企业核心竞争力与多元化经营问题研究外文文献翻译资料
公司的核心竞争力-外文翻译
公司的核心竞争力-外文翻译外文翻译原文The Core Competence of the CorporationMaterial Source:Harvard Business Review,May-June,1990 P79-93Author:C.K.Prahalad and Gary HamelC. K. Prahalad is professor of corporate strategy and international business at the University of Michigan. Gary Hamel is lecturer in business policy and management at the London Business School. Their most recent HBR article "Strategic Intent" (May June 1989), won the 1989 McKinsey Award for excellence. This article is based on research funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.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 overwhelmed 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 evolutionof 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 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 greatertechnical 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 inservices 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 ofbusinesses 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 had learned from the Japanese that a position in consumer electronics was vital to thischallenge.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 broadcast 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 Japanesecompetitors 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.)译文公司的核心竞争力资料来源:《哈佛商业评论》1990，5-6，P79-93作者：普拉哈拉德和哈默尔编者按：普拉哈拉德是美国密歇根大学研究公司策略和国际商务的教授。
K清风普拉哈拉德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)1C)开展为“超大规模集成电路〞(VLSl)，通信方面那么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)。
随着形势进一步开展，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效劳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年联盟数量已到达100多个，其目的就是为了以低本钱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，几乎所有的合作工程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本钱迅速掌握国外技术。
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开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开展核心竞争力。
相反，各业务单元越来越依靠外面的公司来获得关键技能，而对外合作那么成了一种分阶段退出的途径。
文献综述 企业核心竞争力
文献综述一、前言核心竞争力（core competence）理论是美国经济管理学家普拉哈莱德（CK.Prahalad）和哈默（Gary Hamel）在他们的经典论文《公司的核心能力》中定义为：“组织中积累性学识，特别是关于如何协调不同的生产技能和整合多种技术的学识。
”纵观国内外我所能了解到的期刊和杂志，其中的研究主题不外乎以下几点：核心竞争力的构建、纺织企业如何延伸原有的核心竞争力、核心竞争力的识别标准、纺织企业的转型与核心竞争力的提升、纺织企业构建核心竞争力的误区、真假核心竞争力的鉴别……等等本文主要是归纳了这些专家学者的观点从企业核心竞争力构成、核心竞争力的特点、提升纺织企业核心竞争的内力措施、提升纺织企业核心竞争的外力措施这四个方面来进行具体阐述的。
二、企业核心竞争力的构成吴兴华（2007）提出企业核心竞争力是企业内部积累的独有的知识和技能，是多种要素竞争力量的集成，是企业整体素质的综合反映。
企业核心竞争力由：企业文化，能力，资源，环境这四方面构成。
（如下图）三、企业核心竞争力的特点唐继春（2005）提出企业核心竞争力是企业内部积累的独有的知识和技能，是多种要素竞争力量的集成，是企业整体素质的综合反映。
Barney(1991)根据核心竞争力所具有的价值性、独特性、延展性、途径依赖性和累积性的特点，他认为企业核心竞争力主要有：1技术创新能力、2市场运作能力、3组织管理能力、4生产制造能力、5核心资源能力、从这个五个方面特点。
与上述两位类似的是G．Hame1（1994）认为，创新能力以及核心竞争力和企业的规模并不成正比。
一些发展中国家的企业普遍存在这样的误区——发展片面的贪火求快而不是追求核心能力的提高。
企业的核心竞争力来自于企业的主导产业。
Foss，Nicolai（2000）提出企业的核心竞争力有别于一般的竞争力主要有以下特点：1.核心竞争力必须对顾客所重视的价值与竞争对手相比有超水准的贡献。
企业多元化经营外文文献翻译3000多字译文
文献出处：Gronum S. The research of small and medium-sized enterprise diversification [J]. Journal of Small Business Management, 2015, 10(2): 257-266. 原文原文The research of small and medium-sized enterprise diversificationGronum SAbstractCorporate diversification business success is based on the correct business strategy combination, specific diversification strategies related to the enterprise group management. Diversification strategy is a must be considered in the process of enterprise development, enterprise management direction and management structure determines the enterprise can fully use limited management resources and ability, to establish their own business advantages. Diversification is a kind of important enterprise growth and natural selection, small and medium enterprises to implement diversification, improve the understanding of diversity is the key, to create the conditions of diversified enterprise operation mechanism, relevant policies and regulations, such as diversification strategy will directly affect the effect of the small and medium-sized enterprises to implement diversification.Keywords: SME; Diversification; Core competence1 IntroductionDiversity as a kind of management strategy is widely adopted by modern enterprises. The famous American economist, money, thinks: generally speaking, whether the diversification, is one of the main difference between modern enterprises and traditional enterprises. Larger enterprises want to gain more market, establish the competitive advantage, the enterprise bigger and stronger, diversified management strategy has become an inevitable choice, which has become the consensus of economists and researchers. But as a large number of small and medium enterprises, how to choose appropriate diversification strategy and how to effectively implement the strategy of diversification, still under discussion, most researchers are also worth studying. So how to choose and large enterprise diversification strategy to make yourself strong rapidly, choose diversification strategy for small and mediumenterprises suitable or not and how to effectively implement the strategy of diversification, the problem is particularly important. Increasingly is the attention ofeconomists and managers.2 Theoretical backgroundReduce the management risk rapid growth is small and medium-sized companiesand enterprises to adopt diversification strategy are an important reason. Theeconomies of scale theory and portfolio theory are the basis of diversified choices. Small and medium-sized enterprise relative to the big enterprise itself has some disadvantages: small size, less assets, liabilities ability is limited, lack of good credit, credit line co., LTD., are susceptible to the influence of operating environment, variables, such as risk, caused the enterprise anti-risk ability is weak, the development of easy to hit, it is difficult to based on the original main business has a better development. So for small and medium enterprises, the diversification is important, but also wants to see your choice of business activities can bring benefit for you. Choose diversification strategy, small and medium-sized enterprises want to succeed must first eyes inward, to oneself have a clear understanding, to know what they lack. Such as the project itself does not have development potential, serious deficiency in the operation and management, capital waste, poor sales channels, etc., if the enterprise did not recognize these problems, even if he also is very difficult to solve the problem of development through diversification. At the same time, also want to see the core competitiveness of the enterprise itself or advantage, and the correlation of choice diversification, these are the key to choose or not.3 Summary of diversification3.1 DiversificationDiversification, also known as diversification or diversification management,refers to the enterprises in a number of related or unrelated industries at the same time, a number of different business strategies. Diversification as the securities portfolio theory, the theoretical basis of the portfolio can consist of a variety of securities, from the investor's point of view, the most important is not the returns and risk of individual securities, but the returns and risk of investment portfolio. Investors through differentsecurities holdings scatter risk implicit in the individual securities, the risk is called diversifiable risk, and it is the risk of special events caused by the company, but alsohas risk. It is by the war, such as inflation and recession of comprehensive factors,which affect the company.Securities portfolio theory has proved that composed of several kinds of stockportfolio, its revenue is the weighted average of the stock, but the risk is lower thanthe weighted average, and the portfolio will reduce the investment risk. Portfolio's ultimate goal is to improve the yield, scattered or weaken the investment risk, to really improve the level of portfolio returns. Securities portfolio theory application in the enterprise production and business operation activities is called diversification, according to the securities group theory; the enterprise will be in the same period to market extension of different industries, different products, hope to do long attack, a comprehensive victory. But here to make it clear that the business risk is the management risk and financial risk, rather than the securities portfolio of the system and non-system risk. Management risk refers to the enterprise profit changes caused by the reasons for the risks, the influencing factors of every enterprise management risk is not exactly the same; generally have a product price, product demand, product cost, fixed cost and price adjustment ability, etc. Financial risk refers to the change of debt ratio of total capital risk, namely refers to debt financing to investors on the risks of income level, factors affecting the profits and liabilities of the cost of capital and equity ratio, etc.3.2 Enterprise diversification and core competitivenessThe motivation of enterprise diversification is a risk dispersedly, enter the newindustry is faced with new risks, however, sometimes due to not adapt to the newrequirements at a competitive disadvantage. Into industry with relatively high capitalrequirements than into a bigger risk of low capital requirements of industry; Into the problem of high rate of product updates is lower than from entering the product update rate of industry risk. So for effective industry analysis and industry choice also is helpful for enterprises to evade the risk of diversification.Diversity means that companies will move into new areas, because of the newinformation in the field of master, incomplete and lack of corresponding expertise to bear than in their own familiar with the main business areas of higher risk, combinedwith the enterprise can't be in the new field rapidly to reap rewards to balance the highrisk, so if you want to succeed in new business areas and based, must have a mainbusiness provide stable funding and accumulated in main business on the basis of thefull development of diversification of necessary industry which the enterpriseexclusive management and general management skills. Enterprises should first focus on the enterprise to develop into industry with high visibility, with the core of the respect such as technology and marketing advantages, in the "market leader" status, fully enjoy the economic interests of the main business scale of enterprises, for the enterprise to the development of other industry gathered enough strength. If the main business, companies are not only the lack of adequate resources to build the advantage in the field of new, even can make original business areas are involved and direct threat to the enterprise survival.Enterprise core competitive ability is the enterprise formed for a long period oftime, contain in the essence of enterprise, enterprises unique, support the enterprisecompetitive advantage, and make the enterprise internal competitive environment fora long time can make active core competencies. It transcends the specific products and business units, to the enterprise competition gives a new meaning, that is not a simple enterprise resources and the strength of competition, but how to scheduling, allocating resources, greater competition to be effective. Focus on core competitiveness than confined to specific products and business unit strategy, which can more accurately reflect the enterprise long-term development objective need.Diversification will greatly influence the enterprise's core competitiveness, if thediversification strategy is successful, will greatly improve enterprise's corecompetitive ability, help enterprise to maintain its competitive advantage: if diversification strategy fails, not only conducive to promotion enterprise's core competitiveness, may make the original core competitiveness drops instead, or even lose their competitive advantage. Diversified management can continue to find and improve the enterprise's core competition force and core competitive power should beunderstood as a dynamic concept. Such as scientific and technological progress, industrial structure upgrading, product life cycle and the consumption habits can leadto companies such as the change of the original core technology and core productsability of recession. So enterprises also need to continuous innovation, diversifiedroad, constantly find and improve the core competitiveness of the enterprise. The corecompetitiveness of ductile characteristics demand diversification to support, onlyprominent main business, strengthen the core business, formed its own unique advantages, in establishing the core competence on the basis of surrounding its implement diversification, to more efficient use of existing advantages, and ultimately achieve the success of diversification.4 Related diversification and unrelated diversificationCorrelation diversity refers to the enterprise to expand business activities to the original product, the market had a higher correlation industry, through combination between internal business units and sharing common resources, for the transplantation of core competence, thus reducing the production cost of enterprises, or enterprise related business department have relative to the competition of differentiation advantage. High correlation can make the enterprise in the field of a business to accumulate the expansion of the core competence or competitive advantage is more easily to the related business areas, so as to expand the scope of the enterprise the competitive advantage and strength, to improve the competitive advantage of enterprises on the whole. The correlation diversification is to point to in the process of implementing diversification, from industry; now entering has nothing to do with the products and markets now products and markets. It mainly has two forms: financial type, this kind of business to its various subsidiaries engaged in production and business operation activities of has nothing to do with each other to provide funds, perform strategic planning functions, but does not participate in strategic management decisions, and ultimately financial risk; Managed, such companies are not only undertake the financial and control function, but also to all economic entities responsible for the management decision-making and provide management consulting, staff training and other services. Either type, they have a common feature andcorrelation between the biggest differences is to focus on the financial management and capital appreciation value.译文译文中小型企业多元化经营问题研究中小型企业多元化经营问题研究Gronum S摘要摘要企业多元化经营成功基于正确的经营策略组合，具体多元化策略关系到企业集团经营命运。
