如果在国内无法战胜国际品牌去国外怎么可能成功？

 

先见预测 http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight  http://davidsun.chinavalue.net,

 

近年来中国许多企业有一种冲动，到欧美发达国家投资和收购的冲动。中国企业走出国门走向世界本身是一件好事。许多中国企业有了最近二十年的积累，有一定资金实力可以投资和收购了。 然而我们看到更多的企业是因为自己的产品在中国市场发展发生了困难，而考虑走出国门去发展。许多企业雄心勃勃把目标瞄准了欧美发达国家市场，这种发展战略能够成功吗？

 

在经济全球化的今天，中国国内市场早已成为了全球市场。中国企业在国内面对的市场竞争不只是中国企业之间的竞争而是全球企业之间的竞争。中国产品虽然在价格上有一定优势，但是在品牌和创新方面却远远落后与全球跨国企业。

 

虽然中国制造生产产品已经成功销往世界各国， 但是中国制造产品大部分还停留在低价竞争阶段，而且这种低价的利润和主动权基本上掌握的跨国企业手上。

 

中国企业在国内拥有天时地利人和优势地位，如果在这种条件下中国的企业无法从品牌上，从技术和产品创新上战胜全球跨国企业，走出国门怎么可能成功呢？这是我们先见策划真诚的提醒。

 

先见策划

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

 

 

投资沃尔玛

http://biz.163.com　2005-05-10 10:57:53　来源: 中国企业家　　　网友评论 0 条 

 

    “投资沃尔玛”是否可行呢？

    事实上投资沃尔玛完全可行，而且有着比较现实的可行性。首先，沃尔玛的股东比较分散，前五大机构投资者股东的持股比例不超过10%.截至2005年3月17日，沃尔玛市值2269亿美元。按照这一数字简单计算，拥有沃尔玛10%股权的收购成本将不超过230亿美元。这对于拥有巨额外汇储备的中国而言实现的基础难度并不大；其次，美国资本市场比较发达，且企业基本是整体上市，通过股票市场公开购买股权并掌控其全部资源障碍较小。我们通过在股市直接购买就可以成为沃尔玛的一大股东。另外，沃尔玛是的业务模式非常清晰，也不存在巨额的研发投入，处于风险小，比较稳定成熟的行业，容易看透和参与管理。我们完全可以有效地行使股东的权利，监督管理团队，让老外在全球为我们打工。

    “投资沃尔玛”，看起来是个大胆的设想，但是其实新洋务战略所带来的思维方式的巨大突破是可以适用于很多领域的。原来想都不敢想，看起来遥不可及，听起来天方夜谭的事，在新的思维看来却是最需要的，最值得，也是最有能力做的。

    在全球视野下，我们的优势和薄弱环节以及解决之道完全不同。像投资沃尔玛这样的举措，如果要变成现实行动，就要有全球的资源为我所用的眼界和胸怀，要超越独立自主，自力更生，找出中国企业整体最需要解决的问题，投资全球最好的资源，借力打力。

    沃尔玛股权结构

    沃尔玛家族和管理层持股     40%

    机构和共同基金持股     36%

    前五大机构持股者

    股东          持股数量    %    市值（亿美元）

    巴克利银行   148808370   3.51    $78.6

    道富公司     107638594   2.54    $56.9

    富达基金     96835402    2.29    $51.1

    先锋集团     88086254    2.08    $46.5

    北方信托公司 47634829 1.12 $25.2

    截止日期：2004年12月31日

“三块板”与中国企业困境

    对中国企业的全球竞争力进行整体的分析，我们可以把面临的问题形象地比喻为 “三块板”：即核心技术层面的“天花板”、掌控全球性销售网络层面的“地板”以及发达国家反倾销策略的中间“隔板”。

    在全球产业竞争中，在“三块板”的挤压下，中国企业的生存空间越来越狭小。可以说，如果解决不了“三块板”的问题，中国企业必将从计划经济的鸟笼刚出来，又被关进市场经济的鸟笼，中国出不了世界级的企业，中国经济很有可能被边缘化。在有限的时间和生存空间内，中国企业必须寻求全新的破解之道。

    解决中国企业面临的“三块板”问题，首先是视野的转变。中国企业家一定要认识到今天的全球化的时代必然要求中国企业家有全球视野，要超越“从中国看世界”，学会“从世界看中国，从月球看世界”，用全球性的资源来对抗全球竞争，而不是用中国的资源参与全球竞争。“新洋务战略”要求中国企业在全新的思维框架下看待我们面临的问题，给自己一个准确的定位，同时应当充分认识到全球视野和整合全球资源是成为世界级企业的必要条件。

    其次，我们一定要有全球的资源为我所用的眼界和胸怀，超越帝国保卫战以及独立自主，自力更生的传统思路，必须改变“内部瓜分资源”的内向思维方式，善于借力打力，尽快打造一批外向型的世界级企业群体，在世界范围内攻城拔寨。

    只有在这样的视野和前提下，我们才能找到准确的战略突破口。

    “投资沃尔玛”的巨大战略利益

    投资沃尔玛，由此解决地板的问题，实际就是这一新思维的一个应用。

    中国大量的企业，特别是中小企业面临着国际销售渠道狭窄的共同问题。靠每个企业单独去拓展，不仅成本巨大，而且周期很长。有没有更好的办法呢？从全球商品销售渠道来讲，最好的现成的渠道是——沃尔玛，我们是否可以借助沃尔玛的力量达到中国企业的目的呢？我认为完全可以，投资沃尔玛能给我们带来巨大的战略利益：第一，解决“地板”的问题。沃尔玛拥有全球最好的销售渠道，成为沃尔玛的股东可以很好的打通中国企业海外产品销售渠道，解决了大量中小企业面临的迫切问题。虽然我们不能绝对要求沃尔玛采购中国商品，但作为董事会的股东，我们至少可以影响沃尔玛的采购策略，使更多的中国主流产品进入欧美主流市场。

    第二，良好的投资收益。1994年至2004年的10年间，沃尔玛年股东平均回报率达到18.2%.作为全球最优秀的企业之一，沃尔玛拥有完善的治理结构和良好经营管理，我们可以由此理性预期分享沃尔玛带来的巨大收益。此外，从长期角度来看，沃尔玛的净资产回报率远远高于同期美国国债的投资收益率。投资沃尔玛不但本身有很好的价值，也可以改善我们单一外汇储备结构，规避风险。

    第三，我国面临着人民币升值的压力。一旦政府决策人民币升值，投资沃尔玛也可以使我们在相对便宜的价钱下得到最需要的战略资源，化不利为有利。

    第四，沃尔玛是最好的“商业雷达”。对于沃尔玛而言，全球通畅的产品销售渠道是其成功的重要条件，但是最佳的商品零售商的成功首先要做到的是了解全球客户需求，为消费者提供最佳的商品。这要求沃尔玛能够对遍布全球的企业有所了解与掌控，同时能够很好的判断商品发展趋势。通过对沃尔玛全球商品采购趋势的判断与分析，我们完全可以了解全球商业发展的某种趋势。由此可以很好的指导中国企业在全球竞争中把握自我。

    最后，形成你中有我，我中有你的不可分割的战略利益关系。作为处于相对弱势地位的中国企业来讲，能和世界级企业形成紧密的联盟无疑是非常有益的。而通过成为沃尔玛的股东，我们不但可以直接获得较为理想的投资收益与全球销售渠道，从更长远的角度看，我们还可以与沃尔玛形成更为紧密的战略合作伙伴关系，这种伙伴关系可以使中国企业与沃尔玛“一荣俱荣，一损俱损”。从而使双方在共同的目标下，有效的避免各种利益争执，努力争取在全球市场的更大收益。

 

Are You Ready to Fight a Giant?

from hbs working knowledge,   http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight,

 

July 25, 2005

Industry incumbents are surprisingly vulnerable, say two Bain consultants in this article from Strategy & Innovation. Any savvy upstart can successfully challenge a Goliath. For starters: Focus on a powerful customer experience.

by Chris Harrop and Barney Hamilton

The concept of "barriers to entry" is perhaps the most daunting proposition an innovator must face. Incumbent companies run by deep, experienced management teams dominate almost every industry. Established customer relationships, tried-and-true products, powerful brands, and significant scale advantages provide these companies with a thick armor that often appears impregnable to aspiring entrants.

