《公司的核心竞争力》TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation中文
The_core_competence_of_the_corporation
什么是核心竞争力分析模型？1990年，美国著名管理学者加里·哈默尔和普拉哈拉德的核心竞争力（Core Competence）模型是一个著名的企业战略模型，其战略流程的出发点是企业的核心力量。
他们认为，随着世界的发展变化，竞争加剧，产品生命周期的缩短以及全球经济一体化的加强，企业的成功不再归功于短暂的或偶然的产品开发或灵机一动的市场战略，而是企业核心竞争力的外在表现。
按照他们给出的定义，核心竞争力是能使公司为客户带来特殊利益的一种独有技能或技术。
企业核心竞争力是建立在企业核心资源基础上的企业技术、产品、管理、文化等的综合优势在市场上的反映，是企业在经营过程中形成的不易被竞争对手仿效、并能带来超额利润的独特能力。
在激烈的竞争中，企业只有具有核心竞争力，才能获得持久的竞争优势，保持长盛不衰。
自内而外的企业战略（Inside-out Corporate Strategy）传统的自外而内（Outside-in）战略（例如：波特五力分析模型），总是将市场、竞争对手、消费者置于战略设计流程的出发点上。
核心竞争力理论恰好与其相反，认为从长远来看，企业的竞争优势取决于企业能否以低成本、并以超过对手的速度构建核心竞争力。
核心竞争力能够造就料想不到的产品。
竞争优势的真正源泉是企业围绕其竞争力整合、巩固工艺技术和生产技能的能力，据此，小企业能够快速调整适应变化了的商业环境。
核心竞争力是具体的、固有的、整合的或应用型的知识、技能和态度的各种不同组合。
Hamel和Prahalad在他们的《企业核心竞争力》（The Core Competence of the Corporation，1990）一文中，驳斥了传统的组合战略。
根据他们的观点，把战略事业单元（SBU）放在首位，是一个明显的时代错误。
Hamel和Prahalad认为，应该围绕共享的竞争核心来构建企业。
SBU的设置必须要有助于强化发展企业的核心竞争力。
企业的中心部门如财务不应该作为一个独立层面，它要能够为企业的战略体系链接、竞争力构建增加价值。
公司核心竞争力-作者普拉哈拉德-哈默尔教学提纲
经典：公司核心竞争力普拉哈拉德哈默尔C. K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel1990年普拉哈拉德(C. K. Prahalad)和哈默尔(G. Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(The Core Competence of the Corporation) 1990年普拉哈拉德(C. K. Prahalad)和哈默尔(G. Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(The Core Competence of theCorporation)<<隐藏很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪80年代，人们评价某个高管有没有才能，主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而，进入20世纪90年代后，人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(core competencies)，为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
让我们首先以美国的GTE和日本的NEC这两家公司为例，探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪80年代初期，信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，GTE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
1980年，GTE的销售额为99.8亿美元，净现金流17.3亿美元。
与之相比，NEC当时还只是一个小字辈，销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务，但NEC在电信领域尚无任何经验。
然而，到了1988年，NEC却后来者居上，销售额达到218.9亿美元，远远高于GTE公司的164.6亿美元。
在这个过程中，GTE公司的国际地位一路下滑。
1980到1988年间GTE在美国以外地区的销售收入从过去占总收入的20％降到了15％。
相比之下，NEC却一跃成为世界半导体工业的领导者，并且在电信产品和计算机领域也跻身一流企业。
为什么这两家在起步时业务组合基本相近的公司，在几年后的表现却如此悬殊？主要是因为NEC能够从“核心竞争力”的角度考虑企业问题，而GTE却没有。
企业核心竞争力又称核心能力
企业核心竞争力又称核心能力核心竞争力的概念是1990年美国密西根大学商学院教授普拉哈拉德（C.K.Prahalad）和伦敦商学院教授加里•哈默尔（Gary Hamel）在其合著的《公司核心竞争力》（The Core Competence of the Corporation）一书中第一提出来的。
他们对核心竞争力的定义是：“在一个组织内部通过整合了的知识和技能，专门是关于如何样和谐多种生产技能和整合不同技术的知识和技能”。
从与产品或服务的关系角度来看，核心竞争力实际上是隐含在公司核心产品或服务里面的知识和技能，或者知识和技能的集合体。
起源进展编辑本段回名目在普拉哈拉德和哈默尔看来，核心竞争力第一应该有助于公司进入不同的市场，它应成为公司扩大经营的能力基础。
其次，核心竞争力对制造公司最终产品和服务的顾客价值奉献庞大，它的奉献在于实现顾客最为关注的、核心的、全然的利益，而不仅仅是一些一般的、短期的好处。
最后，公司的核心竞争力应该是难以被竞争对手所复制和仿照的。
正如海尔集团总裁张瑞敏所说的那样：“创新（能力）是海尔真正的核心竞争力，因为它不易或无法被竞争对手所仿照。
”核心竞争力是一个企业（人才，国家或者参与竞争的个体）能够长期获得竞争优势的能力。
是企业所特有的、能够经得起时刻考查的、具有延展性，同时是竞争对手难以仿照的技术或能力。
核心竞争力，又称“核心（竞争）能力”、“核心竞争优势”，指的是组织具备的应对变革与猛烈的外部竞争，同时取胜于竞争对手的能力的集合。
核心竞争力是企业竞争力中那些最差不多的能使整个企业保持长期稳固的竞争优势、获得稳固超额利润的竞争力，是将技能资产和运作机制有机融合的企业自身组织能力，是企业推行内部治理性战略和外部交易性战略的结果。
现代企业的核心竞争力是一个以知识、创新为差不多内核的企业某种关键资源或关键能力的组合，是能够使企业、行业和国家在一定时期内保持现实或潜在竞争优势的动态平稳系统。
公司的核心竞争力外文翻译及原文
The Core Competence of the CorporationC.K. Prahalad and Gary HamelThe most powerful way to prevail in global competition is still invisible to many companies. During the 1980s, top executives were judged on their ability to restructure, declutter, and delayer their corporations. In the 1990s, they'll be judged on their ability to identify, cultivate, and exploit the core competencies that make growth possible indeed, they'll have to rethink the concept of the corporation itself. Consider the last ten years of GTE and NEC. In the early 1980s, GTE was well positioned to become a major player in the evolving information technology industry. It was active in telecommunications. Its operations spanned a variety of businesses including telephones, switching and transmission systems, digital PABX, semiconductors, packet switching, satellites, defense systems, and lighting products. And GTE's Entertainment Products Group, which produced Sylvania color TVs, had a position in related display technologies. In 1980, GTE's sales were $9.98 billion, and net cash flow was $1.73 billion. NEC, in contrast, was much smaller, at $3.8 billion in sales. It had a comparable technological base and computer businesses, but it had no experience as an operating telecommunications company.Yet look at the positions of GTE and NEC in 1988. GTE's 1988 sales were $16.46 billion, and NEC’s sales were considerably higher at $21.89 billion. GTE has, in effect, become a telephone operating company with a position in defense and lighting products. GTE's other businesses are small in global terms. GTE has divested Sylvania TV and Telenet, put switching, transmission, and digital PABX into joint ventures, and closed down semiconductors. As a result, the international position of GTE has eroded. Non U.S. revenue as a percent of total revenue dropped from 20% to 15% between 1980 and 1988.NEC has emerged as the world leader in semiconductors and as a first tier player in telecommunications products and computers. It has consolidated its position in mainframe computers. It has moved beyond public switching and transmission to include such lifestyle products as mobile telephones, facsimile machines, and laptop computers bridging the gap between telecommunications and office automation. NECis the only company in the world to be in the top five in revenue in telecommunications, semiconductors, and mainframes. Why did these two companies, starting with comparable business portfolios, perform so differently? Largely because NEC conceived of itself in terms of "core competencies," and GTE did not. Rethinking the CorporationOnce, the diversified corporation could simply point its business units at particular end product markets and admonish them to become world leaders. But with market boundaries changing ever more quickly, targets are elusive and capture is at best temporary. A few companies have proven themselves adept at inventing new markets, quickly entering emerging markets, and dramatically shifting patterns of customer choice in established markets. These are the ones to emulate. The critical task for management is to create an organization capable of infusing products with irresistible functionality or, better yet, creating products that customers need but have not yet even imagined.This is a deceptively difficult task. Ultimately, it requires radical change in the management of major companies. It means, first of all, that top managements of Western companies must assume responsibility for competitive decline. Everyone knows about high interest rates, Japanese protectionism, outdated antitrust laws, obstreperous unions, and impatient investors. What is harder to see, or harder to acknowledge, is how little added momentum companies actually get from political or macroeconomic "relief." Both the theory and practice of Western management have created a drag on our forward motion. It is the principles of management that are in need of reform.NEC versus GTE, again, is instructive and only one of many such comparative cases we analyzed to understand the changing basis for global leadership. Early in the 1970s, NEC articulated a strategic intent to exploit the convergence of computing and communications, what it called "C&C" Success, top management reckoned, would hinge on acquiring competencies, particularly in semiconductors. Management adopted an appropriate "strategic architecture," summarized by C&C, and then communicated its intent to the whole organization and the outside world during the mid 1970s.NEC constituted a "C&C Committee" of top managers to oversee the development of core products and core competencies. NEC put in place coordination groups and committees that cut across the interests of individual businesses. Consistent with its strategic architecture, NEC shifted enormous resources to strengthen its position in components and central processors. By using collaborative arrangements to multiply internal resources, NEC was able to accumulate a broad array of core competencies. NEC carefully identified three interrelated streams of technological and market evolution. Top management determined that computing would evolve from large mainframes to distributed processing, components from simple ICs to VLSI, and communications from mechanical cross bar exchange to complex digital systems we now call ISDN. As things evolved further, NEC reasoned, the computing, communications, and components businesses would so overlap that it would be very hard to distinguish among them, and that there would be enormous opportunities for any company that had built the competencies needed to serve all three markets.NEC top management determined that semiconductors would be the company's most important "core product." It entered into myriad strategic alliances over 100 as of 1987 aimed at building competencies rapidly and at low cost. In mainframe computers, its most noted relationship was with Honeywell and Bull. Almost all the