企业核心竞争力和核心能力外文文献翻译编辑
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。
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。
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 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 advantage are to be found in management's ability to consolidate corporatewide technologies and production skills into competencies that empower individual businesses to adapt quickly to changing opportunities.Senior executives who claim that they cannot build core competencies either because they feel the autonomy of business units is sacrosanct or because their feet are held to the quarterly budget fire should think again. The problem in many Western companies is not that their senior executives are any less capable than those in Japan nor that Japanese companies possess greater technical capabilities. Instead, it is their adherence to a concept of the corporation that unnecessarily limits the ability of individual businesses to fully exploit the deep reservoir of technological capability that many American and European companies possess.The diversified corporation is a large tree. The trunk and major limbs are core products, the smaller branches are business units; the leaves, flowers, and fruit are end products. The root system that provides nourishment, sustenance, and stability is the core competence. You can miss the strength of competitors by looking only at their end products, in the same way you miss the strength of a tree if you look only at its leaves. (See the chart "Competencies: 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 thattechnologists, engineers, and marketers have a shared understanding of customer needs and of technological possibilities. The force of core competence is felt as decisively in services as in manufacturing. Citicorp was ahead of others investing in an operating system that allowed it to participate in world markets 24 hours a day. Its competence in provided the company the means to differentiate itself from many financial service institutions.Core competence is communication, involvement, and a deep commitment to working across organizational boundaries. It involves many levels of people and all functions. World class research in, for example, lasers or ceramics can take place in corporate laboratories without having an impact on any of the businesses of the company. The skills that together constitute core competence must coalesce around individuals whose efforts are not so narrowly focused that they cannot recognize the opportunities for blending their functional expertise with those of others in new and interesting ways.Core competence does not diminish with use. Unlike physical assets, which do deteriorate over time, competencies are enhanced as they are applied and shared. But competencies still need to be nurtured and protected; knowledge fades if it is not used. Competencies are the glue that binds existing businesses. They are also the engine for new business development. Patterns of diversification and market entry may be guided by them, not just by the attractiveness of markets.Consider 3M's competence with sticky tape. in dreaming up businesses as diverse as "Post it" notes, magnetic tape, photographic film, pressure sensitive tapes, and coated abrasives, the company has brought to bear widely shared competencies in substrates, coatings, and adhesives and devised various ways to combine them. Indeed, 3M has invested consistently in them. What seems to be an extremely diversified portfolio of businesses belies a few shared core competencies.In contrast, there are major companies that have had the potential to build 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。
The core competence of the corporation
The Core Competence of the CorporationC.K.Prahalad & Gary Hamel(1990)摘要：通过一个例子引出问题（引言），指出产生问题的原因――公司高层的管理原则有问题（第1部分）。
并通过分析当前有竞争优势企业的管理原则――注重核心竞争力的培养（第2部分），比较传统的SBU观念与核心竞争力之间的差异，力挺核心竞争力观念的好处（第5部分）。
文章进一步阐述核心竞争力的确定（第3部分）、核心竞争力到核心产品的全面性竞争概念（第4部分）、以及核心竞争力的构建细节（第6部分）。
引言20世纪80年代，人们评价某个高管有没有才能，主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而，进入20世纪90年代后，人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(core competence，也称核心能力，为公司的成长找到新的途径，以美国的GTE*和日本的NEC为例。
（注：为什么会发生评价标准的变化，文章只是以一个例子来说明，市场结果导致对评价标准的反思）一．对公司的重新思考1．传统只关注产品与业务的弊端以及高层管理者的责任（注：此时完全根据业务或是产品来确定战略就显得力不从心，如果市场还是比较稳定，采用产品组合应该没有很大问题。
这里需要问的问题还是：选择标准是什么？）弊端：随着市场边界的变化越来越快，目标开始变得飘忽不定对目标市场的占领顶多只是暂时性的，只关注产品或业务，非常被动，只有落后。
高层管理者的问题：（1）把竞争力下降归咎于高利率、日本的保护主义、过时的反托位斯法、爱闹事的工会以及缺乏耐性的投资者；（2）依赖于政治上或者宏观经济上的“救济”，这并不会给公司提供多少动力；（3）在管理中遵循的原则有问题，西方管理的理论和实践需要改革。
导致传统管理弊端显现的力量：有些公司善于创造新市场，能够快速打入新兴市场并且在业已成熟的市场中大力改变客户的选择模式。
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。
普拉哈拉德C.K.Prahalad、哈默尔G.Hamel《公司的核心竞争力》【中
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。
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。
企业核心竞争力TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporation
PPT文档演模板
•1980
•1988
•1980
•1988
企业核心竞争力 TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporati
NEC VS. GTE (1988)
•NEC
•Word leader
•Semiconductors
•First-tier player
•Telecommunications products •Computers
•In the long run, competitiveness derives from an ability to build the core competencies at lower cost and faster than competitors.
PPT文档演模板
企业核心竞争力 TheCoreCompetenceoftheCorporati
•Not
• Japanese companies posses greater technical capabilities.
•Ye s
• They limit the ability of individual
businesses to fully exploit the deep technological capability.
•Does not diminish with use. And core competencies are also the engine for the new business development. Patterns of diversification and market entry my be guided by them.
•It is also about the organization of work and the diversity of value.
GHamel《公司的核心竞争力》(中英对照)
普拉哈拉德公司的核心竞争力1990年普拉哈拉德(Ｃ.K.Pｒahalａd)和哈默尔（G．Ｈａmel）在哈佛商业评论上发表《企业核心竞争力》（TheCｏｒeＣompetenｃeｏfthｅCorporation)ﻫ很多公司仍在苦苦寻找在全球竞争中克敌制胜的最有效方式。
20世纪8０年代,人们评价某个高管有没有才能,主要看这个人能否重组公司、拨乱反正和精简层级。
然而,进入2０世纪９0年代后,人们评价高管时，将看他们有没有能力识别、培育和利用公司的核心竞争力(corecｏｍpeｔeｎce,也称核心能力）,为公司的成长找到新的途径。
看来，高管们该重新思考一下公司这个概念本身了。
ﻫ让我们首先以美国的GTE*和日本的ＮEC＊*两家公司为例,探讨十年来它们各自的发展轨迹。
20世纪8０年代初期,信息技术已初显欣欣向荣的景象，ＧＴE凭借自己的地位，极有希望成为该行业的主力军。
这家公司在电信业非常活跃，其业务横跨多个领域，包括电话、交换与传输系统、数字化专用自动小交换机(PAＢX）、半导体、分组交换、卫星、国防系统以及照明产品等等。
此外，GTＥ旗下的娱乐产品集团(ＥnteｒｔaｉnmentPｒodｕｃtsGroup）,也就是喜万年(Sylｖania)彩电的制造者，在相关的显示器技术领域也占有一席之地。
1９80年,ＧTＥ的销售额为99．8亿美元,净现金流17.3亿美元。
与之相比，NEＣ当时还只是一个小字辈,销售收入仅为38亿美元。
尽管拥有与GTE不相上下的技术基础和计算机业务,但ＮEC在电信领域尚无任何经验。
ﻫ然而,到了19８8年,NEC却后来者居上,销售额达到218.9亿美元，远远高于GＴE公司的164.６亿美元。
这时,ＧTE实际上已经沦为一家以经营电话业务为主的公司,尽管它在国防和照明产品方面仍占有一席之地。
这家公司的其他业务从全球的角度看已经变得很小。
在过去的几年中，GT Ｅ公司已经把喜万年电视机和Ｔelenet业务剥离了出去,把交换机、传输设备和数字ＰＡBX等产品转交给合资公司生产，而半导体业务则已关张大吉。
针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力外文翻译（可编辑）
针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力外文翻译外文翻译Targeting a Company's Real Core CompetenciesMaterial Source: Journal of Business Strategy, 1993 volume13 issue 6 Author: Amy V. Snyder and H. William Ebeling, Jr.The twin concepts of core competence and business processes figure prominently in most discussions of corporate strategy. The core competence concept helps top managers answer the fundamental question "What should we do?" and the business processes perspective addresses the question "How should we do it?"Both concepts are indispensable in guiding firms to achieve enduring competitive advantage and superior profitability, and both are founded on a simple notion: that the firm is a system of activities, not a portfolio of individual products or services. Some activities are performed so much better than the competition and are so critical to end products or services that they can be described as core competencies. When a series of activities are organized into a system that works better than the sum of its parts, this business process can also create competitive advantage, even if component activities by themselves do not.While business process reengineers have achieved significantsuccess in decreasing costs while simultaneously improving service levels, relatively few firms claim to have correctly identified and fully exploited their core competencies or key activities. Throughout this article, we will use the terms core competency and key activity interchangeably. Business process reengineers have developed an analytically rigorous discipline that can be systematically applied and plainly communicated to others. For the core competency concept to achieve this same success, it must be linked to the underlying business economics that drive competitive advantage, and it must be applied in the same systematic manner as the business process concept.In the mid-1970s, corporate planners began to question whether the product-centered business unit was the most appropriate unit of strategic analysis. In work undertaken for a global chemical company in 1977, Braxton Associates redefined the unit of analysis from product-centered business units to activities and developed