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。
企业核心竞争力和核心能力外文文献翻译编辑
文献信息：文献标题：Core Competence Development while Carrying out Organizational Changes（组织变革中核心能力的培养）文献作者及出处：Shvetsova O A. Core Competence Development while Carrying out Organizational Changes[J]. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 2019, 13(2): 85-92.字数统计：英文2648单词，15858字符；中文4494汉字外文文献：Core Competence Development while Carrying outOrganizational ChangesAbstract—The paper contains the different issues of competence management in industrial companies. The theoretical bases of human resources management and practical issues of innovative enterprises' competitiveness are considered. The research is focused on the modern industrial enterprise changes management problems; it focuses on the effective personnel management of industrial enterprises on the basis of competence approach. The influence of organizational changes on the competence development is discussed. The need for development of the new technologies is mentioned, proposal is based on competence-based approach in personnel management including in the conditions of carrying out organizational changes; methods of acquisition and development of missing key professional competences are discussed; importance of key competencies in forming competitive advantage of the organization is mentioned.Keywords—Competence model, development of industrial company, organizational changes, competitiveness, core competencies.I.INTRODUCTIONProcesses of globalization set for modern accounting entities a task of keypositions forming. The most important objectives of global industrial companies are increasing their own resources for creation an effective competitive source in global environment. In particular, personnel policy of the company is the instrument of preserving personnel capacity of the organization, and it shall be reviewed from a line item of competence-based approach. New competitive advantages are based on core competencies and help global industrial companies to improve their economic relations; they also form the information society and integrate industrial companies into world economic space.Some scientists make a hypothesis that core competence force, which was developed and enhanced to competitive level, became characteristic feature of the personality inside the competence-based approach. Other researchers consider that the concept "competence and competence" began to be used since 1958. According to Argyris and Schun, interest in research problem of competences usually matches crisis stages of economy and education development.The simplified scheme of historical development of competence management, and the concept "core competence" within the competence-based approach, can be divided into the following stages:•1950-1970–first stage. In case of human resources assessment the entities traditionally use the term "professional and important qualities", the emphasis is placed on qualities, which are separately taken and most critical for this specific type of activity (most often mental and physiological characteristics) ;•1970-1990–second stage. The need for assessment of intellectual personnel is recognized. The workers, who are engaged in mental work, head amplifies. The emphasis is placed on knowledge assessment, including skills and capabilities, practical experience, the term "qualification element" is used;•Starting from 1990–third stage. The task of assessment procedure began to be based on bigger prognostic profiles of positions; specialties become wider. The term "competence" is becoming the most extensive concept allowing describing readiness of the person for productive work.The employee competence is shown in integration degree in a corporate cultureof the organization, unites in itself any characteristics of the employee. It is the significant for production process. Competences can possess various extents of manifestation (from basic level to the expert's level). A certain set of competences characterizes both an official line item and personal level of employee. The structure of the competences is necessary for accomplishment of the same function; it can differ depending on specific entity.II.LITERATURE SURVEYpetence-Based ApproachAuthor considers that competence-based approach can be discussed as 1) the set of individual characteristics of the employee which are directly connected with execution of functional obligations, and 2) more universal personality characteristics and behavioral models. The logical competency structure allows considering knowledge and experience of the employee in various sections of professional activity. The logical competencies can be seized in the course of acquisition of life experience. In this case the qualification is not just the only necessary thing for the solution what kind of specific production objectives can be implemented on a workplace.It is possible to select the most significant characteristics of competence:•Establishment of close interrelation between competence and professional activity;•Competence possesses the structure consisting from the interconnected and constantly developing elements: skills, knowledge, abilities, etc.;•Competence is not congenital and it is purchased and accumulates with experience;•Competence is the concept connected with professional activity of the person.We try to investigate all definitions of competencies, estimate core competence' model and analyze the linkage between organizational competencies and competitiveness.The dependence between a core organizational competency and its key personnel competences is not linear, so, the core competency of the company cannot bedetermined by the simple amount of employee competences, it depends on their configuration and properties of mutually strengthening (availability of synergy effect) .According to this research, we prepare the solution, that employee's competences can provide the synergy nature of core organizational competency only in case of their complementarity. In this case, if company wants to improve its competitive level it should follow some management directions:1)observe existing competencies;2)provide compliance;3)manage core competencies.Two last management functions of the organization are regulated:A)by activation of informal confidential interaction, that is implemented extremely seldom owing to "closeness" of informal structure for third-party invasion;B)by traditional training (programming of this action, assessment of effectiveness, ensuring compliance of tasks. In this case employee's developments are directed by organizational dynamics).In industrial companies the task of a complementarity of competences finds strategic importance owing to variability of a contour and structure of project structure. Such organization shall provide training process in the permanent mode.It is important to introduce the concept of American researchers. They consider a personnel competence as set of six components. These components are:1.Conceptual aspec–perception and judgment of theoretical bases of professional activity;2.Tool aspect–ownership of basic labor skills;3.Integrative aspect–possession of a capability to put the theory into practice in case of the solution of professional problems;4.Contextual aspect–perception of canons of a corporate culture, in which professional activity is performed;5.The adaptive aspect–possession of skills of change anticipation in external and internal environment and readiness to react to them;municative aspect–possession of oral and written skills of interpersonal communication.This research determinates that core competency is offered as capabilities to develop the available organizational resources on the basis of the effective personnel training system. Such system can follow to creating competitive advantage.B.Hamel and Prahalad TheorySignificant contribution to the competitive strategy development was introduced by Professor of London Business School G. Hamel and Professor of School of Business Prahalad. In 1994 they published their joint book «Competing for the Future», in which they argued that, instead of treating the company as a set of enterprises, managers should begin to perceive it as a combination of key, basic competence, i.e., skills, abilities and technologies that provide benefits to consumers. According to Hamel and Prahalad, the prospects of the enterprise are recognized not today, but in future markets and is referred to intellectual leadership. These markets, according to the researchers' opinion, have not yet formed, but now they should represent themselves and strive for their creation. That's why, skills, abilities and techniques may not be localized in a particular division or department.The most important conditions for intellectual leadership are skillful application of the "basic functionality of the product" and "core competence" model". The first concept state that in order to predict the future control managers should not think about services, they should start thinking about their functionality and to ask the question "What kind of value or benefits are delivered to customers with existing products and services?" Asked this question, managers will be able to discover a lot of new opportunities for their companies. Moreover, these new features can be created on the basis of available competencies.Hamel and Prahalad tried to give the explanation of the essence of "core competencies". They consider that it is necessary to establish contact within three groups of employees. Firstly, they believe that the contribution of young professionals can make a bet on the future: "We must encourage represent Generation X-workers to exchange ideas with the gray-haired members of the executive committee." Secondly,they suggest that using people who are on the periphery of the organization ("back space specialists") can provide the ability for strategic innovation increases, because every mile is proportional to the distance from the central office. Using the periphery area (subsidiaries or remote locations), most likely, it is possible to find people who are more open and processes and inappropriate orthodox principles of the company. Such people have the greatest creative potential in spite of limited minimal resources. Finally, Hamel and Prahalad give advice to bring into the competence creation process new organization, since that, new employees "are not imbued with the prevailing dogma in the industry."C.Influence of Organizational Variability on Object of ManagementThe American scientist Levin provided 3 stages of process of changes:1."Thawing of a glacier"–change of habitual way of organization functioning, which supports the existing behavior and installations. This process reflects changes for people with potential hazard and; therefore, for achievement of natural state of balance it is necessary to motivate the people involving them in reorganization;2."Process of change"–emergence of the accompanying reactions with use of new information;3."Building-up of a glacier"–entering of change in a stabilization phase, approbation of new responses for those who are involved in transformations.Standardly, any carried-out changes cause active resistance of both organizational levels: personnel and organization. The analysis of literature shows that the reasons of resistance to organizational changes are generally researched in the context of various theories of organizational development.Organizational resistance has three versions:•resistance to delegation of obligations and responsibility;•inertness and not dynamism because of difficult organizational systems;•resistance to changes which are imposed by experts from outside.One of types of an organizational change is development of personnel capacity in the organization. Any organizational change significantly