Yet, time and again, upstarts find a way to prevail—and not only in technology hotbeds such as Silicon Valley. Nationwide, slow-growth industries with high fixed costs—including auto manufacturing, consumer goods, and big-box retailing—may seem unassailable. But then along come such giant slayers as Toyota, Nike, and Amazon.com, each of which has transformed the business landscape of its industry.

In truth, industry incumbents are often surprisingly vulnerable. Clayton Christensen and others have shown that beating an established company at its own game requires strategies that disrupt the status quo by focusing on customers the incumbents either ignore or aren't willing to defend.

Occasionally, companies can invent a better mousetrap and challenge an incumbent head-on for its most profitable customers. But most succeed by first devising cheaper, more convenient ways to serve targeted customer niches that are below an incumbent's radar. This allows the entrant to mine profits in ways that are not cost-effective for incumbent companies, which have higher cost structures and broader focus. Over time, that strategy can migrate to other segments until the challenger's approach becomes the new status quo.

But how do innovators create disruption? Bain's experience and analysis suggest that customer focus holds the key. Successful challengers target specific segments and design propositions that address customers' unique concerns in ways incumbents don't—and very often can't. (See the sidebar "Are You Ready to Take On a Giant?") Challengers deliver a powerful customer experience by coordinating efforts across business functions, and they punch above their weight by investing selectively in what matters most to their target segments. Then they succeed over the long haul by systematically renewing their edge with customers.

All customers are not created equal
Giant slayers begin by recognizing that customers' needs and perceptions of value vary significantly across segments. Incumbents tend to give their customer segments varying amounts of attention, frequently concentrating on those that deliver the highest margin. Successful challengers often begin with a single-minded focus on delivering superior propositions to overlooked segments—addressing needs or desires that established companies don't (or can't) meet.

Giant slayers begin by recognizing that customers' needs and perceptions of value vary significantly across segments.

The European airline industry's dramatic turnabout provides a stark example of how powerful customer focus can be. Before 1995, high-cost "legacy" carriers—such as British Airways, Lufthansa, and Air France—dominated. They tried to be all things to all travelers but, for obvious reasons, spent most of their energies catering to their most profitable customers: businesspeople.

This created a bloated cost structure that opened the door for Ryanair and easyJet, two start-ups founded on the premise that many customers simply want a convenient, inexpensive way to travel. Both companies created a focused value proposition for cost-sensitive leisure and private travelers and tailored their business plans to make that model work.

The strategy began with their fleets. To gain a cost advantage, the challengers bought small, efficient aircraft and offered only one class of service. Unlike the incumbents, they standardized their fleets, reaping savings from common maintenance and training programs. And rather than maintain expensive, inconvenient hub networks, they chose high-volume, point-to-point routes from less-crowded, secondary airports.

To save on distribution costs these airlines chose their sales channels carefully. They eschewed traditional third-party travel agents and pricey booking systems and relied on direct sales channels: telephone call centers and the Internet. As a result, distribution makes up only 3 percent of total costs at Ryanair, versus 10 percent for some large carriers. The smaller carriers pass those savings on to the customer.

Both upstarts recognized quickly that online transactions were their most profitable channel. So they worked hard to steer customers to their Web sites without sacrificing service quality or convenience. EasyJet offers a discount of £10 (approximately U.S. $18.50) per round trip if customers book over the Internet. Once on the easyJet site, customers find a simple-to-use interface that downloads quickly, even on dial-up modems. Buying a ticket requires only five steps, versus ten on some legacy carriers' sites. And because easyJet collects key customer data with each booking, it is able to analyze more precisely who its customers are in order to continually hone its strategy.

Without large bureaucracies and unions, Ryanair and easyJet also benefit from low overhead and cheap labor. They have driven cost out of their supply chains and ignored the bells and whistles their customers don't value, such as free in-flight food and drinks.

The lack of corporate baggage is a key advantage for any upstart.

Profits are plowed back into the business to continue to provide customers with a comfortable, lower-cost alternative, which in turn drives more volume. The results have been dramatic. Low-cost carriers have already taken 10 percent of the intra-Europe market and are projected to have more than 25 percent by 2010. Ryanair and easyJet together added more than £4 billion (nearly U.S. $7.5 billion) in market value between 1995 and 2003, while many large incumbent carriers have lost value.

Focus the business on delivering a powerful customer experience
The lack of corporate baggage is a key advantage for any upstart. While new entrants can design their business plans and strategies on a clean sheet of paper, older companies are saddled with systems and patterns of behavior developed over many years. This hampers their ability to deliver the sorts of end-to-end solutions challengers can devise from scratch.

A few years back, Australian telecommunications companies faced a tough growth environment after deregulation of the market led to intensified competition and price pressure. Number two player Optus Administration, which had been the first to take on the incumbent Telstra, was able to fill a good portion of its growth gap by taking a close look at key customer segments and coming up with distinctive services tailored to its customers' needs.

The flexibility to "design for purpose" led to a major promotion—called "'yes' Time"—in which Optus invited its customers to call each other for free between 8 p.m. and midnight. At the heart of the initiative was an innovative pricing strategy that used an asset that was of little expense to Optus—in this case, spare nighttime network capacity—to provide something of real value to its customers.

The promotion hit a bull's-eye, helping Optus to turn existing customers into brand promoters who encouraged friends and associates to switch to Optus's service. "'Yes' Time" was a winner on another level as well. It encouraged new and existing Optus mobile customers to use Optus at night instead of relying on Telstra's traditional landlines for their evening calls.

Optus has counted on its entrepreneurial culture to help it grow into the multibillion-dollar business it is today. For instance, in the mid-1990s it implemented a computer-sharing initiative that cut millions in IT costs and improved call-center productivity. Today the company uses innovative partnering programs, including one that pays commissions to businesses that help generate sales leads for Optus.

Viewing the marketplace through the eyes of a challenger taking on established players is "in the cultural DNA of the company," points out CEO Paul O'Sullivan in a recent interview with The Australian Financial Review. "It's not one of those top-down hierarchical corporations...This is a far more maverick…place. And we pride ourselves on that."

Building on its customer innovations and its cultural strengths, Optus has consistently grown at more than twice the rate of the market since the company started operations in 1992 and has taken market share from Australian incumbent telco Telstra. The company's revenue has grown to A$5.5 billion (U.S. $4.3 billion), up from about A$2 billion (U.S. $1.5 billion) in 2000, and it now enjoys market leadership in such customer segments as high-speed Internet access.

Renew the customer experience again and again
The ability to move quickly based on superior knowledge of customer needs is another hallmark of successful challengers. They often build tight feedback loops with their markets, taking full advantage of their flatter organizations to ensure that customer insights are identified and acted upon. This capability allows them to renew a valuable and satisfying customer experience again and again. It also gives them the ability to identify future customers and reorient their strategy to market changes.

Over the last decade, the home mortgage business in Australia has undergone a sea change brought about by upstart mortgage brokers (such as Mortgage Choice, Australian Finance Group, and Aussie Mortgage Market) and low-cost mortgage originators (such as Aussie Home Loans). As recently as 1993, traditional banks controlled all but a sliver of the mortgage market. But by listening carefully to what customers wanted and providing the increased service they sought, independent brokers forced the banks to play by a new set of rules.

By 2003, brokers were originating 30 percent of mortgages in Australia, and their share grew to around 45 percent by the end of 2004. More impressive, they have captured A$350 million of the Australian mortgage profit pool (U.S. $270 million). Concurrently, bank margins have been slipping steadily.

The independent brokers have tapped into a deep wellspring of home-buyer consternation. In a recent survey, Australian borrowers were asked if they found the mortgage process confusing: 75 percent of them said yes. A sizeable majority also preferred personal visits from mortgage brokers or even shopping for their mortgage on the Internet to visiting a bank branch for a loan. What they wanted was unbiased advice. And the brokers were providing it.

The ability to move quickly based on superior knowledge of customer needs is another hallmark of successful challengers.