collaborative arrangements in the semiconductor component field were oriented toward technology access. As they entered collabor ative arrangements, NEC’s operating managers understood the rationale for these alliances and the goal of internalizing partner skills. NEC's director of research summed up its competence acquisition during the 1970s and 1980s this way: "From an investment standpoint, it was much quicker and cheaper to use foreign technology. There wasn't a need for us to develop new ideas.”No such clarity of strategic intent and strategic architecture appeared to exist at GTE. Although senior executives discussed the implications of the evolving information technology industry, no commonly accepted view of which competencies would be required to compete in that industry were communicated widely. While significant staff work was done to identify key technologies, senior line managers continued to act as if they were managing independent business units.Decentralization made it difficult to focus on core competencies. Instead, individual businesses became increasingly dependent on outsiders for critical skills, and collaboration became a route to staged exits. Today, with a new management team in place, GTE has repositioned itself to apply its competencies to emerging markets in telecommunications services.The Roots of Competitive AdvantageThe distinction we observed in the way NEC and GTE conceived of themselves a portfolio of competencies versus a portfolio of businesses was repeated across many industries. From 1980 to 1988, Canon grew by 264%, Honda by 200%. Compare that with Xerox and Chrysler. And if Western managers were once anxious about the low cost and high quality of Japanese imports, they are now over;whelmed by the pace at which Japanese rivals are inventing new markets, creating new products, and enhancing them. Canon has given us personal copiers; Honda has moved from motorcycles to four wheel off road buggies. Sony developed the 8mm camcorder, Yamaha, the digital piano. Komatsu developed an underwater remote controlled bulldozer, while Casio's latest gambit is a small screen color LCD television. Who would have anticipated the evolution of these vanguard markets?In more established markets, the Japanese challenge has been just as disquieting. Japanese companies are generating a blizzard of features and functional enhancements that bring technological sophistication to everyday products. Japanese car producers have been pioneering four wheel steering, four valve-per cylinder engines, in car navigation systems, and sophisticated electronic engine management systems. On the strength of its product features, Canon is now a player in facsimile transmission machines, desktop laser printers, even semiconductor manufacturing equipment.In the short run, a company's competitiveness derives from the price/performance attributes of current products. But the survivors of the first wave of global competition, Western and Japanese alike, are all converging on similar and formidable standards for product cost and quality minimum hurdles for continued competition, but less and less important as sources of differential advantage. In the long run, competitiveness derives from an ability to build, at lower cost and more speedily than competitors, the core competencies that spawn unanticipated products. The real sources of advantageare to be found in management's ability to consolidate corporatewide technologies and production skills into competencies that empower individual businesses to adapt quickly to changing opportunities.Senior executives who claim that they cannot build core competencies either because they feel the autonomy of business units is sacrosanct or because their feet are held to the quarterly budget fire should think again. The problem in many Western companies is not that their senior executives are any less capable than those in Japan nor that Japanese companies possess greater technical capabilities. Instead, it is their adherence to a concept of the corporation that unnecessarily limits the ability of individual businesses to fully exploit the deep reservoir of technological capability that many American and European companies possess.The diversified corporation is a large tree. The trunk and major limbs are core products, the smaller branches are business units; the leaves, flowers, and fruit are end products. The root system that provides nourishment, sustenance, and stability is the core competence. You can miss the strength of competitors by looking only at their end products, in the same way you miss the strength of a tree if you look only at its leaves. (See the chart "Competencies: The Roots of Competitiveness.”)Core competencies are the collective learning in the organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies. Consider Sony's capacity to miniaturize or Philips's optical media expertise. The theoretical knowledge to put a radio on a chip does not in itself assure a company the skill to produce a miniature radio no bigger than a business card. To bring off this feat, Casio must harmonize know how in miniaturization, microprocessor design, material science, and ultrathin precision casing the same skills it applies in its miniature card calculators, pocket TVs, and digital watches.If core competence is about harmonizing streams of technology, it is also about the organization of work and the delivery of value. Among Sony's competencies is miniaturization. To bring miniaturization to its products, Sony must ensure that technologists, engineers, and marketers have a shared understanding of customer needs and of technological possibilities. The force of core competence is felt as decisively in services as in manufacturing. Citicorp was ahead of others investing inan operating system that allowed it to participate in world markets 24 hours a day. Its competence in provided the company the means to differentiate itself from many financial service institutions.Core competence is communication, involvement, and a deep commitment to working across organizational boundaries. It involves many levels of people and all functions. World class research in, for example, lasers or ceramics can take place in corporate laboratories without having an impact on any of the businesses of the company. The skills that together constitute core competence must coalesce around individuals whose efforts are not so narrowly focused that they cannot recognize the opportunities for blending their functional expertise with those of others in new and interesting ways.Core competence does not diminish with use. Unlike physical assets, which do deteriorate over time, competencies are enhanced as they are applied and shared. But competencies still need to be nurtured and protected; knowledge fades if it is not used. Competencies are the glue that binds existing businesses. They are also the engine for new business development. Patterns of diversification and market entry may be guided by them, not just by the attractiveness of markets.Consider 3M's competence with sticky tape. in dreaming up businesses as diverse as "Post it" notes, magnetic tape, photographic film, pressure sensitive tapes, and coated abrasives, the company has brought to bear widely shared competencies in substrates, coatings, and adhesives and devised various ways to combine them. Indeed, 3M has invested consistently in them. What seems to be an extremely diversified portfolio of businesses belies a few shared core competencies.In contrast, there are major companies that have had the potential to build core competencies but failed to do so because top management was unable to conceive of the company as anything other than a collection of discrete businesses. GE sold much of its consumer electronics business to Thomson of France, arguing that it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain its competitiveness in this sector. That was undoubtedly so, but it is ironic that it sold several key businesses to competitors who were already competence leaders Black & Decker in small electrical motors, and Thomson, which was eager to build its competence in microelectronics and hadlearned from the Japanese that a position in consumer electronics was vital to this challenge.Management trapped in the strategic business unit (SBU) mind set almost inevitably finds its individual businesses dependent on external sources for critical components, such as motors or compressors. But these are not just components. They are core products that contribute to the competitiveness of a wide range of end products. They are the physical embodiments of core competencies.How Not to Think of CompetenceSince companies are in a race to build the competencies that determine global leadership, successful companies have stopped imagining themselves as bundles of businesses making products. Canon, Honda, Casio, or NEC may seem to preside over portfolios of businesses unrelated in terms of