influences personnel development. Personnel development implies the structured employee developmentoriented to goal achievement of the organization through expansion and deepening of the available professional competence. Training in new professional skills can also increase the interest and organizational opportunities of the company, managers can use more fully the potential of workers.III.MANAGEMENT CORE COMPETENCIES IN INDUSTRIAL COMPANIESA.The Impact of Changes in Organizational Behavior of Industrial CompaniesFor the purpose of steady competitive advantage achievement and development, strategies of project companies are implemented the following directions of organizational changes:1.in interaction with the external environment:•integration with large industrial complexes (entry into structure of large holdings and corporations);•disintegration on small firms in various directions of project works;2.in interaction with the internal environment:•implementation of the "working" quality management system, providing analysis of key business processes;•implementation of a management system competences, creation of the self-training organization.In case of choosing the development strategy for competitive advantages, the project company needs to use instruments of project-oriented management.It is possible to offer the following determination of the project-oriented organization: the organization is investigated as a factor of steady competitive advantage; it has fixed involvement into the project activities and it is connected with the solution of uncommon tasks because of uncertainty and variability of the external environment.B.Core Competence ModelModern researchers distinguish following classification in considering the professional competence:1)Simple (basic) competence –it is seen in certain types of activity, formed on the basis of knowledge, skills, abilities, easily fixed;2)The core competence –it is extremely difficult to account for it, it is storage of measurement, it can appear in all activities, it reflects the attitude of the individual person and meets the global environment.The process of organizational competence formation is an integral part of building a competitive strategy, so it is a basic step in the formation of core competence model. The main objective in the step of forming the organizational competence is definition of key organizational competence which forms the main competitive advantages (Porter's Model). In practice managers find a lot of problems using competence management in innovative companies. These problems are: -The level of existing complexity of specialist involvement in other project is rising. Usually the holder of the key competences does not want to share his core skills with other specialist;-The indispensability of a highly qualified specialist and, therefore, control the complexity of competence is failed;-A degree of lack of personnel interest is high, because it is long period to transfer knowledge in the project and format the key competencies.The most acute problem faced with innovative organization performs complex design. One of the features of innovative companies is excessive requirements to the competence profile of key employees. This is due, no doubt, to the uniqueness of the products (and/or services), which are produced in the group projects. It is known fact that the "smart" company has a greater extent than the other players in the market. It depends on the professionalism of its key personnel and the effectiveness of their core (and hidden) competencies. It is possible (with some modifications) to use the special indicator to share the total costs in wage fund with the cost of the project or service, and it can be a criteria of a relationship.The problem to determine organizational competencies as a source benefits is a compound of core competencies with individual. With this statement we can agree, because, for example, resource-institutional theory creates competitive advantage ofthe organization increasing using core competencies, which improve the level of values. Thus, the key competence is a special category of organizational competence. It helps innovative organizations to create and maintain a sustainable strategic competitive advantage. The main property of the key competence is to establish the usefulness of the product which is produced. If managers want to treat the core competence, they should provide a set of skills which must meet four criteria:1.Producing value for internal and external users (customers). The customer for the innovative organization is the chief referee, who determines what a key competence is considered.2.Skills must be unique and individual. There are differences between forced and distinctive competencies. A key competence is organizational value, so, to the opinion of managers and key specialists of the company, the resources for its development should be found. For example, the innovative organization can dramatically improve the quality of customer service; make it above its average level in the industry with making its core competence.3.Core competencies should ensure a competitive advantage during the long period. In defining key competencies process managers need to move away from the outer parameters of the product and consider how you can use the competence to produce innovation in this product.4.Key competence should be long-term and unique.IV.CONCLUSIONAt the present stage of economic and engineering business development, the level of environment competitiveness of innovative organizations is regularly re-determined by its ability to accumulate knowledge, experience and skills. The talent to maintain an acceptable social climate and to develop organizational and information culture is important. The both concepts of the knowledge development and competencies creation, in general, allow the human resource to be widespread, both in innovation and in traditional sectors of the economy.Thus, modern conditions of domestic economy development are the importantfactors in the success of innovative organizational competitiveness. It is ability to identify and develop own core competencies. Innovative organization should seek and provide a high level of competitiveness, using the ability to synthesize the strategies and personnel skills, individual (personal) and collective (organizational) competencies. To do this successfully, firstly, it is necessary to evaluate existing competencies in the organization and, secondly, to develop profiles of key competencies (some standards, benchmarks can be provided) and, thirdly, to develop an effective system of personnel training within learning organization model for the accumulation of existing competencies and the acquisition of the missing ones.中文译文：组织变革中核心能力的培养摘要—本文论述了工业企业能力管理的不同问题，分析了人力资源管理的理论基础和创新型企业竞争力的现实问题。
中小企业的核心竞争力外文文献翻译中英文
外文文献翻译原文及译文（节选重点翻译）中小企业的核心竞争力外文文献翻译文献出处：Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 78, Issue 7，September 2020, Pages：65-76译文字数：4000 多字英文The Core Competitiveness of Small and Medium EnterprisesJoseph OstroyAbstractSMTE faced severe competition in today’s market. In this paper, core competitiveness is describe as the source of persistent competitive advantage of enterprise, and yields generous profits in new business environment. The study aimed at develop enterprise strategies to promote core competitiveness, also referring to core competitiveness as both prerequisite and final target to develop enterprise strategies in today’s business environment.Keywords: Core Competitiveness, SMTE, Enterprise Strategies.1 IntroductionThe definition of SMTE in China is originated from "Innovation Fund Temporary Provisions for Mid- and Small-Scale Technology Enterprise" which enact by Science and technology Department & Ministry of Finance in 1995.The provision required SMET to meet the standards as follows: (1) “no more than500 employees, among which technicians qualified for a higher education than colleges and universities is no less than 30 percent”; (2) “should mainly engaged in the development, exploitation, production andservice of new and high-tech products”; (3) “enterprise leaders are relatively capable of innovation, market development and management”;(4) “the funds for R&D of new and high-tech products is no less than 3 percent of the sales every year, and technicians directly related to R&D are more than 10 percent of all employees”; (5) good management and achievement are required to enterprises which have leading products and will come to the stage of mass production, as well as those which have come to the stage of mass production.The SMTE develops rapidly due to the predominance of technology and innovation. However, the restrictions upon the SMTE and the entry into WTO put them into a cruelly fierce competition with big enterprises home and abroad which have accumulated rich market experiences. In such a case, if SMTE can’t find the position and make full use of their advantages, they may have problems to survive, to say nothing of development.The core competitiveness of an enterprise is the long-term formation of the enterprise, which is embedded in the internal quality of the enterprise and unique to the enterprise. It supports the past, present and future competitive advantages of the enterprise, and becomes the core ability that the enterprise can surpass to obtain the initiative in the competitive environment. Enterprise core competitiveness is the source of persistent competitive advantage of enterprise, and yields generous profits.Thus, to survive and develop, SMTE may promote core competitiveness which can be achieved by enterprise strategy. So, the important method which guides SMTE to survive and develop is to identify and estimate enterprise core competitiveness, to develop reasonable, scientific and feasible developmental strategies on the basis of identification of exterior and inner environment.As the "engine" to gain the advantages of enterprises, core competitiveness must have its own characteristics:•Value. The core competitiveness has unique value to the enterprise and customers, and has a special contribution to the enterprise to win and maintain its competitive advantage. The core competitiveness is conducive to the improvement of the efficiency of the enterprise, which can enable the enterprise to provide users with more use value than other companies in terms of value creation and cost reduction. It can enable enterprises to have higher labor efficiency and converted product costs than leading, thereby obtaining higher and long-term economic benefits and maximizing enterprise value.•Extensibility or overlap. Provide support for a variety of products or services. Once an enterprise has established its own core competitiveness, it can make related technical fields and new innovations a big win. Because in the production practice, enterprises can combine their core competitiveness into different innovations to accumulate newfoundations for creation and development, and then establish their own competitive advantages in certain fields, and constantly launch innovations.•Difficult to imitate or imitation. A company's core competitiveness should be unique to the company, that is, other companies do not have it (at least temporarily not participating), and it is not imitable and irreplaceable. This is the case of the company Porsche, as a German company. Small and medium-sized automobile companies, in a wide variety of automobile industries, Porsche only chooses sports cars as the main product, and is known for creating outstanding performance and noble quality. The circled customers are obsessed with "driving wisdom, galloping technology" The car family has formed a unique product positioning, unique customer positioning, unique price positioning and continuous innovation to meet the needs of customers. It is unique in the manufacturing industry and creates first-class economic benefits.•The core competitiveness is constantly evolving. If the external environment undergoes drastic changes or is poorly managed, the core competitiveness of an enterprise at a certain stage will depreciate into general capabilities or be lost. The core competitiveness also has a life cycle from birth, growth, growth to decline. After the reduction, the core competitiveness of the enterprise, especially the final product, core product, and core technology will shift the intensified market competitionand the development of science and technology, while gradually losing its competitive advantage or even being eliminated. Therefore, enterprises must constantly manage the development trend of the industry, the development trend of the enterprise and the storage status of the enterprise's own resources, and timely improve the core competitiveness of the enterprise. Core competitiveness needs timely protection and innovation.