,并且用它来显示可能被视为一个设计系统的一系列活动怎样来创造竞争优势。波特的工作是普及活动的角度和活动联系的重要性。 然而,普遍版的波特的价值链概念没有深刻考虑到增值概念。这是不幸的,因为增值结构决定着哪些活动对成功至关重要,而哪些不是。 它通常是一个差错,代表着在活动中投资巨大,而公司只有一小部分的产品或服务的整体价值。公司产生的页面,你现在读起来比包装领域的印刷能和页面设

51、置更舒适,即使印刷杂志交付了缓冲包装,因为包装并不代表总体价值交付的杂志的很大一部份的。 关于核心竞争力的四句祈使句 GE和本田的实例验证,这样围绕“真正的”核心竞争力或活动以及有关的失败做的重要性。一旦高级管理开发了战略意图去鉴定、培养、组织活动,那么可以创造独特而持久的,一些规则必须遵循着改变承诺为竞争成功的原则。 规则1:避免详细的清单 如果高层管理停留在超出少许关键活动或核心竞争力,那可能就是超越或者当然忽略了核心这个词的意图。有许多成功的公司瞄准的是其中一或两种关键活动。 辨认关键活动是高级管理能做的最重要的贡献之一。在我们看来,提出了核心竞争力要: 重要贡献是使最终产品或服务价值最

52、大化。 代表一种独特的能够提供持久的竞争优势的能力。 有潜力支持多种最终产品或服务。 规则二:获得高级管理人员关于核心竞争力的共识(什么生意你真正在做?) 评估潜在的核心竞争力使用以前被描述的筛选方法是十分有必要的,但不足的是要建立被动能力的组织。如果企业广泛培植和分享能力,高级管理必须达成它们是那些和按照他们的选择过程的结果来行事的共识。 在建立高级管理层关于关键活动的共识,我们使用以下途径与其他人一起取得了良好的效果: 作业标杆管理。 员工和资产分配。 “如果”的设想的发展。 作业标杆管理是一种可以控制争论远离主观的看法和朝着不容怀疑的事实发展的技巧。例如,如果操作副总声称实现订单加工是一

53、种核心竞争力,他可以开发一个有说服力的论据,通过证明在一笔订单处理速度、成本、及客户的满意上具有持久的竞争优势。 一个引人注目的论据还可以通过关于回答组织的配置的一些简单的问题来建立,例如:“你的员工做什么?你的资产在哪里?” 如果一个公司80%的员工在工厂车间里,营销副总必须有效的说服他的同事们,市场营销和销售是一个真正的关键活动。毕竟,今天人们体现着集体学习很受欢迎,当学习被建立和在大量的雇员共享时,它成为了一项具有强大的竞争力的武器。 “如果”的模式在团队工作选择核心竞争力方面同样有用的。高级管理层的僵局经常被打破,通过制定出选择的单一的核心竞争力的影响,来指导未来的行动。 置身僵局,你

54、可能会问,“有什么行为暗示着是采用核心竞争力“X”?是什么样的产品和市场是最引人注目的考虑到这个核心竞争力?有什么公司看起来从现在起五年内 用“X”能力来指导我们的行动?” 这些关于每个提出的核心竞争力的相同的疑问应得到回答。虽然这种方法似乎太简单了,它可以结合其它更多的分析方法,以帮助该组织达成共识,一个核心竞争力 也可能是两个会使得公司更具意义。 规则3:核心竞争力在公司内部的杠杆作用 一旦高级管理层识别并同意对公司的核心竞争力,就必须工作热忱,以确保能力不断增强,在整个公司广泛传播,用最好的方式管理来保存他们创造出来竞争优势。如果高级管理人员不能够组织这些关键活动,那么命令的重要性不能足

55、够的被强调,他们将会消失。 记得切片刀例子:尽管电动机制造享有了相对雄厚的份额,但电动机成本不一定低于竞争中的成本。只有在本公司组织和进行其行动,才在电动机制造获得集体学习使它随着经验的累积来去降低成本。 行动对于最好的识别能力可能有必要的,从物理上重组截然不同的制造过程来运行各领域,仅仅为了使沟通更为有效。考虑国际领先电子产品制造商的事例。部门A开发了一个设计和制造粘贴式磁钢印刷电路板的专门技术并且使用此技能,以降低产品的成本。部门B有一个旧的、昂贵的生产过程中,部分是因为它是在集成电路设计上落后了好几代。部门B可能受益于部门A的表面的专门知识,作为回报可以驱动双方都降低了成本,通过提高了全

56、部的体积。相反,部门A小心地保卫着它的能力,部门B继续奋斗。 如果关键公司技能将被剥削到他们的潜能,这行为不可能被容忍。今天,公司计划人员也赞赏“适应组织”,这:保留着一些古老的结构和几个传统部门.但依靠 .一种不断变化的团队,特别工作小组,合伙企业,非正式的结构的模式。 适应组织的目标是为了确保最好的核心竞争力,是否体现在技术、工艺、或雇员,与最有前途的市场机会相连接,使学习是最大化,在整个公司迅速传播。 规则4:分享公司以外的核心竞争力 有时公司共享和培育核心竞争力是不够的。随着市场的发展,可能需要新的活动。此外,在当今的全球市场,甚至巨型公司也会害怕的发行新产品和进入新市场的代价。随着产

57、品的生命周期收缩和研发成本大幅上涨,一些公司发现与竞争对手合作比对抗更容易。 柯林斯和Doorley研究跨国联盟的行为“未来的公司需要采取一种更动态眼光来交易.随着市场的发展,从一个切换到另一个操作模式的时间经常是不够的通过他们的产品的使用周期。从一开始一项新型业务,公司必须找到如何进一步加强在各个方面的竞争优势的方法,即使他们没有凭着自己的力量很好的做某事。” 从关键活动视角考虑联盟,可以使一个复杂和困难的伙伴识别的过程变得明晰。高级管理人员已经开始关注他们识别的核心竞争力的价值最大化,联盟活动已经大幅度增加。 重新定义核心竞争力 激发组织在他们附近培植,组织,识别核心竞争力是高级管理人员能

58、做的最重要的贡献之一。反过来说也对:选择错误的竞争力或太多的核心竞争力是最糟糕的管理错误之一。 我们的经验是像这样的努力应该每三到五年被进行一次,作为定期审查公司策略的一部分。然而,当一个行业在增值结构上经历了根本变化时,重新评估是至关重要的。经常管理不能足够快速响应和产生严重亏损的结果。 西部联合无法过渡到信息时代,因为它未能认清传输基础设施的日益提高;它最终陷入破产。然而,当核心支票打印业务?豪华支票打印机受到了电子资金转账EFT的威胁,Deluxe正确的认知到必须培养新的技能来维持它的历史业绩。高级管理人员从打印支票金融交易中重新定义了企业核心竞争力,建立了一个成功的电子转账和数据加工业务。 在定义其交易,Deluxe认识到它的角色,在支票结算、加工,和它的金融机构的市场运作经验可能在客户方面比打印支票提供更持久价值。豪华在计算机自动化上结合了持久的技能与获得的技能,并且它朝一个新的方向顺利地行发展。 公司用广泛的共享的特有的和持久的能力和不断发展的增值结构产业,将克服竞争,正像Deluxe和Honda做的。无论其名字活动,核心竞争力,或价值链元素公司定义他们的竞争优势基于在他们执行的不联系活动中的结构优势,比不是长期的赢家更多;这些公司使他们的核心竞争力转变为竞争武器,而不是竞争的陷阱。