customers, distribution channels, and merchandising strategy. Indeed, they have portfolios that may seem idiosyncratic at times: NEC is the only global company to be among leaders in computing, telecommunications, and semiconductors and to have a thriving consumer electronics business.But looks are deceiving. In NEC, digital technology, especially VLSI and systems integration skills, is fundamental. In the core competencies underlying them, disparate businesses become coherent. It is Honda's core competence in engines and power trains that gives it a distinctive advantage in car, motorcycle, lawn mower, and generator businesses. Canon's core competencies in optics, imaging, and microprocessor controls have enabled it to enter, even dominate, markets as seemingly diverse as copiers, laser printers, cameras, and image scanners. Philips worked for more than 15 years to perfect its optical media (laser disc) competence, as did JVC in building a leading position in video recording. Other examples of core competencies might include mechantronics (the ability to marry mechanical and electronic engineering), video displays, bioengineering, and microelectronics. In the early stages of its competence building, Philips could not have imagined all the products that would be spawned by its optical media competence, nor could JVC have anticipated miniature camcorders when it first began exploring videotape technologies.Unlike the battle for global brand dominance, which is visible in the world's bro adcast and print media and is aimed at building global "share of mind,” the battle to build world class competencies is invisible to people who aren't deliberately looking for it. Top management often tracks the cost and quality of competitors' products, yet how many managers untangle the web of alliances their Japanese competitors have constructed to acquire competencies at low cost? In how many Western boardrooms is there an explicit, shared understanding of the competencies the company must build for world leadership? Indeed, how many senior executives discuss the crucial distinction between competitive strategy at the level of a business and competitive strategy at the level of an entire company?Let us be clear. Cultivating core competence does not mean outspending rivals on research and development. In 1983, when Canon surpassed Xerox in worldwide unit market share in the copier business, its R&D budget in reprographics was but a small fraction of Xerox's. Over the past 20 years, NEC has spent less on R&D as a percentage of sales than almost all of its American and European competitors.Nor does core competence mean shared costs, as when two or more SBUs use a common facility a plant, service facility, or sales force or share a common component. The gains of sharing may be substantial, but the search for shared costs is typically a post hoc effort to rationalize production across existing businesses, not a premeditated effort to build the competencies out of which the businesses themselves grow. Building core competencies is more ambitious and different than integrating vertically, moreover. Managers deciding whether to make or buy will start with end products and look upstream to the efficiencies of the supply chain and downstream toward distribution and customers. They do not take inventory of skills and look forward to applying them in nontraditional ways. (Of course, decisions about competencies do provide a logic for vertical integration. Canon is not particularly integrated in its copier business, except in those aspects of the vertical chain that Support the competencies it regards as critical.)Identifying Core Competencies And Losing ThemAt least three tests can be applied to identify core competencies in a company. First, a core competence provides potential access to a wide variety of markets.Competence in display systems, for example, enables a company to participate in such diverse businesses as calculators, miniature TV sets, monitors for laptop computers, and automotive dashboards which is why Casio's entry into the handheld TV market was predictable. Second, a core competence should make a significant contribution to the perceived customer benefits of the end product. Clearly, Honda's engine expertise fills this bill.Finally, a core competence should be difficult for competitors to imitate. And it will be difficult if it is a complex harmonization of individual technologies and production skills. A rival might acquire some of the technologies that comprise the core competence, but it will find it more difficult to duplicate the more or less comprehensive pattern of internal coordination and learning. JVC’s decision in the early 1960s to pursue the development of a videotape competence passed the three tests outlined here. RCA’s decis ion in the late 1970s to develop a stylus based video turntable system did not.Few companies are likely to build world leadership in more than five or six fundamental competencies. A company that compiles a list of 20 to 30 capabilities has probably not produced a list of core competencies. Still, it is probably a good discipline to generate a list of this sort and to see aggregate capabilities as building blocks. This tends to prompt the search for licensing deals and alliances through which the company may acquire, at low cost, the missing pieces.Most Western companies hardly think about competitiveness in these terms at all. It is time to take a tough minded look at the risks they are running. Companies that judge competitiveness, their own and their competitors', primarily in terms of the price/performance of end products are courting the erosion of core competencies – or making too little effort to enhance them. The embedded skills that give rise to the next generation of competitive products cannot be "rented in" by outsourcing and OEM-supply relationships. In our view, too many companies have unwittingly surrendered core competencies when they cut internal investment in what they mistakenly thought were just "cost centers" in favor of outside suppliers.Consider Chrysler. Unlike Honda, it has tended to view engines and power trains as simply one more component. Chrysler is becoming increasingly dependent onMitsubishi and Hyundai: between 1985 and 1987, the number of outsourced engines went from 252,000 to 382,000. It is difficult to imagine Honda yielding manufacturing responsibility, much less design, of so critical a part of a car's function to an outside company which is why Honda has made such an enormous commitment to Formula One auto racing. Honda has been able to pool its engine related technologies; it has parlayed these into a corporate wide competency from which it develops world beating products, despite R&D budgets smaller than those of GM and Toyota.Of course, it is perfectly possible for a company to have a competitive product line up but be a laggard in developing core competencies at least for a while. If a company wanted to enter the copier business today, it would find a dozen Japanese companies more than willing to supply copiers on the basis of an OEM private label. But when fundamental technologies changed or if its supplier decided to enter the market directly and become a competitor, that company's product line, along with all of its investments in marketing and distribution, could be vulnerable. Outsourcing can provide a shortcut to a more competitive product, but it typically contributes little to building the people embodied skills that are needed to sustain product leadership.Nor is it possible for a company to have an intelligent alliance or sourcing strategy if it has not made a choice about where it will build competence leadership. Clearly, Japanese companies have benefited from alliances. They've used them to learn from Western partners who were not fully committed to preserving core competencies of their own. As we've argued in these pages before, learning within an alliance takes a positive commitment of resources- travel, a pool of dedicated people, test bed facilities, time to internalize and test what has been learned. A company may not make this effort if it doesn't have clear goals for competence building.Another way of losing is forgoing opportunities to establish competencies that are evolving in existing businesses. In the 1970s and 1980s, many American and European companies like GE, Motorola, GTE, Thom, and GEC chose to exit the color television business, which they regarded as mature. If by "mature" they meant that they had run out of new product ideas at precisely the moment global rivals had targeted the TV business for entry, then yes, the industry was mature. But it certainlywasn't mature in the sense that all opportunities to enhance and apply video based competencies had been exhausted.In ridding themselves of their television businesses, these companies failed to distinguish between divesting the business and destroying their video media based competencies. They