Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Here are two reasons companies fail:

    譯者: 易帆 余 審譯者: Allen Kuo

  • they only do more of the same,

    公司失敗有兩個原因:

  • or they only do what's new.

    他們老做同樣的事情

  • To me the real, real solution to quality growth

    或者他們只做最新的事情。

  • is figuring out the balance between two activities:

    對我來說,真正高品質的企業成長方案

  • exploration and exploitation.

    是找出以下兩種活動之間的平衡:

  • Both are necessary,

    探索與開發。

  • but it can be too much of a good thing.

    這兩者都是必要的,

  • Consider Facit.

    但太多又不一定是好事。

  • I'm actually old enough to remember them.

    想想辦公室產品 製造商 Facit 公司,

  • Facit was a fantastic company.

    其實我算老了,所以還記得他們。

  • They were born deep in the Swedish forest,

    Facit 是一間很棒的公司。

  • and they made the best mechanical calculators in the world.

    他們在瑞典的森林深處誕生,

  • Everybody used them.

    他們曾生產全世界 最好的機械式計算機。

  • And what did Facit do when the electronic calculator came along?

    大家都用他們的計算機。

  • They continued doing exactly the same.

    但當電子式計算機來臨時, Facit 做了什麼改變?

  • In six months, they went from maximum revenue ...

    他們繼續做一樣的事。

  • and they were gone.

    在半年內,他們從 最高營業額一路下滑,

  • Gone.

    直到公司倒了。

  • To me, the irony about the Facit story

    消失了。

  • is hearing about the Facit engineers,

    對我來說,Facit 故事最諷刺的

  • who had bought cheap, small electronic calculators in Japan

    是聽說 Facit 工程師

  • that they used to double-check their calculators.

    在日本買便宜的小型電子計算機

  • (Laughter)

    來驗算他們自己的計算機。

  • Facit did too much exploitation.

    (笑聲)

  • But exploration can go wild, too.

    Facit 太注重產品開發了。

  • A few years back,

    但探索過多偶爾也會失控。

  • I worked closely alongside a European biotech company.

    幾年前,

  • Let's call them OncoSearch.

    我與一家歐洲的生物科技公司合作。

  • The company was brilliant.

    讓我們暫且稱呼它為 OncoSearch 吧。

  • They had applications that promised to diagnose, even cure,

    這家公司非常卓越。

  • certain forms of blood cancer.

    他們有保證能診斷出、甚至治療好

  • Every day was about creating something new.

    幾種血癌的方法。

  • They were extremely innovative,

    他們每天都在創造新的東西,

  • and the mantra was, "When we only get it right,"

    相當有創新的能力。

  • or even, "We want it perfect."

    公司的宗旨是: 「我們不只要把事情做對,

  • The sad thing is,

    我們甚至要做到完美。」

  • before they became perfect --

    然而不幸的是,

  • even good enough --

    在他們成為完美之前──

  • they became obsolete.

    甚至還不算好時──

  • OncoSearch did too much exploration.

    他們已經被淘汰了。

  • I first heard about exploration and exploitation about 15 years ago,

    OncoSearch 太過於注重探索了。

  • when I worked as a visiting scholar at Stanford University.

    我第一次聽到「探索」和「開發」 這兩種不同的概念,

  • The founder of the idea is Jim March.

    是在大概15年前,我在史丹佛大學 擔任客座學者時。

  • And to me the power of the idea is its practicality.

    吉姆.瑪馳首先提出了這個想法。

  • Exploration.

    對我來說,這個想法 最厲害的地方是,它相當實用。

  • Exploration is about coming up with what's new.

    探索。

  • It's about search,

    探索是一個想出新東西的過程。

  • it's about discovery,

    它和搜索有關,

  • it's about new products,

    和發現有關,

  • it's about new innovations.

    和新產品有關,

  • It's about changing our frontiers.

    和新發明有關,

  • Our heroes are people who have done exploration:

    和改變我們所知的領域有關。

  • Madame Curie,

    我們的英雄都是那些探索:

  • Picasso,

    居禮夫人、

  • Neil Armstrong,

    畢卡索、

  • Sir Edmund Hillary, etc.

    尼爾.阿姆斯壯、

  • I come from Norway;

    艾德蒙.希拉里爵士等等。

  • all our heroes are explorers, and they deserve to be.

    我來自挪威;

  • We all know that exploration is risky.