•Interrelatedness. Core competitiveness is a collection of skills and technologies, rather than scattered skills or technologies. The core competitiveness is generated by the interaction of many different units or individuals. Its carrier is the entire enterprise, not a certain department of the enterprise. The formation of the core competitiveness of an enterprise is bound to be the result of the overall optimization of the enterprise.2 Current ResearchIn order to study enterprise core competitiveness and developmental strategy which are interrelated with each other, current research focus on concrete enterprise, or general enterprise. Current research focus on three main headings: the significance of certain enterprise strategy used to promote enterprise core competitiveness; select enterprise strategy or the executive mode of certain strategy according to the source and level of advantages related to core competitiveness; select proper developmental strategy so as to promote enterprise core competitiveness.In this paper, study aimed at SMTE core competitiveness and developmental strategies is supposed to be developed, especially, put core competitiveness as both prerequisite and final target to develop enterprise strategies, is applied to SMTE for core competitiveness analysis.3 Theoretical ResearchWe may consider that, the structure and developmental level of enterprise core competitiveness advantages plays a critical role in inner environment of enterprise, and embodies the core strength, so it is an important base for enterprise to select and develop strategies. Meanwhile, to enterprise, core competitiveness is the source of development, is the goal of growth, and is the necessity of strategies. Furthermore, the structure of enterprise core competitiveness pointed out the direction how enterprises make a long-term existence and how they realize enterprise strategy. The most important is that, enterprise core competitiveness is dynamical and relative, so it is necessary to maintain and develop it persistently.This paper’s idea is, by enterprise core competitiveness theory, obtaining estimation system and method on the basis of analyzing the structure of SMTE core competitiveness concretely. Then, we obtain the analytical framework of inner and exterior environment related to SMTE, and try to give multistage developmental strategy of SMTE in its general sense. We have to point out two relations here: first, the goal of enterprisedevelopmental strategy is defined by the structure of SMTE core competitiveness; second, the structure and level of SMTE core competitiveness is most important content of enterprise inner environment, defines enterprise’s advantage source and advantage degree, so that it exercises an influence on the choice of enterprise strategies. So we may conclude that core competitiveness and level are target and condition of strategical choice.4 Analytical Model of SMTE Developmental Strategy Based on Core CompetitivenessThere are meanings about SMTE developmental strategy based on core competitiveness: first, the developmental strategy is aimed at maintaining and promoting SMTE core competitiveness; second, in order to establish the developmental strategy, we need to inspect inner and external environmental factors comprehensively, especially, the situation of enterprise core competitiveness, which includes the structure and level of core competitiveness. Third, the developmental strategy mainly focuses on every factors influencing core competitiveness level.4.1Analytical Model of SMTE External EnvironmentThe analysis of SMTE external environment refers to those factors which are external to the SMTE and have a potential impact on SMTE, and according to different influence circle, it is divided into macroscopic environment analysis and analysis of industry lifecycle and industrycompetition.(1)Analytical model of macroscopic environmentAnalysis of macroscopic environment includes PEST analysis and environmental uncertainty analysis, among which, PEST (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological) analysis is shown as Fig: Uncertainty analysis is the analysis of complexity and varying speed of four primary influential factors. Environmental uncertainty level is measured by two points: one is the simple complexity, which means quantity and diversity degree of external factors related to SMTE running, and the other is degree of stability, which means varying rate of external environment.(2) Analytical model of SMTE’s industrial life circle and industrial competition Generally speaking, industrial life circle is divided into formative period, growing period, mature period and declining period, so as to the industries SMTE reside in. Now, we study the influence of industry life circle to strategy, and give the analytical framework of industry life circle based on the indicator characteristics which include market development, market structure, production series, financial affairs and current situation of production and so on, and which are separately analyzed by four periods of the industrial circle that SMTE belong to.4.2 Analytical Model of SMTE Inner EnvironmentThe analysis of SMTE inner environment includes three aspects: analysis of resources hold by SMTE, capability analysis, and core competitiveness analysis.Resources refer to the production factors which enterprises use to provide customs value product and services, they are generally divided into three categories: material resources, intangible resources and human resources, and they are displayed in Table. The goal of analysis to SMTE capability and core competitiveness is to make varieties of the capabilities that enterprise use to create or maintain competitive advantage clear, is to understand enterprise’ core specialty, is to know enterprise’ competitive disadvantage. SMTE capability analysis means analyzing the capability that SMTE integrating resources so as to accomplish certain goal. The commonly used method is Baud’s value chain analysis.Two methods can be used to analyze SMTE core competitiveness: one is the qualitative method, in which six standards are used to judge whether a resource or capability is the core capability; the other is the quantitative method, that is to say, the method to establish and apply indicator system estimation mentioned before.4.3 SMTE Strategic Choice MethodSMTE strategic choice inspects the results of enterprise inner and external environment synthetically. So, for the purpose of developing reasonable strategy to guide enterprise development, we have to analyzethe factors revealing SMTE inner and external environment.This paper adopts strategic position and action assessment matrix (SPACE) to analyze SMTE inner and external environment concretely, and makes corresponding strategic choices by the analysis. Matrix SPACE uses four-dimensional system of coordinate. Generally, the horizontal axis represents two enterprise external factors: environmental stability (ES) and industrial stability (IS), and the vertical axis represent two enterprise inner factors: financial strength (FS) and competitive advantage (CA), as shown in Fig.5 ConclusionEnterprise developmental strategies are composed of three levels: corporation strategy, business strategy and functional strategy. Now, starting with the promotion of SMTE core competitiveness, we combine SMTE inner and external environment and give SMTE multiple developmental strategies.Growing strategy, that is to say, the expanding strategy is supposed to the first choice of SMTE corporation strategy.Among competitive strategies, cost excelling strategy makes no great sense to SMTE, but production diversity strategy and concentration strategy are good to SMTE. Production diversity strategy avoids the price war while satisfying certain consumptive groups, so it brings high profit. Concentration strategy avoids direct confliction with competitors in largescale, which brings growing production, lower cost, and bigger competitive advantage based on concentration of lesser resources.SMTE functional strategy assumes the responsibility of resource accumulation and core competitiveness promotion while thining enterprise overall strategy and competitive strategy.• Technology innovation strategy. First, enterprise should value technology innovation highly. Second, the training and development of enterprise technicians, especially the R&D technicians should be made much account of. Third, enterprise may increase the devotion on R&D to maintain the level of technology and production. Otherwise, enterprise could cooperate with colleges and universities which have technological advantage in related domain to speed up enterprise technology i nnovation.• Financing strategy. Lacking of capital has restricted SMTE from further development, including narrow financing channels, high financing cost, disordered financing proportion, single financial service, and so on. Seeking for capital support of government is an effective capital resource for survival and development of SMTE.• Human resources strategy. First, effective knowledge management and new structure fitting knowledge innovation is critical. Second, human resources training system is need to be established.• Enterprise culture strategy. Enterprise culture generally includes the values, brand, and inner image of the enterprise, among which valuesis the core by leading the development of whole enterprise. First, enterprise should build up the values of “innovation”, “learning”, “science”, and then set up brand sense, emphasize enterprise characteristics. Meanwhile, enterpriser factors are highly valued and enterprisers’ good qualities are brought up.译文中小企业的核心竞争力研究约瑟夫·奥斯特罗伊摘要中小企业在当今市场上正面临着激烈的竞争。
外文文献翻译-工商管理品牌经营企业核心竞争力
外文翻译Research on Enterprise Core Competence Based on BrandManagementFORM:Cohen H.Research on enterprise core competence based on brand management[J].Journal of Business Economics,2015,43(2):122-124.Abstract: domestic and foreign enterprise groups are building their own brands, building their own brand exclusive label. The main reason is that brand management is very important in enterprise competition. This paper explains how to gain advantages through brand management, thus forming the core competitive strategy of enterprise.Key words: brand management, competitiveness, enterprise management基于品牌经营的企业核心竞争力研究来源：Cohen H.基于品牌经营的企业核心竞争力研究[J].商业经济杂志,2015,43(2):122-124.摘要:国内外的企业集团纷纷都在建设自己的品牌,构建自己的品牌专属标章。
究其根本主要是由于品牌经营在企业竞争有着至关重要的,本文阐释了如何通过品牌经营如何在市场营销中取得优势从而形成企业核心竞争力的策略。
关键字：品牌经营，竞争力，企业管理PrefaceWith the development of economy, when enterprises sell products and consumers buy products, it is the brand effect, and how to improve the brand effect is the necessary way for enterprises to improve their core competitiveness. Brand culture contains the consumer is not only to material and spiritual pursuit, consumers to buy the product in the process, they enjoy the superiority and satisfaction brought by brand so today's brand culture becomes increasingly important in product marketing. But our brand originated late, so the brand management strategy is not perfect. In view of this, this article focuses on how to improve the core competitiveness of enterprises through brand management.前言随着经济的发展,企业销售产品的时候,以及消费者购买产品的时候,看重是品牌的效应,如何提高品牌的效应,是企业提高核心竞争力的必要途径。
企业发展战略英文文献
企业发展战略英文文献企业发展战略是企业制定和实施的一系列战略计划，旨在实现长期竞争优势和可持续发展。
以下是一些关于企业发展战略的英文文献：1. Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing management: analysis, planning, implementation, and control. Pearson Education India.这部经典的市场营销管理书籍详细介绍了企业如何制定和实施有效的营销战略。
它强调了市场分析、目标市场选择、产品定位、促销策略等方面的关键要素。
此外，书中还提供了许多实用的工具和技巧，帮助企业制定营销计划并监控其执行情况。
2. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.这部作品是迈克尔·波特教授的代表作之一，它提出了五种竞争力模型，即进入壁垒、替代品威胁、买方议价能力、卖方议价能力和现有竞争对手之间的竞争。
该模型为企业提供了分析行业结构和竞争态势的工具，帮助企业制定有效的竞争战略。
3. Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy. McGraw-Hill Book Company.这部作品提出了著名的“多元化战略”和“协同效应”等概念。
它强调了企业需要制定长期发展战略，并寻求多元化发展以降低风险并提高盈利能力。
此外，书中还介绍了如何通过协同效应实现资源共享和成本节约，从而提高企业的整体竞争力。
综上所述，这些文献为企业提供了宝贵的战略规划和实施指南。
它们强调了市场分析、竞争态势评估以及多元化发展等关键要素在企业战略制定中的重要性。
企业竞争力的参考文献
以下是关于企业竞争力的一些参考文献，这些文献可以帮助您深入了解和研究企业竞争力的相关概念和方法：1. Porter, Michael E. (1990). "The Competitive Advantage of Nations." Free Press.- 迈克尔·波特在这本经典著作中探讨了企业和国家的竞争优势，提出了五种基本竞争力因素，即要素条件、需求条件、相关和支撑性行业、公司战略以及国内竞争。
2. Barney, Jay B. (1991). "Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage." Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 99-120.- 本文探讨了公司资源与竞争优势之间的关系。
作者提出了资源基础理论，认为公司独特、稀缺和无法模仿的资源可以带来持续的竞争优势。
3. Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary, Shuen, Amy (1997). "Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management." Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 509-533.- 本文研究了动态能力对企业竞争力的影响。
作者认为，企业应具备适应变化、创新和学习的能力，以保持长期竞争优势。
4. Hitt, Michael A., Ireland, Duane R., and Hoskisson, Robert E. (2011). "Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases: Competitiveness and Globalization." Cengage Learning.- 这本教科书详细介绍了战略管理和企业竞争力的相关概念和理论，并通过案例研究展示了实际应用。
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。
公司多元化战略国外文献综述
公司多元化战略国外文献综述公司多元化战略是指一家公司在经营过程中，不仅仅局限于自己的主要业务领域，而是向相关或非相关的领域扩展经营范围，并在这些领域中开展业务。
在此过程中，公司会将投资和经营资源分配到多个业务领域，以达到规模经济、风险分散、收益增长等目的。
以下是一些国外文献对公司多元化战略的研究综述。
一、多元化战略的类型文献研究表明，多元化战略可分为三大类型：相关多元化、不相关多元化和混合多元化。
相关多元化是指一家公司扩展其产品或服务线，进入与其现有产品或服务线相关的新领域。
不相关多元化是指一家公司进入与其现有产品或服务线无关的新领域，以寻求更高的收益和增长。
混合多元化是指一家公司同时采用相关和不相关多元化策略。
二、多元化战略的影响因素文献研究表明，多元化战略的影响因素包括公司规模、行业竞争程度、管理水平、资源配置和投资需求等。
一家大型公司通常更容易承担多元化战略带来的风险，而小型公司则需要更多的注意来开展多元化战略。
行业竞争程度也会影响一家公司的多元化战略，如果行业竞争很激烈，一家公司可以通过多元化战略来降低风险。