insights about how competitive advantage is created in the long run.In the course of our work with the chemical company, we demonstrated that gaining a strong relative share in key value-added activities is more relevant to competitive position than gaining share of the related product market. In the 1970s, we used the slicing knife schematic to demonstrate that assessing competitive advantage from a product perspective can lead to erroneous conclusions. The insight thatunderlies the activity perspective is that a firm can not be viewed only as a collection of individual products or services this merely describes the revenue-generating side of the firm. Equally important, the firm is a system of activities that must be organized and managed to imize the value of its offerings while minimizing their cost that is, to create competitive advantage.The slicing knife example makes an important point, but a key question remains. Once it is determined that a firm enjoys a comparatively strong activity position, the next logical question is "So what?" Achieving strong activity position is critical to competitiveness only when the particular activity adds significant value to the end product or service.In the 1980s, Michael Porter documented the concept of the value chain and used it to show how a series of activities could be viewed as a system designed to create competitive advantagePorter's work was instrumental in popularizing the activity perspective and the importance of activity linkages However, the popular version of Porter's value chain does not consider the value-added concept in sufficient depth. This is unfortunate,because the value-added structure determines which activities are critical to success and which are not.It is usually a mistake to invest heavily in activities that represent only a small fraction of the overall value of a firm's productsor services. The company that produced the page you are now reading would be better off with a competency in printing and page setup than in packaging, even though the printed journal was delivered in a protective package, because packaging does not represent a significant fraction of the overall value of the delivered journal.FOUR IMPERATIVES OF CORE COMPETENCIESThe GE and Honda examples demonstrate the importance of organizing around "real" core competencies or activities and the implications of failing to do so. Once senior management develops the strategic intent to identify, nurture, and organize around activities that can be made unique and enduring, a few rules must be followed to transform this commitment into competitive success.Rule 1: Avoid laundry listsIf senior management settles on more than a handful of key activities or core competencies, it is probably over-reaching and certainly ignoring the intent of the word core. Many successful companies have targeted either one or two key activities Identifying key activities is one of the most important contributions senior management can make. In our view, proposed core competencies should: Contribute significantly to the ultimate value of the end product or service.Represent a unique capability that provides enduring competitiveadvantage Have the potential to support multiple end products or services Rule 2: Achieve senior management consensus on core competencies What business are you really in?Evaluating potential core competencies using the previously described screening approach is a necessary but insufficient step in building a competency driven organization. If competencies are to be nurtured and shared widely throughout the firm, senior management must reach consensus on which these are and act on the results of their selection process In working to build senior management consensus on key activities, we have achieved good results using the following approaches among others:Activity-based benchmarking.Employee and asset distribution."What if" scenario development.Activity-based benchmarking is a technique that can steer debate away from subjective opinions and toward hard facts. For example, if the vice president of operations claims that order processing and fulfillment is a core competency, he could develop a persuasive argument by demonstrating an enduring competitive advantage in order processing speed, cost, and customer satisfaction.A compelling argument can also be built by answering some simple questions about an organization's internal configuration, for example:"What do your employees do? Where are your assets?" If 80% of a company's employees are on the plant floor, the marketing vice-president must argue persuasively to convince his colleagues that marketing and sales is really a key activity. After all, people embody the collective learning so extolled today, and learning becomes a formidable competitive weapon when it is built up and shared among a large number of employees "What if" approaches are also useful in working with a group to select core competencies. A senior management deadlock can often be broken by working out the implications of selecting a single core competency as a guide for future actions.In a deadlocked situation, one might ask "What actions are implied by the adoption of core competency 'X'? What products and markets are most attractive given this core competency? What will the company look like five years from now if competency 'X' guides our actions?"These same questions should be answered for each proposed core competency. While this approach may seem simplistic, it can be combined with other, more analytical approaches to help the group reach consensus on a core competency or two that makes the most sense for the corporation.Rule 3: Leverage core competencies inside the organizationOnce senior management identifies and agrees on the firm's core competencies, it must work zealously to ensure that competencies are continually strengthened, shared widely throughout the corporation, andmanaged in a way that best preserves the competitive advantages they create. The importance of this mandate cannot be stressed enough-if senior management fails to organize around key activities, they will disappear.Recall the slicing knife example: while the electric motor manufacturing activity enjoys a strong relative activity share, motor costs will not necessarily be lower than that of the competition. Only if this company organizes and conducts its operations so as to capture the collective learning taking place in the motor manufacturing activity will it drive costs down as cumulative experience increases.Actions that may be necessary to best exploit identified competencies run the spectrum from physically reconfiguring disparate manufacturing processes to simply communicating more effectively. Consider the case of a leading international manufacturer of electrical products. Division A developed expertise in the design and manufacture of surface-mounted printed circuit boards and used this skill to reduce the costs of its products. Division B had an outmoded, expensive production process, in part because it was several generations behind in printed circuit-board design. Division B could have benefitted from Division A's surface-mount expertise and in return could have driven down costs for both divisions by increasing overall volume. Instead, Division A jealously guarded its capabilities, and Division B continued to struggle.This behavior cannot be tolerated if key corporate skills are to be exploited to their fullest potential. New approaches to project coordination and interdepartmental communication can help to break down the barriers. Today, corporate planners are applauding "adaptive organizations," which retain some vestiges of the old hierarchy and maybe a few traditional departments [But rely on] a pattern of constantly changing teams, task forces, partnerships, and other informal structures.The goal of the adaptive organization is to ensure that the best core competencies, whether embodied in technologies, processes, or employees, are linked to the most promising market opportunities so that learning is imized and travels quickly throughout the corporation.Rule 4: Share core competencies outside the corporation as well Sometimes sharing and nurturing core competencies within a corporation is not enough. As markets evolve, new activities may be required. Moreover, in today's global marketplace, even giant corporations blanch at the cost of launching new products and entering new markets. With product lifecycles shrinking and R&D costs skyrocketing, some companies find it easier to embrace their competitors rather than fight them.Collins and Doorley have studied multinational alliance behavior and observe that "The corporation of the future will need to take a more dynamic view of its business. There is often insufficient time to switchfrom one mode of operation to another as markets evolve [through their product lifecycles]. From the very start of a new business, companies must find ways of building competence in each area of competitive advantage even if they are not well placed to do so on their own."Thinking about alliances from the perspective of key activities that can be shared adds clarity to a complex and difficult partner identification process. As senior executives have begun to focus on imizing the value of the core competencies they identify, alliance activity has increased substantially.REDEFINING CORE COMPETENCIESIdentifying core competencies and inspiring the organization to nurture and organize around them is one of the most important contributions senior management can make. The reverse is also true: selecting the wrong competency or too many core competencies is one of the worst conceivable management errors.It is our experience that an effort like this should be undertaken every three to five years, as part of a periodic review of corporate strategy. However, when an industry undergoes a fundamental change in its value-added structure, a reassessment is critical. Often management cannot respond fast enough and heavy losses result Western Union could not make the transition into the information age because it failed to recognize the growing importance of the transmission infrastructure; iteventually fell into bankruptcy. However, when the core check printing business of Deluxe Check Printers became threatened by electronic funds transfer EFT, Deluxe correctly perceived that it had to cultivate new skills to preserve its historical performance. Senior management redefined its core competency from printing checks to facilitating financial transactions and built a successful EFT and data processing business.In redefining its business, Deluxe recognized that its role in check clearing and processing and its financial institution marketing expertise might offer more enduring value to its customers than printing checks. Deluxe combined these enduring skills with acquired skills in computer automation, and it moved successfully in a new direction.Companies with a widely shared understanding of their unique and enduring capabilities and the evolving value-added structure of their industries will rise above the competition, just as Deluxe and Honda did. By whatever name activities, core competencies, or value-chain elements, firms that define their competitive advantage based on structural superiority in the discrete activities they perform are more often than not long-term winners; these companies turn their core competencies into competitive weapons, not competitive traps.译文针对一个公司的真正的核心竞争力资料来源: Journal of Business Strategy(商业策略期刊),1993 volume13 issue 6作者:Amy V. Snyder and H. William Ebeling, Jr.核心竞争力和业务流程的这两个双胞胎概念在多数关于公司策略的讨论中被突出地计算。
【9A文】物流外文文献及翻译
文献出处:MahpulaA.TheResearchofRegionalLogisticsCompetitiveness[J].JournalofTranspor tGeographR,2015,15(2):30-34.原文TheResearchofRegionalLogisticsCompetitivenessMahpulaAAbstractAtpresent,thedevelopmentoflogisticsisthelogisticsdemandrapidincrease,theeRpanding marketcapacitR,acceleratestheconstructionoflogisticsinfrastructure,third-partRlogistic sfastgrowththetendencR,thewholelogisticsindustrRisdevelopinginthedirectionoftheinf ormation,globalizationandspecialization.Atthesametime,withtherapidincreaseoflogisti csdemand,thedevelopmentoftheregionallogisticsmorerapidlR.Regionallogisticsisanim portantpartofregionaleconomR,theeRistenceanddevelopmentofregionallogisticsisthepr emiseofeRistenceanddevelopmentofregionaleconomR,noregionaleconomRtherewould benoregionallogistics.Regionallogisticsandregionaleconomicdevelopmentlevel,isclose lRrelatedtothescaleandthelevelofthedifferentregionaleconomicshape,sizeandindustrR, determinesthelevelofregionallogistics,thescaleandstructureform.Regionaleconomicinte grationcanmaketheareaandregionallogisticsinclinetoreasonable,adapttoreasonablelaRo utofindustrialstructure,toreducelogisticscost,promotethedevelopmentofregionallogistic s.Ontheotherhand,theregionaleconomicdevelopmentisinseparablefromthedevelopment ofregionallogisticsandregionallogisticstoprovidesupportandguaranteeforthedevelopme ntofregionaleconomR,thedevelopmentoftheregionallogisticswilldriveandpromotethefu rtherdevelopmentofregionaleconomR.Therefore,thedevelopmentoftheregionallogistics hasbecometoimprovetheregionalinvestmentenvironmentandindustrRdevelopmentenvir onment,eRpandingthescopeoftheregionalinfluence,thekeRtoenhancingregionalcompeti tiveness.KeRwords:Regionallogistics;Regionallogisticscompetitiveness;EvaluationindeR1Introduction TherapiddevelopmentofworldeconomRandtheprogressofmodernscienceandtechnolog R,thelogisticsindustrRasanemergingserviceindustrR,isdevelopingrapidlRintheglobalsc ope.InternationallR,logisticsindustrRisconsideredtobetheeconomicdevelopmentofthear terRandbasicindustrR,itsdevelopmentdegreebecometomeasureacountrR'smodernizatio ndegreeandcomprehensivenationalstrength,oneoftheimportantmarksisknownasthe"thir dprofitsource"oftheenterprise,itsroleismoreandmorebig,becamethecurrentaftertheITind ustrR,financialindustrR'shottestemergingindustrRanewgrowthpointofnationaleconom R,andcausedwidespreadsocialattention.Regionallogisticsisanimportantcomponentofre gionaleconomR,istheimportantforceintheformationanddevelopmentofregionaleconomR,itistoimprovetheefficiencRandeconomicbenefitinthefieldofregionalcirculation,impro vethecompetitiveabilitRofregionalmarket,etc.,plaRsapositiveroleinactive.Behindthera piddevelopmentofmodernlogistics,however,therearestillmanRproblems;includinglogis ticscompetitivenesslevelislowerthantheleveloflogisticsdevelopmentisparticularlRprom inent.ChoosinglogisticscompetitivenessdevelopmentlevelevaluationindeR,sincethereis nouniformstandard,canonlRusefreightorfreightturnoverscaletomeasurelogistics.Imple mentationofgoodstransportistheprocessoflogisticsspatialdisplacementatthecenterofthel ink,withthetwoindicatorstomeasurelogisticsscalehascertainscientific,butitcan'treflectth eoutlineoftheregionallogistics.Estimatesoflogisticsdemand,tRpicallRbasedonGDPandt otalretailsalesofsocialconsumergoodssuchasindeRofnationaleconomicaccounting.This isjustasimplemeasureofthemacrolevel,theproportionofdifferentresearchersusedifferent, rangingfromteenstotwentRpercent,therearelargedifferencebetweentheresultsandgivest heoreticalanalRsisgreaterdifficulties.Atthesametime,thelogisticsindustrR'seconomicsta tisticaldatashortage,thereisnocomprehensivelogisticsdemandstatistics,whichmadeusqu alitativeunderstandingofthelevelofunderstandingoflogistics.2LiteraturereviewAbouttheCoreCompetencetheorR,CoreCompetence(CoreCompetence)oftheoriginalint entionistheCoreskillsorCoreskills,thisconceptisin1990bRtheAmericanstrategicmanage menteRpertsmade(C.K.Prahalad)andBritain'sstrategicmanagementeRpertshamer(c.am el),referstotheenterpriseorganizationofaccumulatingknowledge,especiallRabouthowto coordinatedifferentproductionskillsandintegrateavarietRoftechnicalknowledge,andont hebasisofadvantageoverothercompetitorsuniqueabilitR,namelRCoreCompetenceisbuil tonthebasisofenterpriseCoreresources,istheenterpriseintelligence,technologR,products, management,cultureandotherelementsinthereflectionofcomprehensiveadvantageinthe market.AtpresenttherearethreetRpicalacademicargument:theabilitRtheorRrepresentedb RRossbRandChristie'sschool;SchoolrepresentedbRporter'stheorRofmarketstructure;Re presentedbRWernerPhilandPenrose'stheorRofresourceschool.Corecompetitivenessisva lue,theabilitRtointegrated,uniqueness,eRtensibilitRandinherentcharacteristics. RelatedtheorR,thestudRofregionallogistics,thelogisticsresearchofEuropeandtheUnited States,Japanandotherdevelopedcountries,focusontheenterpriselevel,iscommittedtoprov idingenterpriseoptimizationstrategR.AndregionallogisticssRstemandcompetitivenessre search,involved.Accordingtoliteraturereview,theregionalinternationallogisticsfieldofre searchmainlRincludesthefollowingaspects:(1)fromtheperspectiveofmultinationalcomp anRresearchthegloballogisticsresourcesconfigurationandcoordinationproblems.Specifi cincludelogisticsinfrastructure,marketcompetitionmechanismandtheproblemoflogistic ssupplRchainoperation.SuchresearchquantificationtechnologRsuchasusingtheoperatio nalresearchtools,morefortheglobalnetworkofsupplRchainfacilitRlocationpositioning,andcoordinatethefactorRmoresupport,strategicdistributionsRstemdesignproblem.Thisis aneRtensionofthelogisticsenterpriseleveloptimizationstudR,thecommonlRusedmethod sincludemathematicalanalRticalmethod,sRstemsimulationmethodandheuristicmethods ,etc.IfonlRonemethodandgraphicalmethodsolvingtheproblemofthelaRoutofthesite;Mi Redintegerprogrammingsolvetheproblemofsiteselectionoflogisticscenterandlogisticspl anning,etc.(2)fromtheperspectiveofurbaneconomRandtheenvironment,theresearchofur bantrafficnetworkSettings.ForeRampleTanjguchietalfromthecitRlevel,usingadRnamict rafficsimulationmodel,quantitativeresearcheconomicgrowth,thetransportdemand,aswe llastherelatedroadcongestionandenvironmentalpollution.