    我們所有的英雄都是探索者, 而且他們夠資格被稱為探索者。

  • We don't know the answers,

    我們都知道探索是存在風險的。

  • we don't know if we're going to find them,

    我們不知道答案,

  • and we know that the risks are high.

    我們不清楚是否可以找到答案,

  • Exploitation is the opposite.

    所以我們知道風險很大。

  • Exploitation is taking the knowledge we have

    開發則正好相反,

  • and making good, better.

    開發是利用我們現有的知識

  • Exploitation is about making our trains run on time.

    然後把東西變得更好。

  • It's about making good products faster and cheaper.

    開發就像如何讓火車準點出發,

  • Exploitation is not risky --

    或是產出更快、更便宜的優良產品。

  • in the short term.

    短時間內,開發的風險並不大,

  • But if we only exploit,

    但是如果我們只著重在開發,

  • it's very risky in the long term.

    長期來說風險就很大了。

  • And I think we all have memories of the famous pop groups

    我想我們都認識一些知名流行樂團,

  • who keep singing the same songs again and again,

    他們一直唱著一樣的歌, 周而復始地唱,

  • until they become obsolete or even pathetic.

    直到他們過時甚至有點悲慘為止。

  • That's the risk of exploitation.

    這就是過度開發的風險。

  • So if we take a long-term perspective, we explore.

    所以,以長遠的角度來看, 我們要探索,

  • If we take a short-term perspective, we exploit.

    以短時間而言,我們要開發。

  • Small children, they explore all day.

    小孩天天都在探索新的事物,

  • All day it's about exploration.

    整天都在探索,

  • As we grow older,

    而當我們漸漸長大,

  • we explore less because we have more knowledge to exploit on.

    學到了更多開發的知識, 就越來越少探索了。

  • The same goes for companies.

    對於公司來說也一樣。

  • Companies become, by nature, less innovative

    當公司變得越來越有競爭力時,

  • as they become more competent.

    自然就會減少了探索。

  • And this is, of course, a big worry to CEOs.

    當然,這對執行長來說 是令他們相當擔心的事情。

  • And I hear very often questions phrased in different ways.

    我常常聽到各式各樣的類似問題。

  • For example,

    舉個例子,

  • "How can I both effectively run and reinvent my company?"

    「我要如何同時有效地經營 並重新改造我的公司?」

  • Or, "How can I make sure

    或者,「我怎樣才能確保

  • that our company changes before we become obsolete

    我的公司在被淘汰或危機來臨之前, 已做好了改變呢?」

  • or are hit by a crisis?"

    所以,做好其中一項已經很困難了,

  • So, doing one well is difficult.

    要同時推動探索和開發, 並把兩項都做好根本就是一門藝術。

  • Doing both well as the same time is art --

    我們觀察到,

  • pushing both exploration and exploitation.

    大約只有 2% 的公司, 有能力同時進行有效的探索和開發。

  • So one thing we've found

    但他們一旦達到,

  • is only about two percent of companies are able to effectively explore

    就可以收到豐厚的回報。

  • and exploit at the same time, in parallel.

    我們有很多這樣的例子。

  • But when they do,

    例如雀巢公司創造了 Nespresso 膠囊咖啡機,

  • the payoffs are huge.

    樂高公司進入動畫電影領域,

  • So we have lots of great examples.

    豐田公司生產油電混合車,

  • We have Nestlé creating Nespresso,

    聯合利華推動永續生活計劃,

  • we have Lego going into animated films,

    這樣的例子還有很多, 也都帶來很大的利益。

  • Toyota creating the hybrids,

    但為什麼兩者之間的平衡這麼困難呢?

  • Unilever pushing into sustainability --

    我認為原因是有很多陷阱,

  • there are lots of examples, and the benefits are huge.

    讓我們一直故步自封。

  • Why is balancing so difficult?

    我們等等會談到其中兩個, 但其實還有很多。

  • I think it's difficult because there are so many traps

    所以,讓我們來談談 「不斷搜索」這個陷阱。

  • that keep us where we are.

    我們發現了新東西,

  • So I'll talk about two, but there are many.

    但我們沒有足夠的耐心或者毅力

  • So let's talk about the perpetual search trap.

    去把事情做好、做對。

  • We discover something,

    於是我們又去創造新東西, 而不是去深入研究它。

  • but we don't have the patience or the persistence

    但周而復始,又做一樣的事情,

  • to get at it and make it work.

    然後陷入一種

  • So instead of staying with it, we create something new.