not only got out of the TV business but they also closed the door on a whole stream of future opportunities reliant on video based competencies. The television industry, considered by many U.S. companies in the 1970s to be unattractive, is today the focus of a fierce public policy debate about the inability of U.S. corporations to benefit from the $20 billion a year opportunity that HDTV will represent in the mid to late 1990s. Ironically, the U.S. government is being asked to fund a massive research project in effect, to compensate U.S. companies for their failure to preserve critical core competencies when they had the chance.In contrast, one can see a company like Sony reducing its emphasis on VCRs (where it has not been very successful and where Korean companies now threaten), without reducing its commitment to video related competencies. Sony's Betamax led to a debacle. But it emerged with its videotape recording competencies intact and is currently challenging Matsushita in the 8mm camcorder market.There are two clear lessons here. First, the costs of losing a core competence can be only partly calculated in advance. The baby may be thrown out with the bath water in divestment decisions. Second, since core competencies are built through a process of continuous improvement and enhancement that may span a decade or longer, a company that has failed to invest in core competence building will find it very difficult to, enter an emerging market, unless, of course, it will be content simply to serve as a distribution channel.American semiconductor companies like Motorola learned this painful lesson when they elected to forgo direct participation in the 256k generation of DRAM chips. Having skipped this round, Motorola, like most of its American competitors, needed a large infusion of technical help from Japanese partners to rejoin the battle in the 1 megabyte generation. When it comes to core competencies, it is difficult to get off the train, walk to the next station, and then reboard.From Core Competencies to Core Products.The tangible link between identified core competencies and end products is what we call the core products- the physical embodiments of one or more core competencies. Honda's engines, for example, are core products, linchpins between design and development skills that ultimately lead to a proliferation of end products. Core products are the components or subassemblies that actually contribute to the value of the end products. Thinking in terms of core products forces a company to distinguish between the brand share it achieves in end product markets (for example, 40% of the U.S. refrigerator market) and the manufacturing share it achieves in any particular core product (for example, 5% of the world share of compressor output). Canon is reputed to have an 84% world manufacturing share in desktop laser printer "engines," even though its brand share in the laser printer business is minuscule. Similarly, Matsushita has a world manufacturing share of about 45% in key VCR components, far in excess of its brandshare (Panasonic, JVC, and others) of 20%. And Matsushita has a commanding core product share in compressors worldwide, estimated at 40%, even though its brand share in both the air conditioning and refrigerator businesses is quite small.It is essential to make this distinction between core competencies, core products, and end products because global competition is played out by different rules and for different stakes at each level. To build or defend leadership over the long term, a corporation will probably be a winner at each level. At the level of core competence, the goal is to build world leadership in the design and development of a particular class of product functionality be it compact data storage and retrieval, as with Philips's optical media competence, or compactness and ease of use, as with Sony's micromotors and microprocessor controls.To sustain leadership in their chosen core competence areas, these companies seek to maximize their world manufacturing share in core products. The manufacture of core products for a wide variety of external (and internal) customers yields the revenue and market feedback that, at least partly, determines the pace at which core competencies can be enhanced and extended. This thinking was behind JVC's decision in the mid 1970s to establish VCR supply relationships with leading national consumer electronics companies in Europe and the United States. In supplying。
企业核心竞争力TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation
PPT文档演模板
•1980
•1988
•1980
•1988
企业核心竞争力 TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporati
NEC VS. GTE (1988)
•NEC
•Word leader
•Semiconductors
•First-tier player
•Telecommunications products •Computers
•In the long run, competitiveness derives from an ability to build the core competencies at lower cost and faster than competitors.
PPT文档演模板
企业核心竞争力 TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporati
•Not
• Japanese companies posses greater technical capabilities.
•Ye s
• They limit the ability of individual
businesses to fully exploit the deep technological capability.
•Does not diminish with use. And core competencies are also the engine for the new business development. Patterns of diversification and market entry my be guided by them.
•It is also about the organization of work and the diversity of value.
GHamel《公司的核心竞争力》(中英对照)
普拉哈拉德公司的核心竞争力1990年普拉哈拉德(Ｃ.K.Pｒahalａd)和哈默尔（G．Ｈａmel）在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》（TheCｏｒeＣompetenｃeｏfthｅCorporation)ﻫ很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪8０年代,人们评价某个高管有没有才能,主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而,进入2０世纪９0年代后,人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(corecｏｍpeｔeｎce,也称核心能力）,为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
ﻫ让我们首先以美国的GTE*和日本的ＮEC＊*两家公司为例,探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪8０年代初期,信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，ＧＴE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
这家公司在电信业非常活跃，其业务横跨多个领域，包括电话、交换与传输系统、数字化专用自动小交换机(PAＢX）、半导体、分组交换、卫星、国防系统以及照明产品等等。
此外，GTＥ旗下的娱乐产品集团(ＥnteｒｔaｉnmentPｒodｕｃtsGroup）,也就是喜万年(Sylｖania)彩电的制造者，在相关的显示器技术领域也占有一席之地。
1９80年,ＧTＥ的销售额为99．8亿美元,净现金流17.3亿美元。
与之相比，NEＣ当时还只是一个小字辈,销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务,但ＮEC在电信领域尚无任何经验。
ﻫ然而,到了19８8年,NEC却后来者居上,销售额达到218.9亿美元，远远高于GＴE公司的164.６亿美元。
这时,ＧTE实际上已经沦为一家以经营电话业务为主的公司,尽管它在国防和照明产品方面仍占有一席之地。
这家公司的其他业务从全球的角度看已经变得很小。
在过去的几年中，GT Ｅ公司已经把喜万年电视机和Ｔelenet业务剥离了出去,把交换机、传输设备和数字ＰＡBX等产品转交给合资公司生产，而半导体业务则已关张大吉。
普拉哈拉德C.K.Prahalad、哈默尔G.Hamel《公司的核心竞争力》【中英对照】
普拉哈拉德公司的核心竞争力1990年普拉哈拉德(C.K.Prahalad)和哈默尔(G.Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation)很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪80年代，人们评价某个高管有没有才能，主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而，进入20世纪90年代后，人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(corecompetence，也称核心能力)，为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
让我们首先以美国的GTE*和日本的NEC**两家公司为例，探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪80年代初期，信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，GTE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
这家公司在电信业非常活跃，其业务横跨多个领域，包括电话、交换与传输系统、数字化专用自动小交换机(PABX)、半导体、分组交换、卫星、国防系统以及照明产品等等。
此外，GTE旗下的娱乐产品集团(EntertainmentProductsGroup)，也就是喜万年(Sylvania)彩电的制造者，在相关的显示器技术领域也占有一席之地。
1980年，GTE的销售额为99．8亿美元，净现金流17．3亿美元。
与之相比，NEC当时还只是一个小字辈，销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务，但NEC在电信领域尚无任何经验。
然而，到了1988年，NEC却后来者居上，销售额达到218．9亿美元，远远高于GTE公司的164．6亿美元。
这时，GTE实际上已经沦为一家以经营电话业务为主的公司，尽管它在国防和照明产品方面仍占有一席之地。
这家公司的其他业务从全球的角度看已经变得很小。
在过去的几年中，GTE公司已经把喜万年电视机和Telenet业务剥离了出去，把交换机、传输设备和数字PABX等产品转交给合资公司生产，而半导体业务则已关张大吉。
《公司的核心竞争力》TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation中文
普拉哈拉德公司的核心竞争力1990年普拉哈拉德(C.K.Prahalad)和哈默尔(G.Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation)很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪80年代，人们评价某个高管有没有才能，主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而，进入20世纪90年代后，人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(corecompetence，也称核心能力)，为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
让我们首先以美国的GTE*和日本的NEC**两家公司为例，探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪80年代初期，信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，GTE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
这家公司在电信业非常活跃，其业务横跨多个领域，包括电话、交换与传输系统、数字化专用自动小交换机(PABX)、半导体、分组交换、卫星、国防系统以及照明产品等等。
此外，GTE旗下的娱乐产品集团(EntertainmentProductsGroup)，也就是喜万年(Sylvania)彩电的制造者，在相关的显示器技术领域也占有一席之地。
1980年，GTE 的销售额为99．8亿美元，净现金流17．3亿美元。
与之相比，NEC当时还只是一个小字辈，销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务，但NEC 在电信领域尚无任何经验。
然而，到了1988年，NEC却后来者居上，销售额达到218．9亿美元，远远高于GTE 公司的164．6亿美元。
这时，GTE实际上已经沦为一家以经营电话业务为主的公司，尽管它在国防和照明产品方面仍占有一席之地。
这家公司的其他业务从全球的角度看已经变得很小。
在过去的几年中，GTE公司已经把喜万年电视机和Telenet业务剥离了出去，把交换机、传输设备和数字PABX等产品转交给合资公司生产，而半导体业务则已关张大吉。
企业核心竞争力-：The-Core-Competence-of-the-Corporation
them in vanguard(前卫的) markets;
﹡ In established market, they also made great challenge to
western companies.