(3)fromthepointofviewoftheci tRgovernment,studRitsroleinmacrologisticsdevelopmentandutilitR.ForeRampleMeirJ. RandSenblatt,studiedtheglobalsupplRchainmanagementininfrastructurefinancing,trans portationandregionaltradingrules,corporatetaRlawofthegovernmentsubsidies,andother effectsofthemainfactorsofglobalproductionanddistributionnetwork,etc.3IntroductiontothetheorRofregionallogisticsrelated3.1Thedefinitionofregionallogistics AcademicdefinitionofregionallogisticshasnotRetunified,amoreacceptedviewisthatregi onallogisticsisthegeographicalenvironmentinacertainarea,withlargeandmedium-sizedci tiesasthecenter,basedontheregionalscaleandscopeeconomR,combinedwitheffectivelogi sticsservicescope,areainsideandoutsideofallkindsofgoodsfromthesuppliertoaccepttoeff ectiveentitRflow;Isthetransport,storage,loadingandunloading,handling,distribution,pac kaging,circulationprocessing,informationprocessing,suchasintegratedlogisticsactivitie s,toserviceinthecompositesRstemofregionaleconomicdevelopment.Itrequirestheintegra tion,theintegrationoflogisticsmanagement,namelRtomeetuserneedsforthepurpose,tothe goods,servicesandrelatedinformationfromthesuppliertoaccepttotheefficientflowofplan ning,eRecution,andcontrolactivities,istheorganicunitRofcash-flow,informationflowand cashflow.3.2Relationshipofregionallogisticssubject,objectandcarrier Regionallogisticshasthecharacteristicsofmulti-levelandmulti-dimensionalstructure,itsb asicelementsincludelogisticsmainbodR,objectandlogisticscarrier,andthestructureoftheb asicelementsandtheircompletesRstem,eachelementshowdifferentfeatures,thusformingt hefunctionoftheregionallogistics.RegionallogisticsmainbodRisdirectlRinvolvedinorsp ecializedisengagedintheeconomicorganizationofregionallogisticsactivitR,includingthe ownerofthegoodsFlow,thethirdpartRlogisticsenterprise,storageandtransportationenterprise,etc.Logisticsi sthesupplRchainlogisticschannels,thestartingpointandendpointofconnectioninthewhole courseoftheregionallogisticsactivitRplaRsadominantanddecisiverole.Elementsoftheint egratedlogisticssubjectistheessentialcharacteristicofmodernlogistics.Therefore,theelementsoflogisticsasoneofthemainbodR,logisticshasadecisiveroleinthedevelopmentoflogis ticsindustrR.SimilaraccumulationandregionaleconomRindustrR,regionallogisticsalsoe mphasizesthelogisticsmainbodRaccumulation,logisticsmainbodRinspaceisbeneficialto promotethelogisticsactivitiesoflarge-scale,intensive,bodRdevelopment,itisalsoaregion allogisticspark,logisticscenter,theobjectivebasisoftheformationofdistributioncenters,an dregionallogisticspark,logisticscenteranddistributioncenterdeterminesthespatialstructu reoftheregionallogisticssRstem.3.3Regionallogisticsandregionaleconomicrelations RegionallogisticsisanimportantpartofregionaleconomR,theeRistenceanddevelopmento fregionallogisticsisthepremiseofeRistenceanddevelopmentofregionaleconomR,noregio naleconomRtherewouldbenoregionallogistics.Regionallogisticsandregionaleconomicd evelopmentlevel,iscloselRrelatedtothescaleandthelevelofthedifferentregionaleconomic shape,sizeandindustrR,determinesthelevelofregionallogistics,thescaleandstructureform .LogisticsisalwaRsaccompaniedbRbusinessflow,themoreadvancedtheregionaleconom R,manufacturingandtradingmoreactive,thelogisticsindustrRasaserviceindustrRwillhav eagoodcustomerbaseandmarketinfrastructure,thegreaterthechanceoflarge-scaledevelop ment.Ontheotherhand,theregionaleconomicdevelopmentisinseparablefromthedevelop mentofregionallogisticsandregionallogisticstoprovidesupportandguaranteeforthedevel opmentofregionaleconomR,thedevelopmentoftheregionallogisticswilldriveandpromot ethefurtherdevelopmentofregionaleconomR.Thus,regionallogisticsandregionaleconom RistheunitRofinterdependence.RegionaleconomRisthepremiseandfoundationofregiona llogisticsdevelopment,isthedominantforceintheregionallogisticsdevelopment;Regional logisticsisanimportantpartofregionaleconomR,istheregionaleconomicsupportsRstem,a ndservetheregionaleconomR.RegionallogisticsdevelopmentgoalandstrategRmustobeR andservetheregionaleconomicdevelopmentgoalsandstrategies.4Regionallogisticscompetitiveness Regionallogisticscompetitivenessreferstoacertainspacerange(generaladministrativeare aastheborder,acrossregions),thelogisticsindustrRaredifferentfromotherareasoftheassign mentofresourceswasmadeintheadvantage,thelogisticsenterprises,governmentpolicRsup portandindustrialinnovationabilitR,eventuallRembodiedthroughregionalinternalbenign competitionwillbemorethanallkindsofresources,theabilitRtoeffectivelRintegratetoform acomplementarRandintegratedabilitRsRstem,reflecttheregionalcomparisonofcompetiti vepowerinthelogisticsactivitR,reflectthesizeoftheregionallogisticsserviceabilitRandthe logisticsindustrRdevelopmentlevelofhighandlow.Thecompetitivenessoftheregionallogi sticsismainlRcomposedofsiRbasicelementsconstitute:socialandeconomicdevelopmentl evel,scaleoflogisticsdemandandsupplRconditionoflogistics,thelogisticsdevelopmentofl ogisticsindustrRintheenterpriseinformationdevelopmentlevel,developmentlevel,themacroenvironment.4.1Thesocialandeconomicdevelopmentlevel Comprehensivesocialandeconomicdevelopmentlevelreflectstheregionallogisticscompe titivenesslevelofsocialeconomicbasis,istheguaranteeofdevelopmentofregionallogistics competitiveness,toprovidesupportforthesustainabledevelopmentofregionallogistics,fro mtheothersidealsoreflectsthecompetitivenessofregionallogisticsdevelopmentpotentiala ndpower.4.2Thelogisticsdemandscale LogisticsdemandscaleismainlRreferstothelogisticsservicesinthefieldsuchasproduction, consumptionandcirculationquantitRandscale,tosomeeRtent,restrictedbRlocalresourcec onditions,itreflectsaregion,thedemandforlogisticsservicelevelandsize:thesizeofthelogis ticsdemand,determinesthesizeofthelogisticsmarketcapacitR,isthepremiseofeRistencean ddevelopmentofregionallogisticsindustrRandthefoundation.4.3LogisticssupplRcondition ThesupplRconditionoflogisticsreferstothelogisticsinfrastructureprovidedforthedevelop mentofthelogisticsindustrR,allkindsoflogisticstechnologRandequipment,isengagedinth elogisticsservicesenterprisesandthecorrespondingprofessionalssuchasthenumberandsiz eoftrafficcapacitRandregionalsituation,thecomprehensivereflectionofregionallogisticss upplRcapacitRandservicelevel,reflectstheeffectonthedevelopmentofthelogisticsindustr Rtopromoteandsatisfaction,isthemainfactoroftheformationanddevelopmentofregionall ogisticscompetition.4.4Logisticsenterprisedevelopmentlevel Logisticsenterprisecomprehensivedevelopmentlevelreflectstheregionallogisticsmainbo dR'sabilitRtoprovidelogisticsservicesandmeetcustomerdemand,embodiesthesubjectofl ogisticsoperationlevel,mainlRincludingtheenterprisecompetitionabilitR,profitabilitRan dperformancelevel,reflectacertainperiodoflogisticsenterprisesintheareaoftheoveralllev elofdevelopment,isthekeRfactorfortheformationofregionallogisticscompetitiveness. 4.5Informationdevelopmentlevel MainlRreferstotheregionalinformationdevelopmentlevelofinformationdegreeandthelev elofinformationtechnologR.Logisticsisbasedoninformationflow,logisticshasbecomemo reandmorerelRonthewholeprocessofaccesstoinformation.ManRlogisticsenterpriseshav eestablishedtheirowninformationmanagementsRstemasacrucialtothedevelopmentofitsc orecompetitiveness,thedevelopmentlevelofinformationistheoneimportantfactorforthef ormationofregionallogisticscompetitivenesslevel.4.6Logisticsmacroenvironment MacroenvironmentreferstothelogisticsindustrRdevelopmentoflogisticsindustrRdevelo pmentplanning,landusepolicR,taRpolicR,marketaccesspolicR,talenttraining,suchasthesoftenvironment,affectingthedevelopmentoflogisticsindustrRreflectstheeRternalenviro nmentforthedevelopmentofthelogisticsindustrRtoprovidefavorableconditionsandtheen vironmentsupport.译文区域物流竞争力研究作者MahpulaA摘要当前，物流的发展正呈现出物流需求快速上升、市场容量不断扩大、物流基础设施建设加速、第三方物流快速成长的趋势，整个物流产业正朝着信息化、全球化和专业化的方向发展。
The_Core_Competence_of_the_Corporation
The Core Competence of the Corporation 企业核心竞争力by C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel 由香港金融管理局Prahalad 和加里哈梅尔C.K.Prahalad and Gary Hamel, The Core Competence Of the Corporation [J]. Harvard Business Review,May-June,1990 P79-93, C.K.Prahalad 和加里Hamel[J] 企业的核心竞争力。
哈佛商业评论5-6 月1990 P79-93C. 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. C.K.Prahalad 是公司战略和国际业务在密歇根大学的教授。
加里哈梅尔是业务政策和在伦敦商学院管理讲师。
其最新的HBR 文章"战略目的"（5 1989 年 6 月）荣获1989年麦肯锡卓越。
这篇文章根据由盖茨的慈善基金资助的研究。
The 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.在最强有力的方式，在全球竞争中取胜是对很多公司仍不可见的。
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。
企业可持续发展研究外文文献翻译2014年译文3000多字
企业可持续发展研究外文文献翻译2014年译文3000多字XXX essential for its sustained。
stable。
and healthy growth。
as well as for prolonging XXX。
it is vital for the development of the enterprise and the improvement of the natural environment。
leading to the n of social development。
This article XXX enterprises。
analyzes the XXX。
XXX.Key words: Enterprise XXX。
key factors。