Traditional lenders tend to push proprietary products with minimal focus on an individual's circumstances, but brokers can draw from an array of lenders for the best rates and payment terms. Moreover, brokers offer expert advice to individuals who are often novices at one of the most significant and complex transactions most consumers will ever make. Banks provide limited service and customers have to shop around on their own for the best terms. Brokers, on the other hand, offer one-stop shopping and often will make house calls or office visits to explain options. And brokers provide these extra services at no additional cost to borrowers. They are funded by the very banks they compete with, through a schedule of commissions.

Why do the banks put up with it? To date, they've had no choice. Although the brokers take profits away from the banks, they provide such a compelling service that the banks have been forced to support their efforts. But the banks are fighting back. They've reduced broker payments for poor-quality loans and aligned commissions to reward more profitable types of loans, such as those that have longer terms. Their interest rates and offerings have also grown more competitive.

All of this has cut into the brokers' margins and highlighted how essential it is for challengers to use superior customer knowledge to stay ahead of the curve. Unfortunately, the brokers have missed some tricks.

Instead of relying so heavily on bank commissions, brokers could have parlayed their customer relationships into products beyond financial-planning advice. That's what Optus and the European airlines have been able to do—take their original concept and migrate it into other segments. It isn't easy. Indeed, one of the leading Australian brokers, Wizard Home Loans, recently sold out to GE Money, the consumer finance arm of General Electric, in recognition that it needed help to compete. Wizard's experience is an object lesson: Finding ways to deliver customer satisfaction again and again is crucial to making giant slaying sustainable.

Learning from the giant slayers
That a David can defeat a Goliath is no myth. Even when upstart companies lack long-standing relationships, pervasive brands, and scale advantages, they can still win big against incumbents, driving dramatic market-share shifts in just a few years.

Reproduced with permission from "Lessons from the Giant Slayers," Strategy & Innovation, May-June 2005.

See other HBS Publishing newsletters.

Chris Harrop is a partner with Bain & Company in Sydney, and co-leader of Bain's telecom and technology practice in Asia.

Barney Hamilton is a Bain partner in London.

They can be reached at innovation@hbsp.harvard.edu.

 

 

Get Creative!
How to build innovative companies

Slide Show >>

 

Listen closely. There's a new conversation under way across America that may well change your future. If you work for Procter & Gamble Co. (PG ) or General Electric Co. (GE ), you already know what's going on. If you don't, you might want to stop what you're doing and consider this:

The Knowledge Economy as we know it is being eclipsed by something new -- call it the Creativity Economy. Even as policymakers and pundits wring their hands over the outsourcing of engineering, software writing, accounting, and myriad other high-tech, high-end service jobs -- not to mention the move of manufacturing to Asia -- U.S. companies are evolving to the next level of economic activity.

What was once central to corporations -- price, quality, and much of the left-brain, digitized analytical work associated with knowledge -- is fast being shipped off to lower-paid, highly trained Chinese and Indians, as well as Hungarians, Czechs, and Russians. Increasingly, the new core competence is creativity -- the right-brain stuff that smart companies are now harnessing to generate top-line growth. The game is changing. It isn't just about math and science anymore. It's about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation.

What is unfolding is the commoditization of knowledge. We have seen global forces undermine autos, electronics, and other manufacturing, but the Knowledge Economy was expected to last forever and play to America's strengths: great universities, terrific labs, smart immigrants, an entrepreneurial business culture.

Oops. It turns out there are a growing number of really smart engineers and scientists "out there," too. They've learned to make assembly lines run efficiently, whether they turn out cars or code, refrigerators or legal briefs. So U.S. companies are moving on to creating consumer experiences, not just products; reconceiving entire brand categories, not merely adding a few more colors; and, above all, innovating in new and surprising arenas.

The U.S. has a lead in this unfolding Creativity Economy -- for the moment. The new forms of innovation driving it forward are based on an intimate understanding of consumer culture -- the ability to determine what people want even before they can articulate it. Working in what is still the largest consumer market in the world gives U.S. companies a huge edge. So does being able to think outside the box -- something Americans still do better than most. But Toyota Motor Corp. (TM ) has a feel for U.S. consumers, and Samsung Group can be pretty creative, too. Competition will surely be intense.

A New Dance
For managers, the biggest challenge may be making the leap from their Six Sigma process skills to new ways of thinking. For corporations, transforming themselves will require new sets of values and organizational principles. Have you heard of design strategy? It's probably the Next Big Thing after Six Sigma. How about consumer-centric innovation? It may be the most powerful way to raise a company's innovation success rate. Do you know what innovation metrics your company needs? Have you heard of CENCOR (calibrate, explore, create, organize, and realize)? It's the post-Six Sigma dogma GE is spreading far and wide among its managers. Are B-schools on top of all this change? Not really, but Stanford University is starting a "D-school" -- a design school where managers can learn the dynamics of innovation. Teaching elephants to dance is never easy, but that's the task ahead if you want your company -- and your career -- to prosper.

You're thinking "this is all hype," aren't you? Just another "newest and biggest" fad, right? Wrong. Ask the 940 senior executives from around the world who said in a recent Boston Consulting Group Inc. survey that increasing top-line revenues through innovation has become essential to success in their industry. The same BCG survey showed that more than half of the execs were dissatisfied with the financial returns on their investments in innovation. They should be. By one measure, from innovation consultant Doblin Inc., nearly 96% of all innovation attempts fail to beat targets for return on investment. No wonder innovation frustration is the talk of corner offices.

BusinessWeek is joining this growing conversation about getting creative by launching a new online Innovation & Design portal -- www.businessweek.com/innovate -- to present the best research and thinking on the subject. Take a look at the interactive self-assessment feature developed by Larry Keeley's Doblin Inc. There are six innovation metrics available. Keeley is the guru of the evolving field of innovation science. Some compare him to W. Edwards Deming, who revolutionized the field of quality measurement.

There is, in fact, a whole new generation of innovation gurus. They are not the superstars of the '90s, such as Clayton Christensen, who focused on what might be called macro-innovation -- the impact of big, unexpected new technologies on companies. The new gurus focus more on micro-innovation -- teaching companies how to connect with their customers' emotions, linking research and development labs to consumer needs, recalibrating employee incentives to emphasize creativity, constructing maps showing opportunities for innovation.

When creative mojo gets going, it can explode into innovation. An example: the mundane mop. Cleaning used to be done with mops and water. Design Continuum Inc. in West Newton, Mass., researched cleaning for P&G and observed that water tends to slop dirt around, while dry rags pick it up (thanks to electrostatic attraction). Ergo, the Swiffer. In the design-speak of the Creativity Economy, this is paradigm shifting. Design Continuum helped P&G shift the cleaning paradigm. Now the Swiffer may become P&G's newest $1 billion brand.

Think out-of-the-box consumer experiences, and you get the idea of paradigm shifting. Old paradigm: corner coffee shops. New paradigm: Starbucks (SBUX ). Old: radio. New: satellite radio. Old: crowded electronics stores. New: Apple Computer (AAPL ) stores. Old: grungy, smelly circuses. New: Cirque du Soleil. Old: any airline. New: JetBlue Airways (JBLU ). Old: Macy's (FD ). New: Target (TGT ). Old: Earth-toned Birkenstock sandals. New: colorful beach "Birkis."

The evolution of the economy toward creativity has been underway for some time. Steve Jobs, of course, has turned Apple into the paragon of the creative corporation. Companies throughout the world are deconstructing Apple's success in design and innovation, and learning the lessons.

Today all kinds of blue-chip CEOs are signing on to creativity. A.G. Lafley, P&G's CEO, and Jeffrey R. Immelt, GE's CEO are at the core of the new movement. Lafley started it when he took over in 2000, but Immelt's conversion to creativity when he became chief executive in 2001 is giving the shift to creativity more momentum. Because of GE'S size and scope, when it moves, the economy moves with it. The vocabulary of business may be changing as well. It's hard to imagine former GE boss Jack Welch saying: "Creativity and imagination applied in a business context is innovation," as Immelt recently did. Or "we're measuring GE's top leaders on how imaginative they are. Imaginative leaders are the ones who have the courage to fund new ideas, lead teams to discover better ideas, and lead people to take more educated risks," as he added. That's a sea change from rewarding GE managers for a career of floating from operation to operation, massaging the process for incremental improvements.