管理水平、资源配置和投资需求也会影响一家公司的多元化战略。
三、多元化战略的绩效影响文献研究表明，多元化战略对一家公司的绩效影响呈现出多样化的趋势。
相关多元化可以带来经济规模和经验积累方面的优势，从而提高公司的绩效。
不相关多元化可以实现风险分散和降低成本，从而提高公司绩效。
而混合多元化则要考虑不同业务领域的相互作用和经营管理费用等因素。
总的来说，公司多元化战略是一个重要的战略选择，可以有效地实现公司的增长和发展。
然而，多元化战略不适用于所有公司，因此每一家公司在实施多元化战略之前需要进行适当的风险评估和资源配置。
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。
《企业多元化经营研究文献综述》
企业多元化经营研究文献综述自20世纪50年代以来，多元化经营在企业战略选择中具有很强的现实意义。
因此，许多研究开始进一步论证多元化对企业绩效的影响。
各国学者对该战略的实施对公司的影响有不同的看法，一般分为以下三类：1.多元化经营致使企业业绩下滑大多数研究者认为多元化会导致企业绩效的显著下降，因为不同行业的国家分工是明显的。
如果在不确定的条件下设定多元化目标，可能会导致亏损企业核心竞争力和利润的下降。
Massimo(2014)认为，过度追求多元化会导致中国企业财务管理质量的下降。
公司间频繁而全面的并购增加了公司分支机构的数量，增加了信息管理和整合的成本，增加了非政府组织的管理和会计人员。
他们能够快速理解新产品，因此不能使用现有的合适的绩效评估方法来评估综合绩效。
Christian(2018)认为可以通过外部并购逐步实现公司的多元化发展。
它们确实可以有效地提高企业绩效，但缺点是可持续性弱。
资金成本与风险控制体系密切相关。
然而，多数多元化失败的案例表明，在建立有效的内部会计控制解决机制方面普遍存在缺陷，投资行为导致企业规模盲目扩张，多元化扩张的影响对企业管理的长期发展毫无意义。
金天(2020)提出多元化会给企业带来财务风险。
在2014 - 2017年对制造业的研究中，他们发现选择多元化的企业财务风险呈现倒u型特征，然后呈下降趋势。
金晓斌(2019)在对医药行业多元化的研究中提出了“多元化陷阱”，认为多元化程度不仅与公司绩效成线性关系。
当多元化程度达到一定程度时，公司绩效越高，情况越糟。
2.多元化经营促使企业业绩上升不同的是，有学者认为，多元化经营对企业绩效的提高有着特别重要的影响。
RenqianZhao(2015)选取2013年相关上市公司年报数据，结合相关实证研究发现，公司多元化程度越高，业绩越好。
Vikrant(2015)认为，在发展的中后期阶段，公司在行业中具有独特的地位，资源和技术是到位和充足的。
企业核心竞争力与多元化经营问题研究外文文献翻译资料
企业核心竞争力与多元化经营问题研究外文文献翻译资料has XXX market。
It is a logical n of business practices that can result in both resource sharing and economic benefits。
as well as declining management efficiency and decreased market share。
As such。
it is XXX manage the n een their core XXX.2 XXX industry or market。
It is the XXX。
in the face of increasing market XXX。
it is XXX.3 When pursuing n。
XXX how they can be leveraged to enter new markets or industries。
This requires a deep understanding of the target market and the XXX。
XXX in research and development。
marketing。
XXX.4 At the same time。
XXX can lead to a loss of focus and decreased efficiency。
which can XXX。
As such。
it is XXX to strike a balance een core XXX。
XXX.Overall。
the n een XXX and challenging one。
but it is also essential for long-term success。
By carefully managing this n and finding the right balance een the two。
企业的核心竞争力【外文翻译】
外文翻译译文标题：企业的核心竞争力资料来源:哈佛商业评论(1990) 作者：普拉哈拉德、哈默尔从短期来看，一个公司的竞争优势来自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产出意想不到的产品。
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。
有些高层经理声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落后于日本同行，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。
可以将多元化公司必做一棵大树，树干和几个主要树杈是核心产品，比较小的树枝比作是业务单元，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，那么你就会判断失误，就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，特别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的光介质专长就是两种核心竞争力。
理论上，虽然可以把收音机组装在一个芯片上，但是这种理论知识并不能保证公司有能力生产出如名片般大小的微型收音机。
为了把想象变为现实，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一些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。
企业核心竞争力与多元化经营问题研究外文文献翻译资料
文献出处:Cardinal L. The research of enterprise core competitiveness and diversification [J]. Global Strategy Journal, 2015, 5(3): 176-185.原文The research of enterprise core competitiveness and diversificationCardinal LAbstractDiversification trend is the enterprise under the condition of economic globalization and market competition heats up the inevitable result of the evolution of business logic, enterprise development are also the two situations: resource sharing to realize the economic benefits of superposition effect; scattered resources management efficiency decline, the market share fell. Therefore, how to correctly handle the connection between the enterprise core competitiveness and diversification strategy, has become an important task to the firm growth.Keywords: Diversification; The core competitiveness1 Enterprise diversification strategyRelative to the specialization strategy, diversification strategy can effectively disperse management risk, help enterprise market development, looking for cultivating new benefit growth point, and effectively enhance the ability of enterprises to guard against and resist market risk. Since the 90s, many enterprises choose the expanding development, holding a number of industries, in order to achieve the scale of cross-cutting growth. After a lot of enterprises in the loss of local industry advantage, fall into the predicament of the shortage of resources. The reasons for this phenomenon lies in: first, the enterprise market share and resource utilization in the degree of diversification improve preliminary growth, once beyond the peak value of the enterprise bear ability will decrease trend; Second, restricted by the quality and ability of the managers, the degree of diversification improve cannot guarantee enterprise operation management the difficulty increase at the same time, to realize the growth of market resilience; Third, enterprises in the lack of scale advantages, cross-industry market dominance, the market share and resource utilization cannot be achieved significant growth. Diversified, therefore, as a important way of enterprisegrowth, industry diversification should focus on the overall effect of optimization, the indicators to avoid is affected by the "short board effect", only guarantee the market share and resilience and other indicators and growth is proportional to form industrial diversification type, diversification strategy is likely to obtain positive effect.2 The relationship between core competitiveness and diversification strategyDiversification strategy on the basis of the correlation of cross-industry products or services, differentiated degree of homogeneity, contains related and unrelated diversification in two forms. Some scholars tend to unrelated diversification strategy as enterprise to defeat the root causes of diversification. And, in fact, with the development of enterprise main business and rely on fulcrum of the changes in the core competitiveness, relevance as a relative concept may appear bigger difference, and it is lack for the researchers and the industry has been widely accepted by the correlation of quantitative research methods. Therefore, this article thought that diversification strategy of correlation is not as to distinguish the criteria or prediction strategy of success, the key is whether the diversified competition strategy based on enterprise core competence.2.1 The basic connotation of core competenceCore competence (Core competence), refers to the enterprise internal set of technical ability, is to make one or more of the business in the field of industry and achieve a higher level, or the lack of obvious advantages. Usually, core competence includes the following five: the staff overall quality; Technology research and development, innovation ability; Management capacity; Brand creation, using ability.2.2 The main performanceScope definition of diversification strategy in the business field is the key factor for enterprise decision-making, enterprise should establish the core competitiveness of strategic development. Comprehensive experience to determine the core competitiveness of enterprises growth, nurture it, to protect and improve; The core competitiveness of the best value for business applications as first choice of diversification strategy; Rely on the enterprise growth and the expansion of the scale, the area, make the core competitiveness and diversified form mutual promotion,function relationship between the virtuous cycle of growth.3 Diversification strategy based on core competence3.1 Cultivate enterprise's core competitivenessAs already noted, the core competitiveness is the enterprise in the competition in the market for a long time to realize the source of dominant advantage. As compared to a tree for the corporate image, the core product is the backbone, each business unit is a branch of the tree, and provide nutrients for the growth of the dominant, the function of sustaining life, consolidate the tree root is the core competitiveness. The image of the development view of tree this paper expounds the important role of enterprise core competitiveness. Therefore, cultivating enterprise core competitiveness and realize the diversified competitive advantage, is the top issue facing the enterprise diversification strategy. First, strengthen cultivating core competence. Diversification should be clear this fact, regardless of the enterprise takes the development course, should strengthen enterprise core competitiveness is the first objective of the enterprise vision. Enterprise only rely on stable and quite competitive advantage of core business, safeguard enterprise economic efficiency and the stability of financial resources, is likely to gain a foothold in new industries, so as to further develop the market, implementation of new profit growth. Second, determine the diversification development strategy. Generally speaking, the enterprise generally by the core products, related diversification gradually expands to the diversified business. Some of the current our country industry competition has become worse, and the level of industrial development is generally low, often difficult to achieve in the related fields of the new cultivating core competitiveness. Enterprise should pursue scale growth on core business, on the diversification according to the correlation of successive development.3.2 Industry selection and business matchingApplication of diversification strategy, in addition to the factors should be considered the core competitiveness of enterprises, also should be aimed at the core competence factors of a number of factors into consideration to choose, such as areas of management, organization structure, enterprise culture, etc. One of the most criticalis a choice, in the field of industrial diversification should be based on the existing resources and enterprise capacity, on the basis of most avoid blindly follow suit, thickness on industry profit for enterprises to enter the market orientation. Business strategy matching problem it is also the important considerations for the direction of diversification, should focus on current and future competitive advantage of the factor analysis of the potential. First of all, the matching relationship is between the businesses. Whether business unit is consistent with the company's strategic vision; new business and strategic match is between the business units. Second is the ratio of enterprise products and services of value chain. Business unit value chain in the formulation and technique can effectively transferred to the other business; The opportunity to serve common use and develop brand products; Looking for business units on the ratio of the value chain value-added resources, competitive power promotion opportunities. Coordination of enterprise resource allocation between the main business and new business order, for the enterprise expansion, stripped of strategic decision-making and implementation to provide powerful guarantee.3.3 Diversification strategy implementation timingNumerous successful cases prove that diversification strategy is the key to the success of the enterprise core competitive ability, the new industry development prospects and the correlation between industries. Diversified business strategy implementation requires enterprise development to a certain height to be implemented; especially enterprises should achieve corresponding degree scale, the competitive advantage. Displays in the main business of the dominant market share, and keep larger competitive advantage in the industry field. Abundant capital; Industry competition is extremely intense, enterprise is faced with the bottleneck of development and so on. Specifically, these on the investigation of performance in the following three points: first, the core competitiveness. As already noted the formation of core competitiveness in the industry leading position within the territory, is the basic premise for enterprises to implement diversification strategy, and is an important method of guarantee profits, and financial support. Enterprise into a diversified business, new industry faces new competition within the industry exclude is difficultto avoid, only relying on business capital, brand support, is likely to get the opportunity to develop. Second is the potential ability. Here refers to the enterprise of the potential development prospects of new industries involved. Enterprise can use Michael Porter (Michael Porter) an analysis of five models from vertical and horizontal sides on the vertical value chain of suppliers, the bargaining power of the buyer were analyzed, and the lateral external market new entrants, substitutes, and the competitiveness of existing in the internal market competitor analysis, provide analysis model for the enterprise. Again, the correlation. Enterprise diversification many take transverse development strategy, produce synergies. This would require the correlation between main and new related industry, in order to reduce the barriers to entry, saving the cost of the marginal cost of market entry and integration, the maximum of enterprise brand strength and technology advantage into full play.3.4 Enterprise strategy implementation of resource integrationThe companies in the diversified expansion forays of common cause are the irrational competition. Correctly deal with the issue of resource sharing, risk aversion and diversified enterprise diversification are important problems that should be considered, in short, is to realize maximize the corporate business unit in the integration of new industry, which produces effect. To understand the concrete from the following several aspects: first, management integration effect. Unity between old and new products, the business management decision-making criteria, less on the basis of meet the requirement of industry management methods and means of change. Second, marketing integration effect. Implementation of old and new business complementary role on market development expand brand awareness, are opening up markets, expand the profit space. Third is the production of integrated effect. In the production technology, equipment, raw materials and spare parts purchasing application to maintain unity, form the scope economy; reduce the unit cost of production. Fourth is the technology integration effect. In the old and new products as far as possible on the core technology of application to realize sharing, cut down the cost of R&D (research and development) and technical input costs, realize coordinated production technology, reduce the enterprise's financial burden.4 ConclusionsTo sum up, the timing and the concrete implementation of the diversification strategy, is to the success of the expansionary enterprise development strategy. It has been proved that rational decision making and implementation of the enterprise is the key for the success of this strategy. Believe in the future enterprise will take the more rational knowledge, the more powerful strength to meet the challenges of globalization.译文企业核心竞争力与多元化经营问题研究Cardinal L摘要多元化经营趋势是企业在经济全球化及市场竞争白热化的情况下经营逻辑演进的必然结果，企业发展也由此出现两种情况：资源共享实现经济效益叠加效果；资源分散致使管理效率下降、市场份额下跌。