countermeasures.n:Enterprises in the process of development must adhere toXXX will increase market share and guarantee profit growth。
At the same time。
it is XXX。
By using natural resources and energy in a reasonable way。
enterprises XXX increase profits and expand their scale。
This will XXX.Enterprise XXX。
it XXX。
It is essential to ensure the sustained use of natural resources and energy while also XXX。
and every enterprise must walk the path of XXX.The assurance of long-term economic benefits is possible only through XXX development。
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。
中小企业的管理创新与核心竞争力外文翻译
Management innovation and core competitiveAdvantages of SMEsWANG Wan-xun1 , ZHAO Jie2 , CHEN Hao-wen2(1.Xi’an Tobacco, Xi’an 710000,China; 2．School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an,710049,China)Abstract：The paper first introduces the concept of core competence．Based on that，it proposes that small and medium enterprises(SMEs)should activelyimplement management innovation and describes the contents ofmanagement innovation．The conclusion is that SMEs should build thecore competitive advantages through management innovation，in orderto achieve better performance in the fierce market competition．Key words：management innovation；SMEs；core competitive advantagesDue to China’s rapid economic development，plenty of SMEs have made remarkable achievements and become an important part of Chinese economy．The quantity and sales are both showing continued growth trend．However，while recognizing the great achievements of SMEs，there are still some serious problems that must be noted apart from their great development．For a long time，a large number of SMEs rush into labor-intensive industries，which belong to the extensive economic mode1．Relying on the low-cost labor advantage，some processing and trade enterprises lies in coastal areas，form the export-dependent growth model．Huge trade surplus has brought rich and generous foreign exchange earnings，which are driving the economic development in the region in a certain period．But such mode has a serious shortage of development potential，and the lack of core competitiveness makes enterprises only occupy the low-end market．Therefore the increase space is limited．Particularly in the current economic crisis．the SMEs have been facing difficulties of survival．and the urgent problem is how to change and how to develop．Based on these problems，this paper aims to explore how to improve the management capacity of SMEs，in order to obtain the core competitive advantages．1．Core competenceThe concept of core competence was first proposed by Prahalad and Hamel(1 990)in “The core competence of the corporation”，which published in a respectedjournal called Harvard Business Review．According to Gary Hamel and CK Prahalad (1990)，“Compared to the corporations external environment，their own quality．The cultivation and accumulation of interna1 resources play a decisive role for companies to obtain a competitive advantage，and the core competence is the guarantee to ensure the development of enterprise in the future ”(C.K.Prahalad & Gary Hamel , 1990) .Therefore．the core competence is an internal factor, which originates from high efficient management capabilities．Other scholars have developed the concept of core competencies，and formed several different points of view . Many scholars believe that the core competence is a combined capacity，including a variety of contents，and emphasizing the utilization of resources to create value．Core competence should include the organization’s unique human resources, material resources and organizational and coordination capacity (Duane Helleloid & Bomard Simonin,1 994)．Bogner and Thomas (1994) argued that the core competence is enterprises’ unique skills and better perception to achieve the highest customer satisfaction when compared with the competitors，and this perception includes the tacit knowledge and the corporation’s value (W.C.Bogner & H．Thomas，1994)．As a conclusion，they emphasized that the core competence should include skills, knowledges and values etc．Thus, how to make efficient utilization of resources to establish a unique competitive advantage，especially the tacit competitive advantage，is an important issue about the concept of core competence．2．Management innovationAccording to dynamic capabilities theory，Martin(2000)pointed out that the competitive advantage exists in the enterprise’s organization and management process，which are determined by the exclusive asset configuration and the evolution path of corporation．Based on this，management innovation is defined as how to make better use of companies’resources to conduct more effective management．The general problems in Chinese SMEs are non-normative and unscientific management. Meanwhile，the SMEs are devoid of brand awareness and ignore the value of good brand image as an intangible asset．Therefore，management innovation primarily refers to the establishment of management and brand advantages．2.1 Management advantageManagement is an immanent mechanism．Although it doesn’t have a direct and quantifiable impact on the manufacture and operation，actually，it has a long-termeff ect on the enterprise’s survival and development in all aspects．It particularly does in the corporations without production and processing departments．Management advantage can be measured by personnel quality and internal control．A good quality of personnel is the base of efficient operation of the enterprise．Meanwhile，the strict scientific internal control system is the guarantee of standardized operation．Personnel quality can be measured by education level of management team，average education level of employees，the number of professionals，the number of technological employees and staff．The enterprise should pay attention to the introduction and cultivation of high-quality personnel．The leaders with high education have relatively high cultural and knowledge quality，thus they will lead the company to establish an advanced concept and make the right decision．Employees with a high education level，especially professional and technical personnel，can bring in enormous research and development capabilities，and consequently help the enterprise gain a dominant place in a changing market．Good staff structure makes the enterprise form scientific organizational structure，and results in higher efficiency．Internal control can be measured through the rate of employees’ complaint，the rate of basic satisfaction level，the rate of passed random inspection，the rate of dealing with employee comments and discipline，conducting the enterprises to establish strict and scientific internal control system．The rate of employees’complaint and the rate of basic satisfaction level reflect the attitude and service quality of higher authorities．Then promoting them can improve the service quality and elevate the service leve1．The rate of passed random inspection and discipline reflect the attitude of employees and the restraints of the institution，then promote employees to work harder．So the institution will be enacted and implemented．Rate of dealing with employee comments reflects the acceptance of the comments of staff, then promote constructing extensive acceptance of opinions and forming humbly accepting criticism atmosphere．Based on the definition above，management advantage should include the following specific aspects．2.1.1 Quality of personnel(1) Education level of management teamIndicator description：Education level of management team reflects the basic quality of the management team. The larger the indicator is，the higher quality of the management team is，which promotes the current’s and future’s better operation．This indicator can be measured by the ratio of highly educated management team members to overall management team members．Formula：The rate of highly educated management team members=The number of highly educated management team members×l00％(1) The number of overall management team members(2)Average education level of employeesIndicator description：Average education level of employees reflects the basic quality of the entire staff．The larger indicator is, the higher average quality of employees will have，which leads to a better performance currently in the future．This indicator can be measured by the ratio of highly educated employees to entire staff．Formula：The rate of highly educated employees=The number of highly educated employees×l00％(2)The number of entire staff(3)Number of professionalsIndicator description：Professionals are the core power of an enterprise．The ratio of professionals to entire staff reflects the degree of personnel centrality．The larger the indicator is，the higher organizational efficiency and higher technology centrality will be．Formula：The rate of professionals=The number of professionals×l00％The number of entire staff(3)(4)Number of technological employeesIndicator description：Technological employees are the core power of technological innovation．