Many examples are given here.
What’s the problem in many western companies?
The problem in many western companies
Not
Their senior executives are less capable than those in
Gary Hamel
• CEO of Strategos, Director of the Woodside Institute, and visiting professor of strategic management at London Business school
• Concepts : “core competence,” “strategic intent,” and “industry revolution”
• NEC:
a portfolio of competencies
•
VS
GTE:
a portfolio of business-repeated across many industry
From 1980 to 1988, the achievements of Japanese companies-
公司的核心竞争力普拉哈拉德TheCoreCompetenceof
The changing basis for global leadership
NEC’s top management reckoned, would hinge on acquiring core competencies.
• It is essential to make this distinction between
core competencies, core products, and end products because global competition is played out by different rules and for different stakes at each level.
• Core products are the components or
subassemblies that actually contribute to the value of the end products.
• Honda's engines, for example, are core products,
Cultivating core competence does not mean outspending rivals on research and development Nor does core competence mean shared costs, as when two or more SBU's use a common facility – a plant, service facility, or sales force – or share a common component Building core competencies is more ambitious and different than integrating vertically, moreover
企业核心竞争力-：The-Core-Competence-of-the-Corporation
NEC VS. GTE (1980)
NEC
GTE
Business Portfolios
• Only comparable in technological base and computer businesses
• No experience in telecommunications
Telephone
Satellites
Semiconductors
Packet switching
Telenet Sylvania TV
NEC: Why?
• Strategic intent and strategic architecture of “C&C” (Computer & Communicatio n)
Structure:
1 The importance of core competencies.
2 The characters of core competencies.
3
How not to think of competence?
(1) The Roots of Competitive Advantage
Core competencies are the organization's collective learning and ability to coordinate and integrate multiple production skills and technology streams. They are also about the organization of work and delivery of value in services and manufacturing.
公司核心竞争力 作者：普拉哈拉德+哈默尔
经典：公司核心竞争力普拉哈拉德哈默尔C. K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel1990年普拉哈拉德(C. K. Prahalad)和哈默尔(G. Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(The Core Competence of the Corporation) 1990年普拉哈拉德(C. K. Prahalad)和哈默尔(G. Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(The Core Competence of the Corporation)<<隐藏很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪80年代，人们评价某个高管有没有才能，主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而，进入20世纪90年代后，人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(core competencies)，为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
让我们首先以美国的GTE和日本的NEC这两家公司为例，探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪80年代初期，信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，GTE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
1980年，GTE的销售额为99.8亿美元，净现金流17.3亿美元。
与之相比，NEC当时还只是一个小字辈，销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE 不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务，但NEC在电信领域尚无任何经验。
然而，到了1988年，NEC却后来者居上，销售额达到218.9亿美元，远远高于GTE公司的164.6亿美元。
在这个过程中，GTE公司的国际地位一路下滑。
1980到1988年间GTE在美国以外地区的销售收入从过去占总收入的20％降到了15％。
相比之下，NEC却一跃成为世界半导体工业的领导者，并且在电信产品和计算机领域也跻身一流企业。
为什么这两家在起步时业务组合基本相近的公司，在几年后的表现却如此悬殊？主要是因为NEC能够从“核心竞争力”的角度考虑企业问题，而GTE却没有。
公司核心竞争力_作者普拉哈拉德+哈默尔
经典公司核心竞争力普拉哈拉德哈默尔 C. K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel 1990年普拉哈拉德C. K. Prahalad和哈默尔G. Hamel在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》The Core Competence of the Corporation 1990年普拉哈拉德C. K. Prahalad和哈默尔G. Hamel在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》The Core Competence of the Corporationltlt隐藏很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪80年代人们评价某个高管有没有才能主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而进入20世纪90年代后人们评价高管时将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力core competencies为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
让我们首先以美国的GTE和日本的NEC 这两家公司为例探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪80年代初期信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象GTE凭借自己的地位极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
1980年GTE 的销售额为99.8亿美元净现金流17.3亿美元。
与之相比NEC当时还只是一个小字辈销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务但NEC在电信领域尚无任何经验。
然而到了1988年NEC却后来者居上销售额达到218.9亿美元远远高于GTE公司的164.6亿美元。
在这个过程中GTE公司的国际地位一路下滑。
1980到1988年间GTE在美国以外地区的销售收入从过去占总收入的20降到了15。
相比之下NEC却一跃成为世界半导体工业的领导者并且在电信产品和计算机领域也跻身一流企业。
为什么这两家在起步时业务组合基本相近的公司在几年后的表现却如此悬殊主要是因为NEC能够从“核心竞争力”的角度考虑企业问题而GTE却没有。
普拉哈拉德C.K.Prahalad、哈默尔G.Hamel《公司管理系统地核心竞争力》【中英对照】
普拉哈拉德公司的核心竞争力1990年普拉哈拉德(C.K.Prahalad)和哈默尔(G.Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation)很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪80年代，人们评价某个高管有没有才能，主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而，进入20世纪90年代后，人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(corecompetence，也称核心能力)，为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
让我们首先以美国的GTE*和日本的NEC**两家公司为例，探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪80年代初期，信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，GTE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
这家公司在电信业非常活跃，其业务横跨多个领域，包括电话、交换与传输系统、数字化专用自动小交换机(PABX)、半导体、分组交换、卫星、国防系统以及照明产品等等。
此外，GTE旗下的娱乐产品集团(EntertainmentProductsGroup)，也就是喜万年(Sylvania)彩电的制造者，在相关的显示器技术领域也占有一席之地。
1980年，GTE的销售额为99．8亿美元，净现金流17．3亿美元。
与之相比，NEC当时还只是一个小字辈，销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务，但NEC在电信领域尚无任何经验。
然而，到了1988年，NEC却后来者居上，销售额达到218．9亿美元，远远高于GTE公司的164．6亿美元。
这时，GTE实际上已经沦为一家以经营电话业务为主的公司，尽管它在国防和照明产品方面仍占有一席之地。
这家公司的其他业务从全球的角度看已经变得很小。
在过去的几年中，GTE公司已经把喜万年电视机和Telenet业务剥离了出去，把交换机、传输设备和数字PABX等产品转交给合资公司生产，而半导体业务则已关张大吉。
公司的核心竞争力【外文翻译】