公司多元化经营文献综述及外文文献资料
本份文档包含：关于该选题的外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献标题: The effects of institutional ownership on the value and risk of diversified firms 作者: Mohammad Jafarinejada, Surendranath R. Joryb, Thanh N. Ngoc,期刊: International Review of Financial Analysis (V olume 40 2015): 207-219年份: 2015The effects of institutional ownership on the value and risk of diversified firmsAbstractWe study the link between institutional ownership and firms' diversification strategy, value and risk. Our sample includes US-listed firms with segment data from 1998 to 2012. We find that not all kinds of diversification are value-destroying; unlike industrially-diversified firms, global single-segment firms are trading at a premium relative to their imputed value. The presence of institutional investors and the stability of their shareholdings positively influence the likelihood that a firm is diversified. The proportion (volatility) of institutional ownership is higher (lower) among diversified firms compared to domestic single-segment firms. More importantly, the higher the proportions of institutional shareholdings, the higher the excess value of the diversified firm and the lower the firm idiosyncratic risk. Institutional ownership volatility, on the other hand, is inversely related to a firm excess value but positively related to its idiosyncratic risk. Thus, the presence of long-term stable institutional investors enhances the value of diversified firms. Our findings remain robust to various model specifications and estimation techniques.Keywords: Institutional ownership; Corporate diversification; Diversification discount;1. IntroductionThe effect of diversification on firm value continues to attract considerable research interest. There are two main types of diversification: product- and geographic diversification (Vachani, 1991 and Martin, 2008). Product diversification refers to the degree to which firms are involved in different industries (we refer to them asbusiness segments). Geographic diversification refers to the extent to which firms are involved in different countries (we refer to them as geographic segments). Bodnar, Tang, and Weintrop (1997) find that global diversification is associated with higher firm value. In contrast, Denis, Denis, and Yost (2002) find that diversification decreases firm value. Other studies that suggest that diversification adversely affects firm value include Berger and Ofek (1995), Fauver, Houston, and Naranjo (2004); and Kim and Mathur (2008).Corporate diversification is appealing to investors. Under the premise that corporations are better at diversification than shareholders, corporate diversification should lower shareholders' investment risk at a fraction of the cost incurred by individual investors (see Agmon and Lessard (1977); Doukas and Travlos (1988); Harris and Ravenscraft (1991);Sanders and Carpenter (1998)). However, the diversity of operations at conglomerate firms makes it harder for ordinary investors to monitor them (Fatemi, 1984), opening the possibility for management to pursue self-interest objectives at the expense of the shareholders (Palich, Cardinal, & Miller, 2000). Such agency problems will reduce shareholders' return on investment and/or increase their risk. As a consequence, if there is a group out there who is better at monitoring managers, it is better to follow their lead. Jensen and Meckling (1976), and Shleifer and Vishny (1986) suggest that large investors could well be that group. We propose to consider the contribution to firm value and risk brought about by such an important group of investors at diversified firms, i.e., institutional investors.Institutional investors —including mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, banks and insurance companies — are leading players in the financial markets as well as the primary owners of US corporate equity (Gillan & Starks, 2000). Estimates of their shareholdings at US firms range from 35% in the 1980s and 60% in the 2000s to 66% by the end of 2010. Given the size of their equity investments, they tend to exert considerable pressure on management to create wealth for investors (see also, Shleifer and Vishny (1986)). Jarrell and Poulsen (1987), Brickley, Lease, and Smith (1988); Agrawal and Mandelker (1990) suggest a direct link between institutional investors and shareholders' wealth. Consequently, managers pay a lot of attention tomeet the financial targets set by these investors (Easley and O'hara, 1987, Kyle, 1985 and Clay, 2002). Actions taken by the investors tend to generate a lot of press and media attention, especially at large and diversified firms. Many institutional investors believe that diversified firms can generate more profit by restructuring their divisions; examples include campaigns by investors demanding restructuring at big firms like PepsiCo, Sony, Timken, and McGraw-Hill.Do institutional investors —as effective monitors of firm performance —support diversification and add value to diversified firms by virtue of their presence? We attempt to answer the question and analyze the importance of two measures of institutional ownership on diversified firms' value and risk, i.e., the proportion of the shares held by the institutional investors (IOPr) and the institutional ownership volatility (IOV). The first measure is extensively used in the literature, though mostly focused on domestic firms. An emerging literature on the effects of institutional ownership on firm value suggests that in addition to the proportion of shares held by investors, it is equally important to consider institutional ownership stability. They argue that not all institutional investors stay with a firm for the long-term. Some are short-term and would leave at the first sign of trouble. Elyasiani and Jia (2010), and Callen and Fang (2013) argue that “stable” institutional investors are more incentivized to monitor target firms and improve shareholder welfare.To the extent that diversification destroys value while institutional investors add value, we test whether their presence at diversified firms adds value. We hypothesize that diversified firms with higher proportions of shares held by institutional investors (IOPr) and lower variability in the proportions (IOV) are associated with higher excess values. Similarly, we posit that firm risk is inversely related to IOPr and positively related to IOV. Managers would be under scrutiny not to cripple the firm with non-value added diversifications when more shares are held by institutional investors (IOPr). Conversely, if a firm pursues the wrong type of diversification, then there is little reason for the investors to hold onto their shares. Thus, we should observe a higher volatility in institutional shareholdings (IOV) among this subgroup of firms.We examine the universe of firms listed in COMPUSTAT from 1998 to 2012. We break the universe of COMPUSTAT firms into four groups: (i) domestic single-segment firms (DS), (ii) domestic multi-segment firms (DM), (iii) global single-segment firms (GS) and (iv) global multi-segment firms (GM). We find that unlike domestic firms, the trend is to go global, i.e., we observe a fall in the number of domestic firms and a rise in the number of global firms over time. We find that not all kinds of diversification are associated with negative excess values. As opposed to industrially-diversified firms, global single-segment firms trade at a premium relative to their matched domestic single-segment firms. The idiosyncratic risk levels are lower for diversified firms compared to domestic single-segment firms.The proportion of shares held by institutional investors (IOPr) is higher and the volatility in those proportions (IOV) is lower at diversified firms compared to domestic single-segment firms. Using probit regressions, we find that the likelihood to diversify is positively associated with the proportion of shares held by institutional investors (IOPr) and inversely related to its volatility (IOV).Univariate analyses suggest the existence of a positive relationship between IOPr and firm's excess value and an inverse relationship between IOPr and firm's idiosyncratic risk. Conversely, IOV is inversely related to excess value and positively related to idiosyncratic risk. The evidence suggests that there exists a significant relationship between the presence of long-term stable institutional investors and the ability of diversified firms to create wealth.Consistent with the univariate findings, the coefficient of IOPr is positive and that of IOV is negative in panel fixed-effect regressions of firms' excess values. The coefficients of DMand GM, representing domestic multi-segment firms and globally diversified multi-segment firms, respectively, are both negative and highly significant. On the other hand, global single segment (GS) firms are associated with higher excess values.In regressions of firms' idiosyncratic risk, the coefficients of IOV and IOPr are positive and negative, respectively, suggesting that firms with lower proportions of equity held by institutional investors and higher volatility in that proportion areperceived as riskier and carrying more idiosyncratic risk. Overall, the empirical evidence suggests that diversified firm value is linked to investors with considerable and stable shareholdings. Furthermore, the absence of stable, long-term institutional investors increases the idiosyncratic risk of diversified firms. Our empirical findings are robust to alternative control variables, various model specifications and estimation techniques.Beyond complementing and extending the literature on the diversification discount, this study also contributes to the emerging literature on the role of institutional ownership stability on firm governance and performance. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to assess the impact of institutional ownership stability among diversified firms. We consider the effect of institutional investors in lessening the diversification discount. We also examine the link between institutional investors and firm risk. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature and formulates the hypotheses. Section 3presents the data. Section 4 presents the methods used. We present and discuss the findings in Section 5, and conclude the paper in the final section.2. Literature review and hypotheses developmentAt the firm level, institutional investors tend to resist counterproductive strategies while supporting beneficial ones, especially shareholder driven ones (Bethel and Liebeskind, 1993, Hill and Snell, 1988, Holderness and Sheehan, 1985 and Mikkelson and Ruback, 1991). They tend to lobby senior executives to implement restructuring strategies that are beneficial to all the shareholders (see also Bethel and Liebeskind (1993)). Attig et al. (2012)argue that long-term institutional investors have greater incentives and efficiencies — economies of scale in the collection and processing of corporate information —to engage in effective monitoring, which in turn mitigate the asymmetric information dilemma and associated agency problems.Barclay, Holderness, and Pontiff (1993) find that investors value the skills and demands of block purchasers and that firm value increases following a block trade.They document a high turnover in management following these trades and a decline in firm value when the block holders either fail to achieve control and/or face resistance from management. Navissi and Naiker (2006) find that shareholding by active institutional investors of up to 30% positively influences corporate value. Beyond 30%, the ownership tends to reduce firm value, which suggests that there exists a non-linear relationship between the two. When these shareholders become too large, there exists a significant risk that they will join forces with management to safeguard their common interests at the expense of the other shareholders, especially minority/individual ones. The authors find that passive investors do not affect firm value. Cornett et al. (2007) find that the percentages of institutional investor involvement in a firm, as well as their numbers, are associated with better operating cash flow returns. However, the findings only hold when the investors have no business relation with the firm; else there is no significant relationship between institutional investors and firm performance.In theory, a conglomerate firm with multiple business segments should trade at the same price as the sum of the individual segments as standalone businesses. Yet, the literature finds that this is rarely the case. This inequality is due to asymmetric information and agency conflicts along the lines explained by Myers (1984); Myers and Majluf (1984). However, recent studies on institutional ownership and stability suggest that institutional investors can help solve such problems. We study whether the involvement of institutional investors can turn the fortunes of diversified firms given the evidence of a diversification discount (Fauver et al., 2004, Jory & Ngo, 2012).H1.There exists a positive relationship between diversified firms' value and the proportion of the shares held by institutional investors.Nonetheless, not all institutional investors are equally motivated to ensure the long-term well-being of a firm. There exist some investors with an interest in short-term trading, quick profits and turnaround. They are not willing to incur long-term monitoring costs and are not interested in monitoring firm'smanagement. Callen and Fang (2013) review some scenarios suggestive of a short-term bias. In the first case, the cost of monitoring far exceeds the combined costs of selling the shares and investing in another company. Second, many institutional investors hold well-diversified portfolios that do not require them to monitor actively every company in their portfolio. Third, the benefits of short-term gains far exceed those of long-term investing. With their constant buying and selling, these investors cause a lot of variability/volatility in the proportion of shares held by them in the company. Thus, we hypothesize that for value creation, stable institutional investors are more desirable than transient ones.H2.There exists an inverse relationship between firm value and institutional ownership volatility.Institutional investors tend to be large ones buying significant stakes in the companies they invest. Given the size of their investments, they pay particular attention to the risk-taking activity at target firms, and they have sufficient influence to lobby senior executives to sway risk-taking decisions in their favor. We hypothesize that the presence of these investors would dissuade managers from taking excessive idiosyncratic risks — for instance, engaging in unrelated diversification abroad where the managers have little knowledge of, thus increasing the risks the firm faces.Institutional investors have their own stakeholders to satisfy —for instance, pension funds and insurance companies have to make regular payments to their subscribers — and they would resist changes that would disrupt those relationships. To the extent that their required return on investment is linked to changes in the value of the firm, they would withstand actions that would increase the variance of the firm returns and adversely affect its ability to pay dividend. This would also be true for institutional investors who have selected targets based on their current business strategies and are satisfied with the status quo; those who lack the expertise and/or incentives to monitor new ventures and risky undertakings; and, investors whose wealth is concentrated in the target company.There are two types of risks faced by a firm, i.e., market and idiosyncratic risks.Management can more directly affect the latter. Thus, for the purpose of our study, we consider a firm's idiosyncratic risk. To minimize its impact on the value of their equity investment, we test the hypothesis that the presence of institutional investors helps to minimize idiosyncratic risk.H3.There exists an inverse relationship between firm idiosyncratic risk and the proportion of shares held by institutional investors.Financial markets comprise investors and traders of different time horizons (Malagon, Moreno, & Rodriguez, 2015). Investors engaging in frequent trading are more interested in short- rather than long-term gains. They could lobby for makeshift corporate changes at the expense of changes that would have benefited all the shareholders in the long run. Their presence will also do little in alleviating the risks associated with misalignment of objectives, opportunistic behavior and earnings management at the investee firm and, consequently, accentuate the firm's idiosyncratic risk. Frequent trading in the shares of a firm — caused by short-term traders — will lead to an increase in the volatility of the proportions of shares held by its investors. Conversely, long-term investors —those who are more likely to buy and hold and cause less volatility in the proportions of shares held by investors —are more incentivized to monitor firm activities and improve shareholder value. Thus, we test the hypothesis that there exists a positive association between the volatility in the proportions of shares held by investors and a firm's idiosyncratic risk.H4.There exists a positive association between firm idiosyncratic risk and institutional ownership volatility.3. DataOur sample of firms is from the COMPUSTAT database and our sample period starts in 1998 and ends in 2012. We define a diversified firm as one that reports data on the industry and/or geographic segments in the COMPUSTAT segment data tapes. Similar to He (2009), we start the sample period in 1998 because the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS 131 in 1997, which significantlyaffects the way businesses report segment data.Following, we exclude the following firms from our sample: (i) firms with SIC codes 4900–4999 (i.e., utility firms) and 6000–6999 (i.e., financial firms) since they are heavily regulated; (ii) firm-year observations with segment sales less than $20 million; and (iii) firm-year observations where the difference between the total sales of all its segments and the reported total sales for the entire firm is greater than 1%. We further obtain accounting and financial data from COMPUSTAT, ownership data from Thomson Financial and stock price data from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) databases. The Thomson Financial database reports institutional 13F common stock holdings and transactions. It includes common stock holdings and transactions of institutional money managers where holdings of the managing company/filer's level are as per the 13F filing itself. It covers all NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ common stocks and includes all managers filing 13F reports with the SEC.We present the sample descriptives in Table 1. We break the sample into four groups as follows: domestic single-segment (DS, i.e., not diversified), domestic multi-segment (DM, i.e., industrially diversified only), global single-segment (GS, i.e., geographically diversified only) and global multi-segment (GM, i.e., both industrially and geographically diversified). The trend is toward more globally diversified firms; from 18% in 1998, their proportion as a percentage of the entire sample increases to 33% by 2012. We have 53,481 firm-year observations obtained from 11,882 firms distributed as follows, 63% DS, 12% DM, 15% GSand 10% GM firms.4. Methodology4.1. Measuring excess valueTo explore the valuation consequences of diversification, we use the same measure of excess value as in Berger and Ofek (1995); and Bodnar et al. (1997). The excess value of firm i is calculated as the natural log of the ratio of the firm's market value to its imputed value.4.2. Measuring idiosyncratic riskTo compute a firm's idiosyncratic risk we use the Fama and French,1992 and Fama and French, 1993 model and add the excess return on a world portfolio to the equation as follows (see also Stulz (1999)):5. Results5.1. Probit regressionsWe model a firm's propensity to diversify as a function of the characteristics of the firm, its industry, its macroeconomic environment and, more importantly, the institutional ownership variables of IOPr and IOV. Table 2 reports the probit estimates from two different models. Model (1) contains the IOPr variable while Model (2) contains both the IOPr and the IOVvariables.value of the coefficient representing the variable IOPr is positive and statistically significant. Conversely, the value of the coefficient IOV is negative and statistically significant. The marginal effects of IOPr and IOV are positive and negative, respectively. Thus, diversified firms are associated with higher proportions of institutional ownership and lower volatility in that ratio over time.We also find that the odds that a firm is diversified are positively associated to: firm size (ln(AT)), profitability (EBITS), being listed on a major US stock exchange (MAJOR), the number of diversified firms in the industry (NUMDIVF), the proportion of sales generated by diversified firms (PrINDS), and the number of M&As occurring in the industry (NUMA). Conversely, capital-intensive firms (CAPX), growth firms as measured by the Q ratio, as well as growth industries (INDUSTRYQ), growth in GDP (GDPGr) and the industry's dollar amount of deals (VOLMA) are inversely related to a firm's propensity to diversify.5.2. Excess value and idiosyncratic risk of diversified firmsWe present the mean and median excess values of industrially- (i.e., DM, GM) and geographically diversified (i.e., GS, GM) firms in Table 3. We compare the excess values to that of the sample of DS (i.e., domestic single-segment) firms and various portfolios comprising DS firms. More precisely and following Villalonga (2004), we calculate each firm's predicted probability to diversify using the probit model of Eq. For each diversified firm, we form a portfolio comprising domestic single-segment firms with probability values from the same quartile. Since we run two versions of theprobit model, we present our findings based on two portfolios of matched domestic single-segment firms (i.e., portfolios 1 and 2, respectively) for every diversified firm.The excess values of DM (mean of − 8.20% in Panel A) and GM (mean of 16.20% in Panel C) firms are significantly lower than the corresponding values of both portfolios of matched domestic single-segment firms. Thus, industrial diversification is associated with lower excess values. Conversely, the excess values of global single segment firms (GS firms in Panel B) are positive and significantly higher than those of domestic single-segment firms. Our findings are consistent with Denis et al. (2002), Kim and Mathur (2008); and Jory and Ngo (2012).We also compare the idiosyncratic risks of the four groups of firms. The idiosyncratic risk measures of the diversified firms (i.e, DM, GS and GM firms) are all significantly lower compared to either the sample of domestic single-segment firms or matching portfolios of domestic single-segment firms. The combination of different business and/or geographic units leads to a portfolio effect that dampens the individual risk of each unit causing a diversified firm to report lower risk measures. 5.3. The percentage of shares owned by institutional shareholders (IOPr) and the volatility of institutional ownership (IOV)We present the values of IOPr and IOV by diversification type in Table 4. We compare the figures with various subsamples of DM firms. The mean and median IOPr figures are 21% and 7%, respectively for domestic single-segment firms, i.e., non-diversified firms. In contrast, the proportion of company shares held by institutional investors is higher among diversified firms (both industrially- and geographically-diversified firms). For instance, the mean values of IOPr at DM, GS and GM firms are 39%, 52% and 56%, respectively. The corresponding median figures are 38%, 57% and 64%, respectively. Thus, institutional investors hold a higher proportion of the shares at diversified firms when compared to non-diversified ones.6 ConclusionWhile single-segment domestic firms still dominate the corporate landscape, we observe a gradual decline in their numbers and an increase in the frequency ofglobally-diversified firms. We find that not all kinds of diversification are value-destroying and that global single-segment firms trade at a premium compared to matched domestic single-segment firms. Industrially-diversified firms though (either domestic or global) are associated with lower excess values. Nonetheless, the combination of the different business and/or geographic units exerts a portfolio effect that causes the overall enterprise risk to decline causing diversified firms to report lower risk measures compared to domestic single-segment firms.We provide empirical evidence that institutional ownership is a core value driver of diversified firms. They are associated with higher levels of institutional shareholdings and more stable shareholdings over time. The proportion and stability of institutional ownership are positively related to firm value and inversely related to its idiosyncratic risk. Our results indicate that the presence of long-term stable institutional investors is a source of value for diversified corporations.二、文献综述公司多元化经营文献综述摘要公司多元化经营的相关问题是近年来公司战略管理、产业经济学和公司金融领域的一个研究热点，也是一个在理论界颇具争议的话题。