The ratio of technological employees to entire staff reflects the R&D(research and development)level of an enterprise. The larger indicator is．the higher R& D level and greater innovation potential will be．Formula：The rate of technological employees=The number of technological employees×l00％The number of entire staff(4)(5)Staff structureIndicator description：Staff structure is the distribution of the staff age education，etc．It reflects the overall organizational structure and personnel distribution of all enterprise．This indicator is measured by the ratios of certain kinds of employees to entire staff, for example，the ratio of employees under 40 to entire staff．2.1.2 Internal control(1)The rate of employees’complaintIndicator description：Employees’ complaint reflects problems in the work of higher-level department or unit . The rate of employees’ complaint refers to the ratioof the number of employees’complaint to the total number of work orders．It is a negative indicator．The larger indicator is，the more problems will have to be solved in the enterprise’s management．Formula：The rate of employee complaints=The number of employee complaints×l00％The total number of work orders(5)(2)The rate of basic satisfaction levelIndicator description：Rate of basic satisfaction level is the degree of satisfaction of basic units to higher-level department’s management and service．It reflects the management level and sense of service of higher-level functions．The larger the indicator, the better the management and service of higher-level functions．(3)The rate of passed random inspectionIndicator description：The rate of passed random inspection is the ratio of passed random inspection to overall random inspection．which is about a certain work, carried out by superior to subordinate or evaluation sector to other departments．This indicator reflects the work level of various functions．The larger the indicator is．the higher work level of various functions will be．Formula：The rate of passed random inspection=The number of passed random inspection×l00％(6)The number of overall random inspection(4)The rate of dealing with employee commentsIndicator description：Rate of dealing with employee comments refers to the ratio of responded and disposed employee comments to overall employee comments. This indicator reflects the sense and intensity of the organization’s self-management. The larger the indicator is，the stronger sense and greater intensity of organization’s self-management will be．Formula：The rate of dealing with employee comments=The number of disposed employee comments×l00％(7)The number of overall employee comments(5)DisciplineIndicator description：Discipline reflects the norm ative level of the enterprise’s system and the quality of staff. It can intuitively show the management level of the enterprise．This indicator is measured by the ratios of certain kinds of passed random inspection，for example，the ratio of present employees to overall employees who are required to be present in an activity．2.2 Brand advantageBrand advantage mainly comes from three aspects，the external service capability，the ability to integrate resources and the internal service capability. External service capability can be measured by value of intangible assets and customer satisfaction．Professionally-evaluated value of intangible assets reflects the company’s brand value and customer satisfaction reflects the recognition of corporation from the market，which can conduct the corporation to focus on market response and then continuously improve serv ice quality to meet customers’needs．Ability to integrate resources can be measured by the relationships with upstream and downstream businesses，which can conduct corporation to establish a good relationship with suppliers，and run stable and efficient channels and obtain the bargaining power in the relationships both with upstream and downstream enterprises，thus enable the business to be more autonomous and flexible．Internal service capacity can be measured by employer’s image．A good image of the employer is the guarantee to maintain the incumbent employees，to attract new excellent staff, and to encourage the employees to work with passion，as well as creativity．Based on the above，brand advantages specifically include the following aspects：2.2.1 External service capability(1)Value of intangible assetsIndicator description：Value of intangible assets is the value of the enterprise’ s brand image，goodwill and so on. It needs a professional assessment. The size of the value of intangible assets reflects the tacit competitiveness of the enterprises. The larger value of intangible assets，the greater the tacit competitiveness of the enterprises.(2)Customer satisfactionIndicator description：Customer satisfaction is the degree of customers’satisfaction to the enterprise’s quality of product or service，as well as the recognition of the brand．Customer satisfaction reflects the market impression of the enterprise. The higher customer satisfaction is，the stronger market maintaining and expanding ability of the enterprise will have．2.2.2 Ability to integrate resources(1)Relationships with upstream businessIndicator description：Relationships with upstream business is a very important issue in the enterprise’s operation．It reflects the stability and security of the supply chain．The more close relationships with upstream business as well as the more leading role and bargaining power are，the more reliable supply chain and greater operation freedom of the enterprise will have．(2)Relationships with downstream businessIndicator description：Relationships with downstream business reflect the stability and integrity of the sales channe1s．It relates to the company’s product and service output and income to be obtained．The more close relationships with downstream business as well as the more leading role and bargaining power are，the more reliable channel and secure income of the enterprise．2.2.3 Internal service capacityInternal service capacity is measured by the term of employer’s image．Indicator description：Employer’s image reflects the attractiveness and appeal of the enterprise to talents from the staff and applicants．Enterprise with a good employer’s image indicates the strong maintaining and attracting capacity to talent，which means a good foundation and source for development．3．ConclusionAt present, China’s economy is undergoing restructuring, transforming from labor-intensive to technology-intensive．How to build core competitive advantages in the transformational time is an important issue which maters with SMEs’ survival and development．Now SMEs are struggling under the severe economic crisis．So how to make full use of resources to build up their core competitive advantages，turn crises into opportunities，and seek survival and development，are problems which must be solved．According to core competence theory, SMEs should actively implement management innovation，and change the lagging concepts and management patterns to improve management capacity and develop their own brands to promote the extensive economy transformation to intensive economy, then to achieve better performance in the intensive competitive market in the future．References：C.K.Prahalad&Gart.Hamel．(1990，May-June)．The core competence of thecorporation．Harvard Business Review．D.Helleoid&B.Simionin．(1994)．Organizational learning and a firm’s corecompetence．The Strategic Management Society．W.C.Bogner& H.Thomas．(1994)．Core competence and competitive advantage．A model and illustrative evidence from the pharmaceutical industry．The Strategic Management Society．Kathleen，M.Eisenhardt& Jeffrey，A.Martin (2000)．Dynamic capabilities：What are they? Strategic Management Journal，21，l105．I121．中小企业的管理创新与核心竞争力王万勋1，赵杰2，陈浩文2（1,西安烟草，中国西安,710000；2。
核心竞争力的研究英文版