本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译题目会计师事务所核心竞争力探究专业会计学外文题目The Core Competence of the Corporation 外文出处Harvard Business Review May-June 1990 外文作者普拉哈拉德原文：The Core Competence of the CorporationThe most powerful way to prevail in global competition is still invisible to many companies. During the 1980s, top executives were judged on their ability to restructure, declutter, and delayer their corporations. In the 1990s, they'll be judged on their ability to identify, cultivate, and exploit the core competencies that make growth possible indeed, they'll have to rethink the concept of the corporation itself.Consider the last ten years of GTE and NEC. In the early 1980s, GTE was well positioned to become a major player in the evolving information technology industry. It was active in telecommunications. Its operations spanned a variety of businesses including telephones, switching and transmission systems, digital PABX, semiconductors, packet switching, satellites, defense systems, and lighting products. And GTE's Entertainment Products Group, which produced Sylvania color TVs, had a position in related display technologies. In 1980, GTE's sales were $9.98 billion, and net cash flow was $1.73 billion. NEC, in contrast, was much smaller, at $3.8 billion in sales. It had a comparable technological base and computer businesses, but it had no experience as an operating telecommunications company.Yet look at the positions of GTE and NEC in 1988. GTE's 1988 sales were $16.46 billion, and NEC’s sales were considerably higher at $21.89 billion. GTE has, in effect, become a telephone operating company with a position in defense and lighting products. GTE's other businesses are small in global terms. GTE has divested Sylvania TV and Telenet, put switching, transmission, and digital PABX into joint ventures, and closed down semiconductors. As a result, the international position of GTE has eroded. Non U.S. revenue as a percent of total revenue dropped from 20% to 15% between 1980 and 1988.NEC has emerged as the world leader in semiconductors and as a first tier player in telecommunications products and computers. It has consolidated its position in mainframe computers. It has moved beyond public switching and transmission to include such lifestyle products as mobile telephones, facsimile machines, and laptopcomputers bridging the gap between telecommunications and office automation. NEC is the only company in the world to be in the top five in revenue in telecommunications, semiconductors, and mainframes. Why did these two companies, starting with comparable business portfolios, perform so differently? Largely because NEC conceived of itself in terms of "core competencies," and GTE did not. Rethinking the CorporationOnce, the diversified corporation could simply point its business units at particular end product markets and admonish them to become world leaders. But with market boundaries changing ever more quickly, targets are elusive and capture is at best temporary. A few companies have proven themselves adept at inventing new markets, quickly entering emerging markets, and dramatically shifting patterns of customer choice in established markets. These are the ones to emulate. The critical task for management is to create an organization capable of infusing products with irresistible functionality or, better yet, creating products that customers need but have not yet even imagined)This is a deceptively difficult task. Ultimately, it requires radical change in the management of major companies. It means, first of all, that top managements of Western companies must assume responsibility for competitive decline. Everyone knows about high interest rates, Japanese protectionism, outdated antitrust laws, obstreperous unions, and impatient investors. What is harder to see, or harder to acknowledge, is how little added momentum companies actually get from political or macroeconomic "relief." Both the theory and practice of Western management have created a drag on our forward motion. It is the principles of management that are in need of reform.NEC versus GTE, again, is instructive and only one of many such comparative cases we analyzed to understand the changing basis for global leadership. Early in the 1970s, NEC articulated a strategic intent to exploit the convergence of computing and communications, what it called "C&C" Success, top management reckoned, would hinge on acquiring competencies, particularly in semiconductors. Management adopted an appropriate "strategic architecture," summarized by C&C, and thencommunicated its intent to the whole organization and the outside world during the mid 1970s.NEC constituted a "C&C Committee" of top managers to oversee the development of core products and core competencies. NEC put in place coordination groups and committees that cut across the interests of individual businesses. Consistent with its strategic architecture, NEC shifted enormous resources to strengthen its position in components and central processors. By using collaborative arrangements to multiply internal resources, NEC was able to accumulate a broad array of core competencies.NEC carefully identified three interrelated streams of technological and market evolution. Top management determined that computing would evolve from large mainframes to distributed processing, components from simple ICs to VLSI, and communications from mechanical cross bar exchange to complex digital systems we now call ISDN. As things evolved further, NEC reasoned, the computing, communications, and components businesses would so overlap that it would be very hard to distinguish among them, and that there would be enormous opportunities for any company that had built the competencies needed to serve all three markets.NEC top management determined that semiconductors would be the company's most important "core product." It entered into myriad strategic alliances over 100 as of 1987 aimed at building competencies rapidly and at low cost. In mainframe computers, its most noted relationship was with Honeywell and Bull. Almost all the collaborative arrangements in the semiconductor component field were oriented toward technology access. As they entered collaborative arrangements, NEC’s operating managers understood the rationale for these alliances and the goal of internalizing partner skills. NEC's director of research summed up its competence acquisition during the 1970s and 1980s this way: "From an investment standpoint, it was much quicker and cheaper to use foreign technology. There wasn't a need for us to develop new ideas.”No such clarity of strategic intent and strategic architecture appeared to exist at GTE. Although senior executives discussed the implications of the evolvinginformation technology industry, no commonly accepted view of which competencies would be required to compete in that industry were communicated widely. While significant staff work was done to identify key technologies, senior line managers continued to act as if they were managing independent business units. Decentralization made it difficult to focus on core competencies. Instead, individual businesses became increasingly dependent on outsiders for critical skills, and collaboration became a route to staged exits. Today, with a new