全部版块 我的主页
› 论坛 › 提问 悬赏 求职 新闻 读书 功能一区 › 真实世界经济学(含财经时事)
20110821 Follow Me 102
eros_zz
4235 21
2011-08-21
Want to Be the Next Apple? Lose the Bafflegab: Virginia Postrel

Everybody, it seems, wants to be like Apple Inc. Google Inc. (GOOG) is buying Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., many observers say, so it can integrate hardware and software to be like Apple (and to enlarge its patent pool).

Last week, Joel Ewanick, the global chief marketing officer at General Motors, declared that “it’s time to clearly differentiate our brand and align closer to a true global brand like Apple.” Translation: We want to be like Apple.

Apple has topped Fortune magazine’s list of “Most Admired Companies” four years running. This month it was briefly the most valuable company in the world. Even holding the No. 2 market capitalization is pretty amazing for a company that almost died in 1997, when it was valued at less than $3 billion.

To many people, Apple’s success seems like magic. Others attribute it to cool products, good marketing, and Steve Jobs’s charisma or presentation skills. Critics credit the Apple co- founder’s ability to project a “reality distortion field.”

In his new book “Good Strategy, Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters,” Richard P. Rumelt, a strategy professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, offers another explanation: the ruthless execution of good strategy.

Strategy is not what many people think it is. It is not a fill-in-the-blanks mission statement blathering about how XYZ Corp. will ethically serve its stakeholders by implementing best-in-class integrated sustainable practices to grow as a global leader while maximizing shareholder value. Such bafflegab is “Dilbert“-fodder that generates cynicism and contempt. It is, at best, a big waste of time.

Neither is strategy a declaration that the ABC Co. will increase sales by 20 percent a year for the next five years, with a profit margin of at least 20 percent. Strategy is not the resolve to hunker down and try harder -- what Kenichi Ohmae of McKinsey criticized in a 1989 Harvard Business Review article as “do more better.” Effort is not strategy. Neither are financial projections. And neither are wishes.

A strategy “is a way of dealing with a high-stakes challenge,” Rumelt told me in an interview. “It’s a way around the obstacles or problems in a difficult situation.”

Every good strategy, he writes, includes what he calls the kernel: a “diagnosis” of the challenge (“What’s going on here?”), a “guiding policy” for dealing with that challenge (the core idea often called a strategy), and a set of “coherent actions” to carry out that policy (the implementation).
For his friend Stephanie’s corner grocery, Rumelt writes, the diagnosis was competition from a large 24-hour supermarket, the guiding policy was “to serve the busy professional who has little time to cook,” and the coherent actions included stocking more prepared meals and opening an extra checkout stand at 5:00 p.m.

This strategy not only told Stephanie what to do but what she had to stop doing. Selling more prepared meals meant taking space away from the munchies for her many student customers. To focus labor expenses on the peak times for her professional customers, she closed earlier, meaning no sales from late-night study breaks. “Strategy is scarcity’s child and to have a strategy, rather than vague aspirations, is to choose one path and eschew others,” writes Rumelt.

A strategy is not a goal like maximizing shareholder value or keeping America safe from terrorism. It’s not even a plan. It is a design -- a coherent approach to defining and solving a particular problem, in which the different elements have to work together.

In this analysis, Steve Jobs is not only a connoisseur and sponsor of good design. He is himself a successful designer -- not of products but of business strategies.

Apple’s recent success has made people forget not only how close the company came to failing but also what Jobs did to turn it around when he returned as chief executive in 1997. He diagnosed Apple’s problem: It was hemorrhaging cash and its product lineup was too diverse, confusing and expensive.

In response, Rumelt explains, Jobs “redesigned the whole business logic around a simplified product line sold through a limited set of outlets.” He cut product offerings down to two: a desktop and a laptop, and no peripherals. He moved most manufacturing to Taiwan, cut software development, and eliminated all but one national retailer, opening a Web store to sell directly to consumers.