Is your core competence a mirage?Managers now consider just about everything a potential competence. Are you measurably better, can you sustain the difference, and does it matter? Building a core competence: three options.KEVIN P. COYNE, STEPHEN J. D. HALL, AND PATRICIA GORMAN CLIFFORD1997 Number 1Core competence—the idea that a company can succeed without a structural competitive advantage by becoming the best at a few key skills or in a few knowledge areas—has enjoyed enormous popularity over the past six years. The article that introduced the concept1has been one of the most requested reprints in the Harvard Business Review's history. Executive management programs and MBA curricula routinely devote hours to the subject, and executives often refer to their own and competitors' core competences as key drivers of strategy.But despite all the attention this concept has received, its tangible impact on corporate performance has been mixed at best, as these statements attest:"Core competence has too often become a 'feel good' exercise that no one fails."2"True core competences are hard to define precisely and are often discovered retrospectively. That is, as you experiment, you define your competences by simply describing your successes and failures."3"We talked to [core competence experts] and asked them to help us identify our core competences. But after having them work with our senior management, leading them through some group exercises, we really had a mess on our hands. We could not define what was core as opposed to noncore, and what was a competence as opposed to some process or offering we just did well."4Most managers we talked to were uncertain as to exactly what qualifies as a core competenceOur own observations bear out these views. Few managers we have talked to could claim to have utilized a core competence to achieve success in the marketplace, and even fewer to have built a core competence from scratch. Indeed, most were uncertain as to exactly what qualifies as a core competence.We are left with a conundrum. Core competence is clearly an important concept, and some companies seem to be able to make it work. But for most, it is like a mirage: something that from a distance appears to offer hope in a hostile environment, but that turns to sand when approached.Why do competences seem so elusive? One reason may be that there is no clear basis for identifying them, nor any established way of gauging progress toward them. To address the need for a more rigorous approach, we reviewed the literature, assessed individuals' experience, and conducted case studies of companies that had attempted (successfully or unsuccessfully) to develop a core competence. This research produced four important findings: "core competence" is an umbrella phrase covering two distinct bases of advantage; certain tests can help predict whether a competence-led strategy will be successful; there are three distinct paths to developing a competence, each with its own benefits and drawbacks; and sustaining a core competence requires just as much rigor as developing one in the first place.What are core competences?While most of the examples in Hamel and Prahalad's article concerned knowledge of one or more technologies, executives have extended the idea of core competence to cover many types of skills and functions, including process engineering, production, new product idea generation, and even corporate identity. They treat everything as a potential competence. One executive asserted, "The way I determine core competences is that they are those few things that you do together with the customer that create value."In contrast, we believe a precise definition is essential. To mount a winning competence-based strategy, it is not enough to rely on broad generalizations like "marketing," "product development," or "service." One consumer goods company with a reputation for marketing excellence assumed that it was superior in all aspects of marketing. Yet it is not particularly skilled at pricing, is only average at channel management, and has made some costly errors in a string of new product failures. Its true competence is much narrower: demand stimulation through image-based advertising. Companies must define their core competences with equal precision if they are to use the concept to its full advantage.The definition must also incorporate the applications and limits of the competence. A large regional bank believed that one of its core competences was its ability to process financial transactions with tremendous accuracy. It indeed excelled at cash management, check processing, and several similar lines. But it exited the mortgage servicing business after failing to master the transaction processing tasks involved.We propose a simple definition:"A core competence is a combination of complementary skills and knowledge bases embedded in a group or team that results in the ability to execute one or more critical processes to a world-class standard."Such a definition excludes many skills or properties often cited by organizations as core competences. Patents, brands, products, and technologies do not qualify; neither do broad management capabilities such as strategic planning, flexibility, and teamwork; nor do high-level corporate themes like quality, productivity, and customer satisfaction.Core competences so defined can be grouped into two categories:Insight/foresight competences. These enable a company to discover or learn facts or patterns that create first-mover advantages. Such insights might derive from:•Technical or scientific knowledge that produces a string of inventions, as with Canon's optics knowledge and miniaturization ability•Proprietary data, such as the behavioral and credit-scoring knowledge used by Citibank to build the United States' leading credit-card business in the 1980s•Information derived from having the largest share of leading-edge transactions in the deal flow, such as is now being exploited by Enron in the gas business•Pure creative flair in inventing successful products, such as is displayed by the Walt Disney Company's animated film business and by 3M•Superior analysis and inference, as evidenced by the outstanding financial returns realized by Berkshire Hathaway and the Fidelity Magellan Fund under Peter Lynch using the same data available to other stock analysts.What distinguishes this kind of competence is that value ultimately derives from the insight itself. A company may have to go to great lengths to exploit it, but others could do so just as effectively if they had access to it.Frontline execution competences arise in cases where the quality of an end product or service can vary appreciably according to the activities of frontline personnel. They can be defined as a unique ability to deliver products and services that are consistently nearly equal in quality to what the best craftsman would have produced under ideal circumstances. (Obviously, there is no opportunity for a frontline execution competence strategy when almost anyone can attain such quality, since there is no scope for differentiation.)In commercial lines insurance, for example, an individual underwriter decides whether the company will accept a policy, and prices that policy in line with his/her personal assessment of the risk. Although the underwriter refers to guidelines, he/she also enjoys great personal latitude. Studies have shown that when the "best" (rather than an average) underwriter handles a book of policies, the insurer's return on equity on that book can rise by more than 15 percent.In retailing, Nordstrom's ability to satisfy customers is an example of a frontline competence. Its stores achieve an unsurpassed level of service thanks to the actions and decisions of hundreds of members of its salesforce. These salespeople are embedded in a corporate culture that provides socialization, incentives, and a supportive environment for the Nordstrom way of doing business.Insight/foresight and frontline execution competences can coexist in the same company, but each will require its own managerial focus. McDonald's, for instance, uses its frontline execution competence to engineer the food delivery system at individual restaurants and its insight/foresight to identify winning sites for its outlets.Evaluating core competencesSuccessful core competences are rarer than many imagine. Most companies that claim a competence-led strategy are deluding themselves. So how can an executive in serious pursuit of such a strategy determine whether it is likely to prove worthwhile?The first step is to define the competence as precisely as possible, as described above. With definition in hand, the executive should ask four key questions:1. Are our skills truly superior?It is obvious, but usually overlooked, that any competence-led strategy requires that a company be the best (or at the very least, nearly the best) at its chosen competence. Many companies wrongly assume they can base their strategy on competence merely because a particular skill is important to their business or attractive to their customers. If a core competence is to form the basis of its strategy, a company must be demonstrably better at it than all or most of its actual and potential competitors.Instead of commissioning research, companies tend to infer their superiority from general usage and attitude surveysThe most direct check is simply to ask, "Would independent tests show that we are better at this skill than leading competitors in technical terms or customer opinion (or both)?," and then commission research to find out. Surprisingly, this is rarely done. Companies tend instead to infer their superiority from more general usage and attitude surveys. Frontline execution competences offer output benchmarks that can help a company ascertain its relative capability. In banking, NorthCarolina-based Wachovia Bank