management team in place, GTE has repositioned itself to apply its competencies to emerging markets in telecommunications services.The Roots of Competitive AdvantageThe distinction we observed in the way NEC and GTE conceived of themselves a portfolio of competencies versus a portfolio of businesses was repeated across many industries. From 1980 to 1988, Canon grew by 264%, Honda by 200%. Compare that with Xerox and Chrysler. And if Western managers were once anxious about the low cost and high quality of Japanese imports, they are now over;whelmed by the pace at which Japanese rivals are inventing new markets, creating new products, and enhancing them. Canon has given us personal copiers; Honda has moved from motorcycles to four wheel off road buggies. Sony developed the 8mm camcorder, Yamaha, the digital piano. Komatsu developed an underwater remote controlled bulldozer, while Casio's latest gambit is a small screen color LCD television. Who would have anticipated the evolution of these vanguard markets?In more established markets, the Japanese challenge has been just as disquieting. Japanese companies are generating a blizzard of features and functional enhancements that bring technological sophistication to everyday products. Japanese car producers have been pioneering four wheel steering, four valve-per cylinder engines, in car navigation systems, and sophisticated electronic engine management systems. On the strength of its product features, Canon is now a player in facsimile transmission machines, desktop laser printers, even semiconductor manufacturing equipment.In the short run, a company's competitiveness derives from the price/performance attributes of current products. But the survivors of the first wave ofglobal competition, Western and Japanese alike, are all converging on similar and formidable standards for product cost and quality minimum hurdles for continued competition, but less and less important as sources of differential advantage. In the long run, competitiveness derives from an ability to build, at lower cost and more speedily than competitors, the core competencies that spawn unanticipated products. The real sources of advantage are to be found in management's ability to consolidate corporatewide technologies and production skills into competencies that empower individual businesses to adapt quickly to changing opportunities.Senior executives who claim that they cannot build core competencies either because they feel the autonomy of business units is sacrosanct or because their feet are held to the quarterly budget fire should think again. The problem in many Western companies is not that their senior executives are any less capable than those in Japan nor that Japanese companies possess greater technical capabilities. Instead, it is their adherence to a concept of the corporation that unnecessarily limits the ability of individual businesses to fully exploit the deep reservoir of technological capability that many American and European companies possess.The diversified corporation is a large tree. The trunk and major limbs are core products, the smaller branches are business units; the leaves, flowers, and fruit are end products. The root system that provides nourishment, sustenance, and stability is the core competence. You can miss the strength of competitors by looking only at their end products, in the same way you miss the strength of a tree if you look only at its leaves. (See the chart "Competencies: T he Roots of Competitiveness.”) Core competencies are the collective learning in the organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies. Consider Sony's capacity to miniaturize or Philips's optical media expertise. The theoretical knowledge to put a radio on a chip does not in itself assure a company the skill to produce a miniature radio no bigger than a business card. To bring off this feat, Casio must harmonize know how in miniaturization, microprocessor design, material science, and ultrathin precision casing the same skills it applies in its miniature card calculators, pocket TVs, and digital watches.If core competence is about harmonizing streams of technology, it is also about the organization of work and the delivery of value. Among Sony's competencies is miniaturization. To bring miniaturization to its products, Sony must ensure that technologists, engineers, and marketers have a shared understanding of customer needs and of technological possibilities. The force of core competence is felt as decisively in services as in manufacturing. Citicorp was ahead of others investing in an operating system that allowed it to participate in world markets 24 hours a day. Its competence in provided the company the means to differentiate itself from many financial service institutions.Core competence is communication, involvement, and a deep commitment to working across organizational boundaries. It involves many levels of people and all functions. World class research in, for example, lasers or ceramics can take place in corporate laboratories without having an impact on any of the businesses of the company. The skills that together constitute core competence must coalesce around individuals whose efforts are not so narrowly focused that they cannot recognize the opportunities for blending their functional expertise with those of others in new and interesting ways.Core competence does not diminish with use. Unlike physical assets, which do deteriorate over time, competencies are enhanced as they are applied and shared. But competencies still need to be nurtured and protected; knowledge fades if it is not used. Competencies are the glue that binds existing businesses. They are also the engine for new business development. Patterns of diversification and market entry may be guided by them, not just by the attractiveness of markets.Consider 3M's competence with sticky tape. in dreaming up businesses as diverse as "Post it" notes, magnetic tape, photographic film, pressure sensitive tapes, and coated abrasives, the company has brought to bear widely shared competencies in substrates, coatings, and adhesives and devised various ways to combine them. Indeed, 3M has invested consistently in them. What seems to be an extremely diversified portfolio of businesses belies a few shared core competencies.In contrast, there are major companies that have had the potential to build corecompetencies but failed to do so because top management was unable to conceive of the company as anything other than a collection of