Lafley sits on GE's board, so two of America's most powerful and effective CEOs now meet regularly, talk about creativity, discuss which of the new breed of innovation gurus is offering the best advice, and exchange notes on what works and what doesn't. When the history of the transition from the Knowledge Economy to the Creativity Economy is written, these two will probably get much of the credit.

To understand why the creativity movement is becoming so important, you need to go back to its roots at P&G. By harnessing the power of design, P&G has transformed itself from a stagnant brand manager into a model of innovation efficiency that outperforms industry rivals.

Before Lafley, P&G's volume growth was basically flat. The company cared more about how its products functioned than it did about how customers felt about them. "P&G had the best chemical engineering and marketing operations in the country," says Patrick Whitney, director of the Institute of Design at Illinois Institute of Technology. "It didn't care about the user experience." P&G could tell retailers to stock eight kinds of Crest, and they did. As power shifted to big retailers, P&G couldn't do that. "It had to create new products, and to do that, P&G had to get closer to the consumer," says Whitney.

Fresh Eyes
Lafley turned to design. In 2001 he established a new executive post: vice-president for design, innovation, and strategy, naming Claudia B. Kotchka, now 53, to fill it. She and Lafley knew they couldn't change P&G's culture without fresh eyes from the outside. So they made a major decision: Even as P&G began laying off thousands of top executives, middle managers, scientists, and others, it quadrupled its design staff. For the first time it hired a legion of designers who had worked at other companies and in other industries.

In a second crucial decision, Kotchka dispatched designers to work directly with R&D staffers to help to conceive new products. This changed P&G's entire innovation process, making it consumer-centric rather than driven by new technology. To open up the company further, P&G started hiring different kinds of consultants. Among them were Design Continuum; ZIBA Design in Portland, Ore.; Chicago's Doblin Inc.; and IDEO in Palo Alto, Calif.

Here's how it works at P&G: Kotchka contacts P&G's divisional heads, asking for a list of possible opportunities designers might address. Recently, the head of home care said it was time to look at bathroom cleaning. Kotchka brought in IDEO with the goal of helping out. IDEO and P&G's designers went out and observed people cleaning bathrooms around the world. In South America they saw women using brooms to clean walls and showers effectively and built a prototype combining a small hand cleaner with a long pole. P&G tested the idea via a survey. People hated it.

But P&G hung in there. What is fast becoming the Holy Grail of innovation -- the "unmet, unarticulated" needs of consumers -- didn't show up in the survey. Instead, P&G relied on the informed intuition of designers and tested the idea again, using working prototypes. People loved the real thing. P&G then broke down the walls of its Mr. Clean brand, reached in and used the Mr. Clean detergent for the new product. The Mr. Clean MagicReach was introduced in April -- with a four-foot detachable pole. Mundane as this example may be, it shows how design strategy can generate innovative new products and sales.

To build a design infrastructure, Lafley also established what he calls his innovation "gym," a place to train managers in the new design thinking. And he created a Design Board of non-P&Gers who provide an independent perspective on products, brand extensions, and marketing.

Jeff Immelt inherited one of America's most successful companies. GE's incredible process culture, which brought so much to the bottom line in the '90s, was no longer enough to maintain its leadership in the 21st century. Like Lafley, Immelt needed to create an innovation culture quickly. One of his major goals was to raise GE's average organic growth to 8% from the 5% of the past decade. The skills Jack Welch prized -- cost-cutting, efficiency, the continual improvement of operations -- couldn't deliver that.

Big Bets
Immelt launched a series of what he calls Imagination Breakthrough projects, investing more than $5 billion in 80 initiatives that take GE into new markets, product areas, and industries. He told his managers to connect with consumers, learn to take risks, and place big bets. GE is already reaping major benefits from previous bold moves. Its latest quarterly profit surge of 24% is due in part to reframing the idea of power generation. The company expanded it from gas turbines to wind and solar, which paid off.

Also like Lafley, Immelt is pushing to change the corporate structure to spur creativity. He appointed Beth Comstock to the newly created position of chief marketing officer in charge of generating innovation and creativity. He's bringing in many of the same design and innovation gurus Lafley uses so effectively. And GE being GE, has its new acronym, CENCOR, for its innovation process.

Call it CENCOR, creativity, or imagination, GE is doing it. Comstock recently held a "China market discovery" session, bringing together some 90 people for three days. Outside innovation consultants pushed the envelope. "We forced the group to get outside itself, to look at China with new eyes," says Comstock. The effort appears to be working: Sales to China soared in the latest quarter.

What is the methodology of the new design strategy that Lafley, Immelt, and others are adopting? The basics are simple. They start with observation -- going out and directly seeing customers shop at malls, families eating in restaurants, or patients being treated in hospitals. Gap Inc. (GPS ) and others have found that social shopping -- in pairs and threesomes -- is the norm in its stores, so it's making dressing rooms bigger. Trying out lots of ideas fast by making models or videos (prototyping) is the next step. This lets managers visualize concepts, make decisions on which to improve and which to discard, and launch products faster.

Storytelling is very important. Designers have found that placing a potential new product within an emotional story that connects with consumers raises the chances of success. The design of the new line of MINI_motion watches and driving shoes, for example, captures the story of the Mini Cooper's cool urban driving experience. It's about the driver, not the car.

The final ingredient in design strategy is building an organizational process that does these things all the time. This kind of change can be wrenching for a company, but the payoffs are enormous. "You can build a kind of culture of routine innovation through design thinking," says one of the pioneers of the new discipline, David Kelley, co-founder of IDEO and head of the new D-school at Stanford.

So watch out, consultants. A whole new cadre of advisers is out to lead CEOs into the Creativity Economy. They speak a language different from Establishment consultants' (more anthropology, less technology) and advise differently (more hands-on workshops, fewer companywide surveys). Mainstream consultants, such as BCG, are building their innovation expertise, but they'd better hurry.

The new gurus have emerged from the depths of the late '90s meltdown and the shock of Asian competition to show CEOs a path beyond the Knowledge Economy to an even higher-value-added business model. They say they have found a way to play a high-margin game in a low-priced world, a means of differentiating products in a commoditized marketplace and a methodology for staying ahead of Asian rivals. They are the keepers of creativity in a world awash in technology, the champions of innovation in a globe drowning in commodities. Meet seven of them and many more on our new site.

There's a lot of talk about America becoming a 97-pound weakling. But the naysayers don't get the strength inherent in a truly Creative Economy. This revolution has barely begun, and building creative, innovative companies is the great task ahead. In the stories that follow, you'll find the tools, methods, and metrics to help make it happen.