And, yes, Jobs also got Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) to invest $150 million in Apple and to commit to continuing to make Mac versions of key software. But that agreement wouldn’t have helped much without the rest of the strategy. “I don’t know how he learned that ruthlessness,” Rumelt says. But it worked.

What Jobs did not do, the book suggests, is equally telling. He avoided all the management responses that masquerade as strategies. “He did not announce ambitious revenue or profit goals; he did not indulge in messianic visions of the future,” Rumelt writes. “And he did not just cut in a blind ax-wielding frenzy.”

The organization’s new, coherent design bought the company time and gave it a clear identity on which to build. Apple’s gutsy decision to open its own retail stores in 2001 made sense only in the context of its new strategy.

Rumelt, who is a business consultant as well as one of the most-cited scholars in his field, met Jobs in 1998, while working for Telecom Italia SpA. (TIT) Rumelt congratulated Jobs on the turnaround but expressed skepticism about Apple’s chances of overcoming the Windows-Intel lock on personal computers. “What are you going to do in the longer term?” Rumelt asked. “What’s the strategy?”

Jobs, he recalls, “just smiled and said, ‘I am going to wait for the next big thing.’”
Jobs recognized that Apple couldn’t change the realities of the PC business. It needed a change in the environment that would make possible a new strategy, oriented toward growth this time rather than survival. He found that opportunity with the iPod and online music.

“Strategy is not a magic potion for overcoming any obstacle,” says Rumelt. “The part that’s hard to write about, that people reject, that they don’t want to hear me say, is that you may be facing an obstacle you can’t deal with. Choose a different obstacle. Play games you can win.”

Rumelt says he was motivated to write his book in part because he believes “bad strategy” -- or, perhaps more accurately, pseudo-strategy or even anti-strategy -- has become increasingly pervasive, not only in business but in all sorts of non-commercial organizations. Feeling obliged to articulate a “strategy” (or compelled to by orders from the board or Congress), people cook up statements that lack the clear-eyed analysis, real choices and coherent actions that good strategy demands.

For example, in 2008 the Los Angeles Unified School District adopted seven “key strategies,” including to “build school and District leadership teams that share common beliefs, values and high expectations for all adults and students and that support a cycle of continuous improvement to ensure high- quality instruction in their schools.”

That is a hope, a goal, or perhaps a prescription for North Korean-style totalitarian conformity. Whatever it is, the statement is not a strategy. It offers no guide to action. It is all too typical of “strategy” -- in the private sector as well as the government, in huge multinational corporations and small local charities.

Bad strategy, Rumelt writes, goes wrong in four common ways. Many bad strategies are just superficial nonsense expressed in big words, which Rumelt very politely calls “fluff.” Others fail to define the challenge. Some mistake goals or wishes, for strategy. And some set impossible objectives rather than focusing on modest but achievable ones.

Even when it doesn’t lead to bad decision-making, Rumelt argues, formulating bad strategy hurts organizations. “You use up the psychological and intellectual resources that could be used for figuring out what we should actually be doing around here, creating these things,” he told me. “If the very top management of the company puts together a retreat for the top 50 executives and what they come out with is a financial forecast, that’s a misuse of the knowledge and energy in the group.”

So if you really want to be like Apple, drop the fluff- filled vision statements and magical wishes. Pretend your company’s existence is at stake, coldly evaluate the environment, and make choices. Stop thinking of strategy as meaningless verbiage or financial goals and treat it as a serious design challenge.

ps:可能还有朋友还不熟悉follow me 是个什么活动，下面是版主总结的关于这个活动的帖子，欢迎大家加入进来，共同学习讨论，https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1130480-1-1.html

还有助理的一些感想https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1139059-1-1.html

另外下面是历期的汇总的文章，欢迎大家下载阅读https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-1130105-1-1.html
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