discrete businesses. GE sold much of its consumer electronics business to Thomson of France, arguing that it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain its competitiveness in this sector. That was undoubtedly so, but it is ironic that it sold several key businesses to competitors who were already competence leaders Black & Decker in small electrical motors, and Thomson, which was eager to build its competence in microelectronics and had learned from the Japanese that a position in consumer electronics was vital to this challenge.Management trapped in the strategic business unit (SBU) mind set almost inevitably finds its individual businesses dependent on external sources for critical components, such as motors or compressors. But these are not just components. They are core products that contribute to the competitiveness of a wide range of end products. They are the physical embodiments of core competencies.Source:Harved Business Review May-June 1990译文：公司的核心竞争力很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
企业核心竞争力-：The-Core-Competence-of-the-Corporation
them in vanguard(前卫的) markets;
﹡ In established market, they also made great challenge to
❖Cultivating core competence does not mean outspending rivals on research and development.
❖Core competence does not mean shared costs, as when a two or more SBUs use a common facility-a plant, service facility, or sales force-or share a common component.
tegic alliances
Structure:
1 The importance of core competencies.
2 The characters of core competencies.
3
How not to think of competence?
(1) The Roots of Competitive Advantage
Gary Hamel
• CEO of Strategos, Director of the Woodside Institute, and visiting professor of strategic management at London Business school
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
普拉哈拉德公司的核心竞争力1990年普拉哈拉德(C.K.Prahalad)和哈默尔(G.Hamel)在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》(TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation)很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪80年代，人们评价某个高管有没有才能，主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而，进入20世纪90年代后，人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(corecompetence，也称核心能力)，为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
让我们首先以美国的GTE*和日本的NEC**两家公司为例，探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪80年代初期，信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，GTE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
这家公司在电信业非常活跃，其业务横跨多个领域，包括电话、交换与传输系统、数字化专用自动小交换机(PABX)、半导体、分组交换、卫星、国防系统以及照明产品等等。
此外，GTE旗下的娱乐产品集团(EntertainmentProductsGroup)，也就是喜万年(Sylvania)彩电的制造者，在相关的显示器技术领域也占有一席之地。
1980年，GTE 的销售额为99．8亿美元，净现金流17．3亿美元。
与之相比，NEC当时还只是一个小字辈，销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务，但NEC 在电信领域尚无任何经验。
然而，到了1988年，NEC却后来者居上，销售额达到218．9亿美元，远远高于GTE 公司的164．6亿美元。
这时，GTE实际上已经沦为一家以经营电话业务为主的公司，尽管它在国防和照明产品方面仍占有一席之地。
这家公司的其他业务从全球的角度看已经变得很小。
在过去的几年中，GTE公司已经把喜万年电视机和Telenet业务剥离了出去，把交换机、传输设备和数字PABX等产品转交给合资公司生产，而半导体业务则已关张大吉。
在这个过程中，GTE公司的国际地位一路下滑。
1980到1988年间GTE在美国以外地区的销售收入从过去占总收入的20％降到了15％。
相比之下，NEC却一跃成为世界半导体工业的领导者，并且在电信产品和计算机领域也跻身一流企业。
它巩固了自己在大型计算机方面的领先地位，还跨出了公用交换和传输领域，把触角伸到了手机、传真机和手提电脑等所谓的生活时尚产品(1ifestyleproducts)领域，在电信和办公自动化之间架起了桥梁。
NEC成为惟一一家在电信、半导体、大型计算机三个领域的全球销售收入均名列前五位的公司。
为什么这两家在起步时业务组合基本相近的公司，在几年后的表现却如此悬殊?主要是因为NEC能够从“核心竞争力”的角度考虑企业问题，而GTEZ却没有。
对公司的重新思考经营多元化公司曾经是一项很简单的工作，总部只需指示其业务单位把注意力放到某个特定的最终产品市场，并督促它们成为该领域的世界领先者即可。
然而，随着市场边界的变化越来越快，目标开始变得飘忽不定，对目标市场的占领顶多只是暂时性的。
但也有几家公司属于长袖善舞的一类，它们善于创造新市场，能够快速打入新兴市场并且在业已成熟的市场中大力改变客户的选择模式。
这些公司自然成为大家效仿和学习的对象。
对于公司的管理层来说，关键任务就是使自己的组织能够在产品中加入令人无法抗拒的功能，或者更高明一些，创造出消费者需要但是还未曾想到过的产品。
这项任务的艰巨性超乎我们的想像。
最终，只有从根本上改变大型公司的管理才能完成这项任务。
首先，西方企业的高层领导需要为竞争力的下降承担责任。
人们或许会把竞争力下降归咎于高利率、日本的保护主义、过时的反托位斯法、爱闹事的工会以及缺乏耐性的投资者。
但是，另一方面，人们却较难意识到或者羞于承认这样一个事实：政治上或者宏观经济上的“救济”并不会给公司提供多少动力。
其实是西方管理的理论和实践在拖我们的后腿，真正需要改革的是我们在管理中遵循的原则。
像许多其他的对比案例一样，NEC与GTE之间的比较可以给我们很多启迪。
我们旨在通过这些对比分析来了解争夺全球领先地位所依靠的基础发生了什么变化。
早在20世纪70年代初期，NEC公司的管理层就清楚地阐明了把计算机与通信技术相融合的战略意图(strategicintent)，即所谓的“C&C”(Computer&Communication，计算机与通信)。
NEC公司的领导认为，这一战略成功与否关键在于能否获得必要的核心竞争力，尤其是在半导体领域的核心竞争力。
该公司的管理层采纳了一个合适的战略架构(strategicarchitecture)，将其简称为C&C，然后在70年代中期将其意图传达给了整个组织以及外界人士。
NEC公司成立了一个由高层经理组成的“计算机与通信委员会”，以指导核心产品与核心竞争力的开发。
此外，NEC还打破了各项业务的利益界限，建立了一些协调小组和协调委员会。
按照其战略架构，NEC把大量的资源调配到元件和中央处理器项目上，以加强公司在该领域的地位。
它通过相互协作方式使得公司的内部资源成倍增长，借此积累起了多方面的核心竞争力。
NEC仔细地辨明了三种相互关联的技术和市场发展潮流。
管理层认为，计算技术将从大型主机架构向分布式处理转变，元件将从简单的集成电路(1C)发展为“超大规模集成电路”(VLSl)，通信方面则从机械式纵横交换机演化为复杂的数字传输系统，即我们所说的ISDN(综合业务数字网)。
随着形势进一步发展，NEC认为，计算、通信和元件业务将逐渐重叠和交织在一起，以至于最后很难将它们区分开来。
如果一家公司具备了服务于这三个市场的核心竞争力，那么到那时，必然会获得巨大的商机。
NEC的高层领导决定把半导体列为公司最重要的“核心产品”(coreproduct)。
它随后与很多公司结成了战略联盟，到1987年联盟数量已达到100多个，其目的就是为了以低成本快速构建企业的核心竞争力。
在大型主机领域，NEC最著名的合作伙伴是美国的霍尼韦尔公司(Honeywell)与法国的Bull公司。
在半导体元件领域，几乎所有的合作项目都是以获取技术为目的。
在结盟时，NEC的运营经理对合作动机和目的非常明确：吸收和消化合作伙伴的技能。
NEC的研发总监曾这样总结20世纪70年代和80年代获取技能的经历：“从投资角度分析，这种方式使我们能够以更低的成本迅速掌握国外技术。
我们没有必要自己开发新的创意。
”而GTE似乎并没有如此明确的战略意图和战略架构。
尽管高层决策者也曾讨论过信息技术的发展将带来怎样的影响，但对于在信息技术行业竞争将需要什么样的能力(competencies)，并没有形成一致的观点，更谈不上将其在公司中广泛传播了。
虽然公司做了大量工作来确认关键技术，但高层业务经理依然我行我素，仿佛他们经营的业务单元与别的单元毫不相干。
权力分散导致公司无法集中发展核心竞争力。
相反，各业务单元越来越依靠外面的公司来获得关键技能，而对外合作则成了一种分阶段退出的途径。
今天，在新的管理层上台后，GTE已重新定位，要把自己的能力应用于电信服务领域的新兴市场。
竞争优势的根源NEC和GTE两家公司的差别在于，前者把自己看成是一些能力的组合，而后者则把自己视为一些业务的组合。
这类情形在很多行业屡见不鲜。
从1980年到1988年，日本的佳能公司(Canon)增长了264％，本田公司(Honda)增长了200％。
相比之下，美国的施乐(xerox)与克莱斯勒(Chrysler)则落了下风，如果说西方的经理们以前是为日本进口货的价廉质高而忧心忡忡，那么他们现在恐怕要为对手在创造新市场、发明新产品和改进提高方面的惊人速度而慨叹了。
佳能公司推出了个人复印机，本田把业务从摩托车扩展到了四轮越野车，索尼(Sony)开发出了8毫米的摄像机，雅玛哈(Yamaha)推出了数字钢琴，小松公司(Komatsu)研制了水下遥控推土机，而卡西欧(Casio)的最新产品则是一种小屏幕彩色液晶电视机。
谁曾预料得到会演化出这样一些前卫产品市场?在较为成熟的市场上，日本公司的挑战也同样令人不安。
它们掀起了一场改进产品特点和功能的风暴，把尖端的技术引入到了人们的日用品中。
比如，日本汽车制造商率先尝试了四轮驱动、每缸四汽阀发动机，车内导航系统以及尖端的电子引擎管理系统。
佳能凭借其产品的性能，在传真机、台式激光打印机甚至半导体生产设备等市场都谋得了一席之地。
在短期内，一个公司的竞争优势源于现有产品的性价比特性。
但是在第一轮全球竞争中存活下来的企业，无论是西方公司还是日本公司，现在都已趋向于采用相似的严格的产品成本和质量标准。
达到这些标准实际上已经成为继续留在竞争队伍中的最低要求，它们对于形成差异化优势的重要性已越来越小。
从长期来看，竞争优势将取决于企业能否以比对手更低的成本和更快的速度构建核心竞争力，这些核心竞争力将为公司催生出意想不到的产品。
管理层有能力把整个公司的技术和生产技能整合成核心竞争力，使各项业务能够及时把握不断变化的机遇，这才是优势的真正所在。
有些高层经理宣称他们无法打造核心竞争力，因为业务单元的自主性是不可侵犯的，或者因为他们被紧张的季度预算束缚住了手脚。
这些人应该反省。
在很多西方企业中，问题并不是领导层在能力上逊于日本同行，或者企业的技术能力比日本公司差一大截，而是这些企业的管理层死抱着一个陈旧的公司概念。
这个陈旧的概念，限制了业务部门的能力，使它们无法充分利用很多欧美公司所拥有的技术能力宝藏。
多元化公司就好比一棵大树，树干和几个主要枝杈是核心产品，较纤细的树枝则是业务单元，叶、花与果实则属于最终产品。
为大树提供养分和起支撑固定作用的根系就是公司的核心竞争力。
如果你只通过看最终产品来评价竞争对手的实力，你就会看走眼，好比你只看树叶来判断树的强壮程度一样。
核心竞争力是组织内的集体学习能力，尤其是如何协调各种生产技能并且把多种技术整合在一起的能力。
索尼的微型化能力和飞利浦(Philips)的光介质专长就是两种核心竞争力。
虽然在理论上可以把收音机组装在一个芯片上，但这种理论知识并不能确保公司有能力生产出如名片般大小的微型收音机。
为了把设想变为现实，卡西欧必须把公司在微型化、微处理器设计、材料科学和超薄精密封装等方面的技术专长融为一体，这些也正是它在微型名片式计算器、袖珍电视机以及数字手表中所采用的技术。
核心竞争力不仅仅是整合各种技术，同时它还意味着对工作进行组织和提供价值。
索尼公司的核心竞争力之一是微型化。
为了使产品实现微型化，索尼必须保证技术专家、工程师和市场营销人员对客户需求达成共识，并了解技术上的可能性。