资源“瓶颈”敲响警钟 中南海倡建节约型社会

2005年07月25日 10:58

今年以来，中央接连出台建设节约型社会的系列政策、措施。胡锦涛、温家宝等中央领导频频发表讲话，从战略高度阐述建设节约型社会的意义。建立节约型社会，是树立和落实科学发展观的一个重要战略举措，也是全国人民共同努力的目标。     资源“瓶颈”敲响节约警钟     在中国经济高速发展过程中，特别是人均GDP超过1000美元之后，结构性的变化是非常显著的。这种变化既包括经济结构的变化，也包括消费结构的变化。从经济结构变化看，近几年我国呈现出重化工业加速发展的特征。重化工业占工业增加值的比重去年已达67.6%。重化工业往往是高能源消耗、高资源消耗的产业，它的加速发展是造成近几年资源、能源紧张的最主要原因。从消费结构的变化看，特别是一些城镇居民的消费结构正在实现从传统的“吃、穿、用”到“住、行”的升级。消费结构的变化和升级导致了资源消费强度的增加、使用方向的变化。     另一个新情况是，我国出现了快速城市化现象，城镇化水平以年均一个多百分点的速度增长，相当于每年从农村转移1400万～1500万人到城镇。目前中国的城市化水平是41%，到2020年估计达到60%左右。一般来讲，城镇人口人均能源消费是农村人均量的3.5倍。大规模农村人口转移既是必然趋势，这必然会相应增加能源和资源的消费。     还有一个基本国情是我国人均资源占有量不足。我国的资源总储量居世界第3位，但人均占有量居第53位，仅为世界人均占有量的1/2。大量不可贸易的资源如水资源人均占有量仅是世界平均水平的1/4，随着经济的发展，我们的矿产资源国内供应能力、保障能力也不足。在45种重要战略性资源当中，据估计到2020年时我们将有9种严重短缺，有10种短缺。所谓短缺是指某种资源的外贸依存度在40%～70%之间，外贸依存度超过70%以上为严重短缺。     温家宝总理指出，能源短缺是我国经济社会发展的“软肋”，淡水和耕地紧缺是中华民族的“心腹之患”。这种基本国情，决定了我国必须走建设节约型社会的路子。     当前，我国资源“红灯”已经亮起，电力、石油、土地和水资源等最重要的资源普遍紧缺。     ――电力日趋紧张。据国家电监会的监测，2004年“电荒”席卷21个省、市，在用电高峰时段电力供需缺口达2000万～3000万千瓦，预计2005年全国电力供应缺口仍然很大。     ――水资源相当匮乏。由于缺水造成的经济损失令人触目惊心。据资料：我国660多座城市中，有2/3缺水，110座城市严重缺水。由于缺水，每年工业总产值的损失大约在2000亿元；而近几年农业每年缺水(近33亿亩土地收成受影响)造成的损失每年在1500亿元。随着中国人口的增长，人均淡水资源量将会越来越少，估计到2030年中国将被列入严重缺水国家。     ――煤炭生产、消费环节浪费严重。我国能源资源结构以煤为主，占能源资源总量的75.2%。据预测，我国煤炭探明可利用储量近2000亿吨，如果按照年产25亿吨原煤的速度推算还可以供应80年。尽管我国有可观的煤炭资源量，但优质资源少，生产、消费环节浪费严重。国家安全生产监督管理总局的数字显示，中国煤矿回采率平均只有35%，一些煤矿回采率仅为15%，有些甚至低至10%。消耗每吨标准煤实现的GDP为世界平均水平的30%。     ――石油缺口越来越大。据能源专家估计，我国已探明的石油可采储量约为23亿吨，仅可供开采14年左右，石油的对外依存度已超过1/3，今后新增的石油需求量几乎要全部依靠进口。2004年中国累计进口原油1.2亿吨。由于中国没有完全建立起石油战略储备，缺乏对国际油价的适度缓冲，每年要多支付数十亿美元。据预测，未来15年原油供需缺口将逐年加大。     ――耕地减少。我国建设用地与保护耕地矛盾突出，土地资源浪费、农村违法征地现象严重，人均资源相对不足和开发利用比较粗放问题并存。国土资源部副部长李元透露，近10年来，我国净减少耕地上亿亩，去年人均耕地面积仅为1.41亩，不足世界人均水平的40%。     “粗放型”经济增长方式令人堪忧     改革开放以来，我国经济建设取得巨大成就，但经济增长主要“依赖资源的高投入”来实现的，为此付出了巨大的资源和环境代价。上世纪最后20年，我们以能源消费翻一番为支撑，实现了GDP翻两番的目标。本世纪前20年是我国工业化和城镇化快速发展的重要时期。可以预见，随着经济增速加快，能源、水、土地、矿产等资源的消耗将不断增加，资源紧缺的问题将日益凸显。但在现实生活中，“粗放型”的经济增长方式仍较突出，矿产资源滥采乱挖，破坏和侵占耕地，用水无节制，建筑耗能超高……     一组组沉重的数字催人警醒。资料显示，目前我国综合能源利用效率约为33%，比发达国家低10个百分点；单位产值能耗是世界平均水平的两倍多；主要产品单位能耗平均比国外先进水平高40%。而电力、钢铁、有色、石化、建材、化工、轻工、纺织8个行业主要产品单位能耗，平均比国际先进水平高出40%。机动车油耗水平比欧洲高25%，比日本高20%。工业用水重复利用率比国外先进水平低15～25个百分点，矿产资源总回收率比国外先进水平低20个百分点。不久前，瑞士达沃斯世界经济论坛公布了最新的“环境可持续指数”评价：在全球144个国家和地区的排序中，中国位居第133位。报告指出，低产值、高污染的生产模式将造成国家未富而资源、环境先衰。这些数字从一个侧面说明，我国资源对于支撑“粗放型”经济社会发展已经到了难以承受的地步。     我们早就提出了转变国民经济的增长方式，但是直到现在，增长方式的转变成效并不明显。我国经济基本上还是粗放型的，而不是集约型的。表面上看，我们的工业化、现代化已经进入中后期了，但仔细观察，实际上是粗工业化、粗现代化的。许多产品非常粗糙，而不精细，有数量而欠缺质量。比如，我国钢铁产量已经达到3亿多吨，居世界第三位，但铁矿石绝大部分要靠从澳大利亚等国远距离进口，价格很高，消耗的资源、电力居高不下，而且许多高质量钢材还得靠进口。     当前我国的环境污染非常严重。应该说中国还未摆脱先发展后治理的老路。二氧化硫、二氧化碳的排放量严重超过承载上限。以二氧化硫排放为例，环境容量只能承载1520万吨，目前我们已超过此限，到2020年时，可能会达到3000万吨。以这样的发展到时候即使实现了小康社会的各项经济指标，但环境破坏程度肯定会很严重，这样的小康不是我们追求的目标。     建设节约型社会提上战略高度     与过去强调的“勤俭建国”相比，建设节约型社会内涵更广泛，发展的层次更高。这是一种全新的社会发展模式，就是要将节约的理念贯穿于生产、流通、消费和社会生活的各个领域，从根本上改变传统经济增长模式，最大限度地节约资源，提高资源利用效率，以尽可能小的资源消耗和环境成本，获得尽可能大的经济效益和社会效益。     这是落实科学发展观的必然要求。中央高层充分认识到，贯彻落实科学发展观的一个重要方面，就是要处理好经济建设、人口增长、资源利用、环境保护的关系，才能达到人与自然的和谐，做到经济、社会的可持续发展。所以，走节约型社会发展道路，突破资源“瓶颈”制约，应是中国未来发展的必然选择。     这是全面建设小康社会的重要保障。中国政府提出到2020年全面建设小康社会的奋斗目标，今后15年将是中国城镇化、工业化和现代化进程加速推进的重要时期，对土地和重要矿产资源的需求将快速增长，资源供需矛盾也将越来越大。目前，生产和消费方式不合理的问题相当突出，脱离实际、贪大求洋，追求奢侈、挥霍浪费的现象还大量存在。如果不在全社会进一步强化节约资源的意识，经济的发展必然会越来越多地受到资源的制约，生产生活环境会越来越恶化，这将直接影响着全面建设小康社会宏伟目标的顺利实现。     同时，这也是出于经济安全和国防安全的考虑。我国能源资源虽然丰富,但人均资源不足。近年来能源进口问题更加突出，如石油和铁矿的对外依存度越来越高。过多地进口资源，不仅耗费大量资金，而且会加剧国际市场供求矛盾，带来一系列经济、政治、外交方面的问题。因此，建设节约型社会实质上是关系到中华民族前途命运的一个重大战略决策和长远战略方针。

先见发布：中国企业发展主要问题

 

先见策划 http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight,

 

 

1．企业经营者和职业经理人的诚信道德和社会责任问题

 

2．技术和产品的创新和创造问题。

 

3．企业经营和管理体制的调整和改造问题。

 

4．市场变化和竞争加剧问题。

 

5．资源成本提高和合理利用问题。

 

6．企业和产品的品牌和文化建设问题。

 

7．国内和国际市场全球化竞争问题。

 

8．企业短期利益与长期发展和社会责任矛盾。

 

 

 

先见发布：中国经济发展主要问题

 

先见策划 http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight,

 

 

1．  企业经营者和经济决策人的道德文明和社会责任问题。

 

2．市场法制和规范建设问题。

 

3．自然资源缺乏和合理利用问题。

 

5．科学和技术创新和发明问题。

 

6．市场经济体制创建、管理和监督水平问题。

 

7．可持续发展模式创建和粗放式经济矛盾问题。

 

8．农业经济开发和发展问题。

 

9．消除贫穷人口问题。

 

10.就业率提高和人均收入提高问题.