全部回复
wusi126
2011-8-21 08:29:12
Google wants to be the second apple

bafflegab n. [口语]啰唆费解的语言(或文字)，冗长费解的谈话(或文章)，莫名其妙的言语，晦涩难懂的话，模糊暧昧的话；官样文章，官腔

differentiate   vt. 1. 使有差异;构成...间的差别[(+from)] 2. 区别,区分;鉴别[(+from)] 3. 使.... 1. 区别,区分;鉴别[(+between)] 2. 区别对待[(+between)] 3. 【生】分化

align 1.使合作,排列成行 2.排列、对齐 3.对准；调直；定线 4.使成一直线 5.排列，使结盟, 使成一行 6.校正

attribute 1.特征，属性 2.把···归因于 3.品质;特性

charisma  n. 1. 非凡的领导力 2. (基督教)神授的能力 3. 魅力

ruthless  a. 1. 无情的,残忍的 2. 硬着心肠下定决心的,坚决的

cynicism n. 1. 讥笑;讥讽的言词 2. 犬儒主义

kernel n. 1. (果核或果壳内的)仁 2. (麦、玉米等的)粒,子 3. 【喻】核心,要点[the S]...vt. 1. 把...包在核(或壳)内;把...作核心

diagnosis 1.诊断，识别 2.特镇述 3.判断；诊断

coherent a. 1. 一致的,协调的 2. (话语等)条理清楚的,连贯的 3. 有粘性的;粘合在一起的...

munchies  n. 1. 点心;零食 2. [the P]想吃零食的欲望

connoisseur n. 1. (尤指艺术品的)鉴赏家,行家[(+in/of)]

hemorrhage  1.出血

masquerade 1.化妆舞会 2.伪装 3.假面舞会

indulge vt. 1. 沉迷于;满足(欲望等) 2. 使高兴;让...享受一下[(+with)] 3. 纵容;迁就 vi. 1. 沉迷;放纵自己[(+in)] 2. 使自己高兴一下;让自己享受一下[(+in)]

messianic adj. 弥赛亚的；救世主似的

pseudo 1.假的,虚伪的 2.雁，伪 3.假，拟，伪 4.假象 仿形

totalitarian   n. 极权主义者 adj. 极权主义的

superficial  a. 1. 表面的;外表的[Z] 2. 面的;面积的,平方的[Z] 3. 粗略的,草率的 4. 肤浅...

fluff   n. 1. (织物上的)绒毛,蓬松毛 2. 蓬松物(如一团头发、尘团等) 3. 【口】失误;...vt. 1. 使起毛;使松散[(+up/out)] 2. 【口】念错(台词或广播内容等);演奏错(音...


二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

bengdi1986
2011-8-21 08:44:21
From this topic , it implied that "a good strategy is the key way to success".Also ,that is why the Apple gain so prestige. Jobs has perfect vision beyond our recognition. When I saw the film "the pirates of Sillicon Valley",he attracted me profondly.

Who want to be the next Apple? Attach the importance to make a good strategy. As the topic said "Pretend your company’s existence is at stake, coldly evaluate the environment, and make choices. Stop thinking of strategy as meaningless verbiage or financial goals and treat it as a serious design challenge. "

you woul be the next Apple
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

happylife87
2011-8-21 08:57:55
Good strategy and good design are really hard to achieve, which is more difficult for Chinese companies in the current environment.
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

lxmuoi
2011-8-21 10:33:54
Business is war,there are winners and losers.The most important thing is never give up.
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

clovs
2011-8-21 12:12:25
this article is not about how Apple achieve success,is about how to define stratigy which is not a method of dealing with any obstacle you met.It's more like a long term direction,a gathering of many small choices after evaluating the environment.
the author means that don't treat stratigy blunderingly,don't treat success blunderingly.Be patient and accumulate your own energy waiting for the perfect moment to  hit out
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

点击查看更多内容…
相关推荐
栏目导航
热门文章
推荐文章

说点什么

分享

微信QQ空间QQ微博
扫码加好友，拉您进群
各岗位、行业、专业交流群