    「一直有新發現,卻很無力」 的惡性循環中。

  • But the same goes for that,

    OncoSearch 就是個很好的例子。

  • then we're in the vicious circle

    另一個很有名的例子, 當然,就是全錄公司了。

  • of actually coming up with ideas but being frustrated.

    但是這現象不只出現在公司裡。

  • OncoSearch was a good example.

    我們在公眾領域上也看到同樣的狀況。

  • A famous example is, of course, Xerox.

    我們都知道,任何有效的改革方式,

  • But we don't only see this in companies.

    無論在教育、研究、 醫療照顧、甚至國防上

  • We see this in the public sector as well.

    都至少要10~15,甚至20年才能奏效。

  • We all know that any kind of effective reform of education,

    但儘管如此,我們還是一變再變。

  • research, health care, even defense,

    我們並沒有真正給它們機會。

  • takes 10, 15, maybe 20 years to work.

    另外一個陷阱是「成功的陷阱」。

  • But still, we change much more often.

    Facit 公司掉入了成功的陷阱,

  • We really don't give them the chance.

    他們明明已經掌握了未來,卻看不到。

  • Another trap is the success trap.

    他們對喜歡做的事情相當在行,

  • Facit fell into the success trap.

    所以不願意改變。

  • They literally held the future in their hands,

    我們也是這樣,

  • but they couldn't see it.

    當我們對一件事相當在行時, 想改變就變困難了。

  • They were simply so good at making what they loved doing,

    比爾蓋茲曾經說過:

  • that they wouldn't change.

    「成功是個差勁的老師,

  • We are like that, too.

    它誘使我們認為,我們不能失敗。」

  • When we know something well, it's difficult to change.

    這就是成功帶來的挑戰。

  • Bill Gates has said:

    所以我認為這其中有許多課題 可以讓我們學習

  • "Success is a lousy teacher.

    並運用在公司上。

  • It seduces us into thinking we cannot fail."

    第一課是:在危機到來前, 先做好打算。

  • That's the challenge with success.

    公司如果有能力創新

  • So I think there are some lessons, and I think they apply to us.

    其實就等於有能力幫自己的未來買保險。

  • And they apply to our companies.

    Netflix 本可輕易滿足於 早期的通路經銷,

  • The first lesson is: get ahead of the crisis.

    但他們總是──我想未來也會是──

  • And any company that's able to innovate

    不斷地接受挑戰。

  • is actually able to also buy an insurance in the future.

    我聽到一些其他公司說:

  • Netflix -- they could so easily have been content

    「我將不計代價, 在下個週期的創新中贏得勝利」。

  • with earlier generations of distribution,

    第二課:思考不同的時程表,

  • but they always -- and I think they will always --

    我想分享一張圖表給各位,

  • keep pushing for the next battle.

    我覺得這張圖表很棒。

  • I see other companies that say,

    任何一家我們關注的公司,

  • "I'll win the next innovation cycle, whatever it takes."

    從一年的角度

  • Second one: think in multiple time scales.

    來評估公司價值時,

  • I'll share a chart with you,

    創新能力通常只佔 30%,

  • and I think it's a wonderful one.

    所以當我們只注重 「一個年度表現」的時候,

  • Any company we look at,

    創新並不那麼重要。

  • taking a one-year perspective

    接著看,同樣的公司, 拉長到「十年」來看,

  • and looking at the valuation of the company,

    突然間,創新和改革能力就占了 70%。

  • innovation typically accounts for only about 30 percent.

    但公司別無選擇,

  • So when we think one year,

    他們必須投資在這趟旅程中, 才能長期領先。

  • innovation isn't really that important.

    第三課:

  • Move ahead, take a 10-year perspective on the same company --

    招募人才。

  • suddenly, innovation and ability to renew account for 70 percent.

    我不認為

  • But companies can't choose.

    我們之中任何一個人可以獨自 在探索和開發之間尋找到平衡。

  • They need to fund the journey and lead the long term.

    我認為這是一項團隊運動,

  • Third:

    我認為我們必須允許挑戰的到來。

  • invite talent.

    我認為願意接受挑戰 就是一間卓越公司的標誌。

  • I don't think it's possible for any of us

    而能夠提出建設性的挑戰, 則是優秀董事會成員的標誌。

  • to be able to balance exploration and exploitation by ourselves.

    我認為就像好的父母親 該有的標準一樣。

  • I think it's a team sport.

    最後一課:對成功心存懷疑。

  • I think we need to allow challenging.

    回想古羅馬時代的勝利遊行也許有用,