 

11. 金融体系安全和健康发展问题。

 

12. 沿海和内地发展不平衡问题。

 

13. 教育和医疗保障和建设问题。

 

用中海油185亿美圆收购资金的10%即18.5亿美圆能够做什么？

 

先见策划  http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight,  http://davidsun.chinavalue.net,

 

现在中海油用185亿美圆收购美国石油公司的结果还不知道。 虽然能源缺乏已经成为中国经济可持续发展重要问题，但是鄙人认为用185亿美圆相当于1500亿元人民币去收购美国石油企业风险太大，不值得!  假如我们用这185亿美圆来开发自己的新型可再生能源不是更有价值吗？

 

6月28日在莫斯科爆出一则让全世界人们兴奋的报道：法国将建世界上实验性热核反应堆。 这是有欧、美、俄、日、韩、中六国共同打造的国际热核反映堆计划，总投资为130亿美圆日本和欧盟一直为建设地而争夺，第一个有建造权国家将承担50%的费用，另外50%分别有其他五国分担，最后法国获得首个实验性反应堆基地。 全国上下欢欣鼓舞。

 

目前已实现的人工热核反应是氢弹爆炸，它能产生剧烈而不可控制的聚变反应，而可控制的热核反应尚未实现。 现在的核电站是通过重金属元素原子核发生裂变反应获得巨大能量，而核聚变反应主要借助氢同位素，这种原料在地球上几乎取之不尽，而且核聚变放射性微乎其微，不产生核废料，对环境的污染很小。 因此核聚变被认为是未来解决世界能源和环境问题唯一的最佳途径，对发展中国家和地区具有特别重要的意义。这一计划一旦成功，将为人类开发新一代战略能源带来一次革命。

 

实际上中国的成都双流县已经秘密研究受控核聚变项目40年了，中国对这种称为“人造太阳”的已经基本成型，而且本世纪内可以诞生。今年科技部将拨款5000万元进行人造太阳的深入研究。

 

假如中海油拿出18.5亿美圆即150以圆人民币投入“人造太阳”的研究会产生什么结果？我想有了这笔巨资中国自己的受控核聚变反应装置开发至少可以提前10年20年完成，因为中国可以在过去40年研究成果的基础上联合更多的国内外专家和人才，开展更多的实验研究。中国就有可能成为全球最早研究成功“人造太阳”，也可能成为受控核聚变反应装置全球最先进的国家。这样中国就可以从根本上解决能源缺乏的问题。

 

我们只用10%的收购资金就可以挖掘出中国能源持续不断的“人造太阳”，为什么我们不去投资呢？  如果只靠科技部5000万元，一、二亿元投资能够解决什么问题呢？

 

中国目前到处缺乏资金，1500亿元人民币可以办成多少影响国家和民众生存和发展的大事，希望我们的政府能够慎重考虑。

 

先见策划

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foresight Top Club is one Creative Club for global company and organization

 

先见策划 http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

今天中国经济发展进入了一个艰难而充满期待的结构性调整阶段，中国的企业也进入了战略结构调整阶段。 面对国内市场全球化竞争日益激烈和日常用品供过于求的局面中国企业如何提高市场分额？ 如何提高赢利能力？ 面对国际贸易摩擦日益加剧的局面中国企业如何提高出口数量？ 如何赢得国际市场？

 

今天全球经济发展进入了一个迷茫徘徊的阶段，低成本低价格的博弈，自然资源的短缺和破坏，地区间经济摩擦和冲突，汇率和货币不稳定，可持续发展的热点缺乏等等。 虽然全球跨国企业集团占据资金和技术的优势地位，但是面对面对信息技术高速更新老牌跨国企业的技术优势能否保持？ 面对不同国家的市场体系和权力保护跨国企业如何赢得市场优势？ 面对产品价格不断走低跨国企业如何摆脱成本困境？

 

我们先见策划机构拥有长期的市场战略和战术研究优势，我们的独特优势和核心竞争力就是创造性的思想战略和超前的预测。 为此我们愿意为全球国内外有志成为创造性和领先型企业提供独特的和创造性的策划服务。

 

在此推出先见顶级企业俱乐部，这是一个全球首创的创造性企业俱乐部。 所有的会员企业可以享受到全球其他任何企业咨询机构没有的创造性策划服务。 我们提供创造性的市场开发和扩展战略战术； 我们提供创造性的企业品牌和产品品牌的策划； 我们提供创造性企业经营结构调整战略； 我们提供创造性的地区城市发展战略： 我们提供创造性投资机会预测等等。  如果您的企业和产品在中国市场遇到难以克服的困难和问题， 如果您的企业在提升企业和产品品牌中有无法解决的问题。  欢迎您与我们联系，也许我们是世界上唯一能够为您提供创造性战略服务的机构。如果我们提供的服务没有效果我们分文不取。

 

先见顶级俱乐部企业会员费

 

黄金企业会员费 USD1million/year,

 

白金企业会员费 USD3million/year,

 

钻石企业会员费 USD5million/year,

 

一年的会员费可以享受一年常规市场营销战略策划咨询和一个大型产品项目的创造性的策划服务包括全方位全过程市场和经营战略策划服务。

 

先见策划

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

foresight89@yahoo.com.cn, foresight89@hotmail.com,

QQ251955360

2005年7月23日

 

Top Club is one Creative Club for global company and organization

 

Foresight http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

As we know today China economy goes into new stage of structure adjustment, which will be very tough and more hopeful in a periods of years. Chinese company also get into new stage of strategy adjustment.  Facing to more and more strong competition of globalization in domestic market how Chinese company can win the competition?   Facing supply being over demand on most of family products how Chinese firm can win the market in China?  Facing more complicated trade conflicts between different nations how Chinese firm can increase export and win global market?

 

Today global economy also get into low and confused stage, which has no clear direction of development. The competition on low cost and low price, the shortage and destruction of nature resource, the trade confliction between different nations, unstable currency environment and lack of continuable hot for growth.   Facing swift changes of information and technology how can famous global group keep their leading position in the future?    Facing lower and lower product price how can global group overcome high cost problem?

 

If your company cannot solve any problem and overcome any difficult on management and marketing in China and in the world, you are welcome to Foresight Top Club, it is one creative club, probably it is only one creative club on marketing service. We supply our services of core competence special advantage, which are creative strategy and correct and advance forecast in global market.

 

Foresight Top Club member fee

 

Golden member fee USD1million per year,

 

Platinum member fee USD3million per year,

 

Diamond member fee USD5million per year,

 

You are welcome to contact us by email:foresight89@yahoo.com.cn, by QQ251955360, by msn:foresight89@hotmail.com.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

Foresight Marketing

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

foresight89@yahoo.com.cn

foresight89@hotmail.com

QQ251955360

 

 

 

 

Looking for venture capital

 

We are planning to build up one excellent web and institute of economy and management, which will consist of thousands of specialists and managers and economists and blogers in China, which will be the largest research institute and club on management and economy in China.

 

We are looking for venture capital at least USD5million at first. We believe we can create great business and huge profit for both of us in the future.

 

Thank you for your support.  We are waiting for your coming. You are welcome to contact us by foresight89@yahoo.com.cn, qq 251955360, msn foresight89@hotmail.com, or leave message here.