- 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)。
文献出处:Cardinal L. The research of enterprise core competitiveness and diversification [J]. Global Strategy Journal, 2015, 5(3): 176-185.原文The research of enterprise core competitiveness and diversificationCardinal LAbstractDiversification trend is the enterprise under the condition of economic globalization and market competition heats up the inevitable result of the evolution of business logic, enterprise development are also the two situations: resource sharing to realize the economic benefits of superposition effect; scattered resources management efficiency decline, the market share fell. Therefore, how to correctly handle the connection between the enterprise core competitiveness and diversification strategy, has become an important task to the firm growth.Keywords: Diversification; The core competitiveness1 Enterprise diversification strategyRelative to the specialization strategy, diversification strategy can effectively disperse management risk, help enterprise market development, looking for cultivating new benefit growth point, and effectively enhance the ability of enterprises to guard against and resist market risk. Since the 90s, many enterprises choose the expanding development, holding a number of industries, in order to achieve the scale of cross-cutting growth. After a lot of enterprises in the loss of local industry advantage, fall into the predicament of the shortage of resources. The reasons for this phenomenon lies in: first, the enterprise market share and resource utilization in the degree of diversification improve preliminary growth, once beyond the peak value of the enterprise bear ability will decrease trend; Second, restricted by the quality and ability of the managers, the degree of diversification improve cannot guarantee enterprise operation management the difficulty increase at the same time, to realize the growth of market resilience; Third, enterprises in the lack of scale advantages, cross-industry market dominance, the market share and resource utilization cannot be achieved significant growth. Diversified, therefore, as a important way of enterprisegrowth, industry diversification should focus on the overall effect of optimization, the indicators to avoid is affected by the "short board effect", only guarantee the market share and resilience and other indicators and growth is proportional to form industrial diversification type, diversification strategy is likely to obtain positive effect.2 The relationship between core competitiveness and diversification strategyDiversification strategy on the basis of the correlation of cross-industry products or services, differentiated degree of homogeneity, contains related and unrelated diversification in two forms. Some scholars tend to unrelated diversification strategy as enterprise to defeat the root causes of diversification. And, in fact, with the development of enterprise main business and rely on fulcrum of the changes in the core competitiveness, relevance as a relative concept may appear bigger difference, and it is lack for the researchers and the industry has been widely accepted by the correlation of quantitative research methods. Therefore, this article thought that diversification strategy of correlation is not as to distinguish the criteria or prediction strategy of success, the key is whether the diversified competition strategy based on enterprise core competence.2.1 The basic connotation of core competenceCore competence (Core competence), refers to the enterprise internal set of technical ability, is to make one or more of the business in the field of industry and achieve a higher level, or the lack of obvious advantages. Usually, core competence includes the following five: the staff overall quality; Technology research and development, innovation ability; Management capacity; Brand creation, using ability.2.2 The main performanceScope definition of diversification strategy in the business field is the key factor for enterprise decision-making, enterprise should establish the core competitiveness of strategic development. Comprehensive experience to determine the core competitiveness of enterprises growth, nurture it, to protect and improve; The core competitiveness of the best value for business applications as first choice of diversification strategy; Rely on the enterprise growth and the expansion of the scale, the area, make the core competitiveness and diversified form mutual promotion,function relationship between the virtuous cycle of growth.3 Diversification strategy based on core competence3.1 Cultivate enterprise's core competitivenessAs already noted, the core competitiveness is the enterprise in the competition in the market for a long time to realize the source of dominant advantage. As compared to a tree for the corporate image, the core product is the backbone, each business unit is a branch of the tree, and provide nutrients for the growth of the dominant, the function of sustaining life, consolidate the tree root is the core competitiveness. The image of the development view of tree this paper expounds the important role of enterprise core competitiveness. Therefore, cultivating enterprise core competitiveness and realize the diversified competitive advantage, is the top issue facing the enterprise diversification strategy. First, strengthen cultivating core competence. Diversification should be clear this fact, regardless of the enterprise takes the development course, should strengthen enterprise core competitiveness is the first objective of the enterprise vision. Enterprise only rely on stable and quite competitive advantage of core business, safeguard enterprise economic efficiency and the stability of financial resources, is likely to gain a foothold in new industries, so as to further develop the market, implementation of new profit growth. Second, determine the diversification development strategy. Generally speaking, the enterprise generally by the core products, related diversification gradually expands to the diversified business. Some of the current our country industry competition has become worse, and the level of industrial development is generally low, often difficult to achieve in the related fields of the new cultivating core competitiveness. Enterprise should pursue scale growth on core business, on the diversification according to the correlation of successive development.3.2 Industry selection and business matchingApplication of diversification strategy, in addition to the factors should be considered the core competitiveness of enterprises, also should be aimed at the core competence factors of a number of factors into consideration to choose, such as areas of management, organization structure, enterprise culture, etc. One of the most criticalis a choice, in the field of industrial diversification should be based on the existing resources and enterprise capacity, on the basis of most avoid blindly follow suit, thickness on industry profit for enterprises to enter the market orientation. Business strategy matching problem it is also the important considerations for the direction of diversification, should focus on current and future competitive advantage of the factor analysis of the potential. First of all, the matching relationship is between the businesses. Whether business unit is consistent with the company's strategic vision; new business and strategic match is between the business units. Second is the ratio of enterprise products and services of value chain. Business unit value chain in the formulation and technique can effectively transferred to the other business; The opportunity to serve common use and develop brand products; Looking for business units on the ratio of the value chain value-added resources, competitive power promotion opportunities. Coordination of enterprise resource allocation between the main business and new business order, for the enterprise expansion, stripped of strategic decision-making and implementation to provide powerful guarantee.3.3 Diversification strategy implementation timingNumerous successful cases prove that diversification strategy is the key to the success of the enterprise core competitive ability, the new industry development prospects and the correlation between industries. Diversified business strategy implementation requires enterprise development to a certain height to be implemented; especially enterprises should achieve corresponding degree scale, the competitive advantage. Displays in the main business of the dominant market share, and keep larger competitive advantage in the industry field. Abundant capital; Industry competition is extremely intense, enterprise is faced with the bottleneck of development and so on. Specifically, these on the investigation of performance in the following three points: first, the core competitiveness. As already noted the formation of core competitiveness in the industry leading position within the territory, is the basic premise for enterprises to implement diversification strategy, and is an important method of guarantee profits, and financial support. Enterprise into a diversified business, new industry faces new competition within the industry exclude is difficultto avoid, only relying on business capital, brand support, is likely to get the opportunity to develop. Second is the potential ability. Here refers to the enterprise of the potential development prospects of new industries involved. Enterprise can use Michael Porter (Michael Porter) an analysis of five models from vertical and horizontal sides on the vertical value chain of suppliers, the bargaining power of the buyer were analyzed, and the lateral external market new entrants, substitutes, and the competitiveness of existing in the internal market competitor analysis, provide analysis model for the enterprise. Again, the correlation. Enterprise diversification many take transverse development strategy, produce synergies. This would require the correlation between main and new related industry, in order to reduce the barriers to entry, saving the cost of the marginal cost of market entry and integration, the maximum of enterprise brand strength and technology advantage into full play.3.4 Enterprise strategy implementation of resource integrationThe companies in the diversified expansion forays of common cause are the irrational competition. Correctly deal with the issue of resource sharing, risk aversion and diversified enterprise diversification are important problems that should be considered, in short, is to realize maximize the corporate business unit in the integration of new industry, which produces effect. To understand the concrete from the following several aspects: first, management integration effect. Unity between old and new products, the business management decision-making criteria, less on the basis of meet the requirement of industry management methods and means of change. Second, marketing integration effect. Implementation of old and new business complementary role on market development expand brand awareness, are opening up markets, expand the profit space. Third is the production of integrated effect. In the production technology, equipment, raw materials and spare parts purchasing application to maintain unity, form the scope economy; reduce the unit cost of production. Fourth is the technology integration effect. In the old and new products as far as possible on the core technology of application to realize sharing, cut down the cost of R&D (research and development) and technical input costs, realize coordinated production technology, reduce the enterprise's financial burden.4 ConclusionsTo sum up, the timing and the concrete implementation of the diversification strategy, is to the success of the expansionary enterprise development strategy. It has been proved that rational decision making and implementation of the enterprise is the key for the success of this strategy. Believe in the future enterprise will take the more rational knowledge, the more powerful strength to meet the challenges of globalization.译文企业核心竞争力与多元化经营问题研究Cardinal L摘要多元化经营趋势是企业在经济全球化及市场竞争白热化的情况下经营逻辑演进的必然结果，企业发展也由此出现两种情况：资源共享实现经济效益叠加效果；资源分散致使管理效率下降、市场份额下跌。