 

Foresight Marketing

 

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

先见市场预测：一年内股市将出现一批面值几分钱和几毛钱的股票

 

先见策划  http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight,

              http://davidsun.chinavalue.net,

 

从目前股权分置目前试验结果来看，实际上是中央各主管机构给与上市企业最后一次全流通套现的机会。 由于中国的上市企业的经营体制和管理能力并没有任何改进，因此对大多数缺乏竞争能力靠政策吃饭的上市企业而言抛股套现是唯一的选择。

 

因此在这些问题企业大规模套现之前，持这些企业股票的投资机构一定会抢先抛售，最终这些企业的股票必然跌入几分钱和几毛钱境地。除非这些企业全部退市。 但是以目前中央政府的保护政策看，在这些企业没有套现前不会让他们退市。  我们预测一年内一定会出现一批几分和几毛的股票，而且数量不少于50—60只企业股票。

 

另外我们预测最近一年内是投机机构和高手一夜暴富的又一次机会。  因为股权分置彻底打破了原来的股市控盘机构的格局，同时打破了股票投机的模式和方法，所有的机构和个人都处于观望和摸索之中。不确定就是投机的最佳状态。个股的起伏将大幅增加。 今年已经有少数投机机构抓住了这样的机会。未来一年内将机会更多。  当然需要高超的胆略和技巧。

 

先见策划

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

2005年7月21日

 

中国企业500强和世界500强存在三大不同

中国网 | 时间：2005 年07 月21 日 | 文章来源：国际金融报

众所瞩目的2005中国企业500强排行，将于8月21日出炉。中国企业联合会研究部主任兼中国企业500强工作指导委员会办公室主任李建明7月18日透露，该排名的初步结果已通过专家审定，目前中国企业联合会正在撰写中国企业500强与世界500强比较的分析报告。 关于中国企业500强和世界企业500强之间的差距或是不同之处，清华大学工商管理学院教授刘冀生指出了三点区别：首先，世界500强大多数都是私营企业、或是家族企业，而中国的大企业大多数都是国有、甚至是国有独资；其次，世界500强大部分所在的行业大都是汽车等竞争性行业，而中国企业大多数处在石油、电力、钢铁等垄断性行业；最后从规模上来看，2004年中国500强的营业收入、资产总量以及利润分别只占世界500强的5.3%、5.61%和5.22%。 据李建明透露，目前中国企业500强排序和《财富》全球500强等国外排序从大方面来说没太多区别，在今年的排序中企业须申报的指标增加了两个：研究开发费用与第一主营业务收入。(记者 傅光云)

海尔退出美泰克收购竞争是明智之举

 

先见策划 http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight, http://davidusn.chinavalue.net,

 

由于美国惠尔浦的突然插入提价收购美泰克，海尔集团迅速决定退出收购，这是非常明智的战略决策。 与收购的价格和资金没有任何关系，因为以海尔集团在中国的名誉获得中国银行的资金支持轻而易举。

 

从开始得知海尔集团要收购美泰克时鄙人就反对海尔这次收购举动， 因为第一次以海尔目前的资金实力，花费如此巨资收购美泰克，背上12亿美圆的债务去冒险收购等于一次没有退路赌博。如果失败整个海尔集团就可能垮掉。   第二海尔完全有其他更有效更省钱的全球扩张和品牌提高的发展战略，为什么不尝试更好的战略方法。   第三美泰克并不是世界上最优秀的家电品牌，它只拥有了美国和加拿大的一些销售渠道优势，然而利用渠道还有许多其他的策略和方法。  因此海尔收购美泰克是一个重大的战略错误。

 

海尔完全有更加有效的策略和方法来提高海尔在全球的品牌号召力和影响力，从而大幅度提高海尔产品在国内和国际的销售能力。而这种全新和有效的战略只需要花费收购美泰克20%--30%的资金。  为什么海尔集团不去尝试呢？  海尔如果需要我们先见策划可以提供一套完整的策略方案。 如果无效分文不取。

 

中国企业最大优势是什么？是用较小的资金和较低的价格去赢得全球市场的胜利。  过去我们所有的产品都是采用低成本和低价格的策略走向了全球市场。 但是我们最大弱势是什么？ 就不尊重知识和不尊重人才的价值。  一个优秀的思想和绝妙的创意和发明往往被无偿的剽窃和低价的盗用， 因此中国制造企业的产品虽然早已走向的世界，但是无法摆脱廉价商品的命运。 由于这种不尊重知识产权和人才价值，倒过来又将千心万苦打拼出来的畅销产品变成无利可图的廉价品。

 

中国的名牌企业到底从麦当劳、可口可乐、耐克、苹果电脑等产品企业中学到了什么？ 我们先见策划愿意为中国企业创建全球优秀品牌提供创造性的思想和战略。

 

先见策划

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

foresight89@yahoo.com.cn

 

2005年7月21日

 

 

Companies list in Fortune500 and Forbes500 are not strongest companies and only largest companies in the world.

 

Foresight---foresight create first chance  http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight,

 

 

Companies list in Fortune500 and Forbe500 are not strongest companies in the world, they are only largest companies in the world.

 

Because Fortune and Forbes magazines appraise global companies mainly based on their revenues and capitals. Those companies listed in Fortune500 and Forbes500 only mean they are largest companies on revenue and income and capital, they are not the best company with competitive power. So they are not strongest companies in the world.

 

排名财富世界500和福布斯世界500的企业并不是世界500强的企业，而是世界500大的企业。

 

因为财富杂志和福布斯真正主要按照企业的收入和资产来评选世界500企业，因此评选出排名世界500的企业并不代表最有竞争能力的企业，也不代表世界最强的企业。他们是世界最大的企业。

 

Foresight

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

July 19, 2005

 

房地产下降调整三五年是中国经济软着陆最有效的手段之一

 

新思想 http://newidea.blogbus.com, http://davidsun.chinavalue.net,

 

一个国家的经济发展有三大动力就是：投资、消费和出口。然而我们知道最近二十年来中国经济总量有突飞猛进的发展，虽然我们固定资产投资和房地产投资已经从过去世界排名远远落后的国家今天进入了排名世界前三位的国家，我们的出口总量也是进入了世界出口总量的前三名，但是我们人均国内消费却还是远远落后与世界发达国家。这是为什么？

 

另外一个国家经济发展合理的结构应该是投资、消费和出口三者占经济总量中的比例以国内消费为主，内需消费占50%以上。 这样国家的经济结构才能自我调节和控制。 而我们目前的现状是内需消费占中国经济总量比例不到30%。

 

虽然我们进行了20多年的经济改革开放的探索，直到今天我们仍然无法摆脱固定资产和房地产投资推动的发展模式，以及出口拉动的模式。这种发展模式的危害我们已经看到了：

 

首先以固定资产投资及房地产投资为主的经济发展模式给中国金融体系的安全带来巨大的危机。

房地产投资都是巨额资金的投资，而每个企业投资每个项目都不是主要依靠自有资金来投资，而是大部分依靠银行贷款，甚至是全部依靠银行贷款。中国证卷市场不规范不景气，自然所有的投资资金依赖银行，因此中国银行20多年来背负了巨大承重的压力和危机。再加上中国金融体系管理缺乏科学严格规范的管理，出现大量的长期的银行坏帐就成为了必然。  因此以投资推动型的经济发展模式必然会造成中国金融体系的严重危机，如果不能改变这种模式就不能化解金融危机，就会影响整个国家的经济发展。

还有固定资产房地产投资消耗大量的建筑材料自然资源，中国已经是全球水泥消费和玻璃消费第一大国，这种自然资源上无节制开采和浪费已经严重破坏和污染了生态环境。

还有固定资产投资和房地产投资企业是资金密集型企业，这样必然造成收入和利益集中到极少数人手里，造成社会收入的极端不平等。  而且投资为主的模式往往依赖政府特权的支持，无论是项目的审批和银行的贷款获得，都需要特权的支持和保护。 从造成法制的不平等。

 

其次以出口为主的经济发展模式造成了自然资源的破坏和浪费，也会造成劳动力压榨和迫害。

今天中国制造产品已经走向了全球每个角落，中国制造已经享誉全球，这是中国全体人民二十多年来取得的辉煌成就，是值得中国人骄傲的事情。 但是在这种辉煌成就和骄傲的背后，我们付出了多少承重的代价。 由于中国出口产品是靠低成本低价格的方式生产和制造，因此20多年来我们制造企业压低成本，对自然资源进行无偿的，低成本的使用，对环境的污染和破坏根本不承担任何的赔偿责任，造成了中国东西南北江河污染，森林和矿山破坏已经影响到了我们未来几代人生存和发展。

又因为我们一味压低劳动力的成本压榨劳工，造成劳工的身心健康不良，更造成了缺乏教育和提高，从而造成更多的社会贫穷。新的贫穷人口的不断扩大，造成经济和社会更大的矛盾和困难。

 

  因此中国经济要摆脱过去这种以固定资产房地产投资的发展模式，必须首先对房地产投资进行重大调整。朱熔基在位总理时虽然多次提出压缩房地产投资规模和调整房地产发展思路的政策，但是结果没有降低固定资产房地产投资，反而最近四年来各地的房地产市场出现疯狂炒做和上涨，造成了经济和社会更大的矛盾和危机。  今年中央出台一系有针对性的调控房地产政策起到积极的作用，全国各地的房地产投资有了明显回落。 但是直到今天房地产投资和固定资产投资仍然是各地经济发展主要依靠。 因此要真正的降低房地产投资的规模和速度最有效的手段是严格控制银行贷款，抑制房地产的投资和投机行为。  从市场自然规律分析，房价的下降是抑制房地产投资最有效手段。投机和投资人不能通过短期的房价上涨获利，自然就会放弃房地产投资，那么参与房地产市场买卖的人只有自需实用的人，以及少量长期投资人。市场就可以进入真正理性的发展轨道。

 

因此要解决解决各地房地产市场长期积累的问题，要实现中国经济软着陆，必须采取严格有效的政策，让房地产下降调整三五年是最有效的策略方法。

 

新思想

http://newidea.blogbus.com

 

 

“世界500强”不如改为“世界500大”

 

先见策划  http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight, http://davidsun.chinavalue.net,

 

最近中国许多媒体报道了中国又有多少家企业进入了美国财富杂志评选的销售收入前500家企业，特别还指出了海尔集团因为销售收入差2亿美元没有入选。中国媒体一直将美国财富杂志和福布斯杂志每年评选销售收入和资产总额世界排名前500名企业简称为“世界500强”企业。 曾经中国的所有企业和媒体对“世界500强”企业名称无比痴迷，对排名这两家杂志评选的世界500企业盲目的崇拜，对是否能够进入这世界500排名看作一种最高的荣誉。  其实这些感觉和认识存在极大的误区，“世界500强”这种名称和叫法本身就是错误的，“世界500强”中文名称应该改为“世界500大”。

 

1．  世界500强是中文的翻译，而英语的原名是Fortune500 and Forbes500. 从英语的原名看只是说明了世界500家企业的排名，并不是说这种排名就是世界500强或者世界500大。

而从财富杂志和福布斯杂志的排名方式看排名是以企业的销售收入和资产总额为首要考虑因数，因此更确切的翻译应该是销售收入世界前500名，或者资产总额世界前500名，更确切的简称应该是“世界500大”。

 

2．  从这两本杂志的世界500家企业排名评选的历史看，许多过去的世界500家排名名企业今天都已经消失了，据不完全统计50年前的世界500排名企业现在仍然在位的只有不到10%，而且还有一个现象今年排名世界500前列的企业明年就可能排名名落孙山或者，甚至消失。 我们看到许多世界非常著名的企业排名在500家前列由于各种原因几乎一夜之间倒闭了如美国世通公司，韩国的大宇集团等等。 因此以销售收入和资产总额为主的评选方法评选出的500家企业只能代表他们的规模大小，并不能反映企业竞争能力是否强大，也不能反映企业的质量是否健康和优秀。

由于过去中国企业与欧美日发达国家企业差距太大，因此对排名世界500家企业有一种盲目的崇拜，造成了排名世界500企业就是世界最强大的企业，而今天来看他们只是大不一定强。 因此“世界500强”的简称应该改为“世界500大”。

 

“世界500强”和“世界500大”虽然只是一字修改，但是却反映出我们对这种排名的正确认识。  我们希望中国的企业能够真正成为有竞争力的、有发展潜力的世界500强企业，而不仅仅是资产庞大的世界500大企业。

 

先见

http://spaces.msn.com/members/foresight

 

苹果公司的新口味

任雪松   2005-6-24 12:06:31  阅读 5196 次

“苹果”的味道会从今天起发生改变吗？     6月7日，苹果公司首席执行官史蒂夫·乔布斯宣布，“将在苹果Mac计算机中采用英特尔处理器，结束同IBM长达十数年的芯片合作关系”后，所有“苹果迷”和PC爱好者似乎都在问这个问题。     苹果公司又迎来了一个公司战略决策的关键节点，特立独行的史蒂夫·乔布斯又一次站在了舆论的风口浪尖上。苹果公司将从2006年6月开始销售基于英特尔处理器的Mac计算机，而到2007年底，所有苹果计算机产品都将转向英特尔处理器。     这让很多“苹果迷”难以接受。一直以来，苹果的PC产品以迥异于大众PC的软硬件架构以及精美独特的工艺设计吸引客户，而现在，乔布斯转身投入英特尔的怀抱，会不会因此丧失既有的个性，而被淹没在“微软＋英特尔（Wintel）”的大众化洪流之中？     史蒂夫·乔布斯似乎一夜之间成了扼杀苹果产品个性的杀手。但如果我们换一个角度，也许我们会得出与众不同的答案。事实上，从苹果创立至今，苹果产品的每一个创新和个性化设计都有着乔布斯的烙印。21年前，乔布斯与朋友在自家车库内创立了苹果公司，数年之后，这个曾经的反叛青年成为《时代》周刊的年度封面人物，而苹果也进入《财富》500强，苹果的Mac计算机更是改变了当时的PC产业，让IBM等竞争对手望尘莫及。     更近的例子是如日中天的iPod，小巧的iPod能够在一个比扑克牌还小的装置上存储1万首歌曲，这是自1979年索尼公司推出随身听以来人们在欣赏音乐方式上最大的变革。更重要的是，苹果独特的产品设计，让iPod超越了音乐和播放器的范畴，成为潮流时尚最前沿的一个标志性符号。     这一切显然离不开史蒂夫·乔布斯的努力。《基业长青》的作者、管理大师吉姆·柯林斯称其为“商界贝多芬”。在他看来，也许乔布斯算不上是一个程序员、设计师或者工程师，他也不是MBA，但他已经磨炼成一个睿智的商业策略家。他对于用户体验美学有一种完美主义的苛求。正是这种基因，使得苹果公司成为如此独具创造性的企业。     显然，史蒂夫·乔布斯不会轻易去改变自己和苹果的个性基因。不过，他必须要打破的是，因为过分追求独特而导致的曲高和寡和相对狭小的客户群。事实上，在决定Mac电脑转用英特尔芯片之前，iPod的畅销就曾促使乔布斯做出一个痛苦的决定。当时，在与Windows个人计算机进行多年的战斗之后，他最终决定与敌人并肩作战。这一决定成功了——在2002年中期与Windows兼容的便携式iPod播放器上市时，销售额一路飙升。     当然，投身英特尔并不意味着莺歌燕舞，在未来两年内，苹果同样将面临销售额下滑、软件开发商减少和客户流失的风险。这将是苹果公司又一个决定未来的选择。     在这样一个消费至上的市场里，独特的设计和更先进的技术，似乎敌不过消费惯性、便捷性和亲近性。后者在“微软＋英特尔”的洪流中得到极至的发挥，牢牢地抓住这个崇尚技术而又畏惧技术的时代人群。苹果需要考虑的是，在提供更好的技术、更时尚的设计时，如何消除人们对技术的畏惧感。在技术与人群之间的鸿沟飞速扩大的时代，这一点显得如此重要，它甚至决定了苹果的方向和步伐。     这多少显得残酷，提供更优良的软硬件架构、更精美的工艺设计，却难以得到市场的认可，只因为你离市场太远，你没有把高贵的手放到大多消费者的手心。市场在哪里？市场需要什么？市场规则究竟是什么——最适者生存，还是“劣币驱逐良币”？     英特尔公司创始人安迪·格鲁夫在《只有偏执狂才能生存》中分析说，战略转折点就是企业的根基即将发生变化的那一时刻。这个变化有可能意味着企业有机会上升到新的高度，但也同时有可能是标示着没落的开端。如果放任自流，战略转折点能够置企业于死地。     但史蒂夫·乔布斯是一个善于在企业发生战略转折的关口抓紧机会的人。很多时候，改变对于企业而言不是一件坏事，它能够带来新的希望和机会。同样，它也可以保持创新和个性。     这同样适用于正热衷于国际化、谋求在全球市场上获得新的话语权的中国企业。无论是联想、TCL，还是中国银行、中石油，体制变革和公司治理层面的刷新是当务之急。然而，如何在商业技巧和游戏规则上创新求变，这同样是一个严峻的挑战。 ( 任雪松 05-06-13  215