has long been recognized for its credit skills. This superiority can be empirically tested by examining its history of credit write-offs and comparing it with the experiences of similar banks. From 1980 to 1995, Wachovia forfeited 0.6 percent of loans to credit losses compared with over 1.1 percent at the average regional bank, which translates into a 6 to 8 point advantage in return on equity for Wachovia.Similarly, publicly available data show that the best property and casualty insurance companies have an underwriting loss ratio that is nearly ten points below the industry average. The difference accounts for an improvement in return on equity of between 10 and 20 points. Where comparative data are not published, companies can usually obtain useful benchmarks through trade associations, "best practice" visits, vendors, and other sources.Measuring superiority in insight competence tends to be harder. Crude measures may exist: the number of patents granted in recent years, technical reviews in trade magazines, movements in market share, or changes in the profitability of insight-dependent transactions such as trading. Often, however, companies have to rely on input rather than output benchmarks. Here they have to assume a direct link between the amount and type of resources they dedicate to the task of finding new insights and their ability to develop superior insights or to be first with new ones.R&D personnel assessments represent a potentially valuable gauge of product development skills, for instance. Relevant measures might include the number of researchers, their academic qualifications, and their ability to influence product offerings. Although this method is less reliable than output measures, it may indicate whether a claim of superiority is justified. A firm that has difficulty hiring and retaining the best graduates should surely doubt its superiority in insight competence. By contrast, Microsoft is able to select from a huge pool of potential employees. "Not everybody has the luxury we have of getting MIT's best and Stanford's best," admits the company's Mike Maples.2. How sustainable is the superiority?A good start to answering this question is to ask how quickly your best-positioned rival could imitate your competence, assuming it knew how. Ease of imitation is a function of how rare a competence is, how long it takes to develop, and how difficult it is to understand its source. Sustainability can be assessed by investigating each of these in turn. Rareness is evaluated by comparing your competence to those of other firms in various industries (not just your own). The fewer examples you can find of similar competences, the more likely it is that you possess something rare.The time it takes to develop a competence is a function of its type and complexity. Even if a firm could pinpoint the source of a competitor competence and set out to copy it, the advantage would not be eroded immediately. With insight/foresight, the imitator must develop supporting mechanisms such as databases or personnel hiring, and it may be necessary to do this sequentially rather than in parallel. With frontline competences, it can take months or years to train personnel, revise policies, unlearn current practices, and make the multitude of other changes necessary to create and sustain a competence. A competence that is supported by diverse functions within an organization, rests on deeply held cultural norms, and draws on employees' tacit knowledge of tasks and processes will be more time consuming and difficult to replicate.Whether the source of your competence can be understood by outsiders often depends on its nature. The inspiration that drives insight/foresight competences is intrinsically difficult to understand. In frontline execution strategies, skills may be deeply embedded in a company's culture. Attempts by competitors to hire underwriters from the best insurance firms, for instance, seldom produce the desired results. An individual underwriter may not be able to transfer an ability that is rooted in an entire culture.When a core competence relies on the subtle alignment of myriad elements, even employees may not know what is special about what they doThe number of organizational elements in a competence contributes to its sustainability and defensibility. A core competence comprising only a few elements is much easier to understand and imitate than one that relies on the subtle alignment of myriad elements. Indeed, in the latter case, even a company's employees may not know what is special about what they do.3. How much value can the competence generate in comparison to other economic levers?A common error is to assume that being the best at a particular skill offsets other disadvantages. The fact that a company has chosen to emphasize one or two skills does not erase a scale or scope disadvantage, or compensate for inferiority in other areas. For a competence-led strategy to win, that competence must be more powerful than other strategic levers relevant to the industry, such as structural advantage or access to cheap resources.Most companies shy away from quantifying the potential value of competences, but it can be done. One consumer goods company set out to create $1 billion in value through a combination of superior marketing, new product development, and realigning the industryvalue chain. To test this plan, the strategy team looked back at where the company had created value in the past. They identified six core competences in the business and used a combination of quantitative analysis and management workshops to see how much value these competences had created. They then repeated the exercise looking forward.To their alarm, they found that some of the very competences they were relying on to create future value had actually destroyed value historically. Moreover, all but one of them would have to be rebuilt from a position of relative weakness. Needless to say, they decided to revise their strategy.Analyzing the economic value of frontline competences is relatively straightforward. One can estimate the value of best-in-class performance over industry average for a particular competence, and compare this with the value created by a similar level of superiority in other skills, by scale advantages, or by input cost differentials. Evaluating superior insight is more complex; it is difficult to know in advance just how superior a new insight will prove to be. That said, a broad picture can be obtained by assessing how much of the total value in the industry chain is added by the company and by estimating how much further technical improvement new insights might be capable of contributing.Is the competence integral to our value proposition?If you are to capture the value of your core competence and generate better returns for shareholders, your investment in superior skills must be tied to actions that will be rewarded by the marketplace. In the case of frontline competences, the link will be direct. A company should not invest in becoming superior in service, for example, if it does not intend to position itself with the customer as the best service provider.Where insight competence is concerned, that competence must be capable of generating future value propositions. Customers do not buy insights, they buy products; an insight must translate into a valuable product. Many companies have had wonderful insights that they were not able to commercialize: for instance, it was Xerox that invented the graphical user interface that revolutionized the personal computer industry, not Apple or Microsoft.Creating core competencesIf the tests above reveal that your company does not actually possess a core competence, you might well ask, "Can we create one in a reasonable period?" Research suggests that it is possible, but not easy. Companies that have managed to do so appear to adhere to a couple of fundamental principles.First, a world-class competence must steer the power structure in a company. The keeper of the skill drives all the company's major decisions, even in unrelated functions. At Procter & Gamble, for instance, the core consumer marketing skill resides in the advertising department (the company's name for brand management). Brand managers exert a dominant influence on all decisions throughout the company. And at Wachovia Bank, even relatively new credit officers routinely block loans proposed by experienced senior line officers.One telecommunications organization is currently being reorganized so that all functions will eventually be funded via the marketing depart- ment. The aim is to ensure that the "factories"—the telephone network and information systems that control the installation of switches and wires—focus improvements to the physical plant on areas where there is demonstrable customer demand. This clear emphasis on a chosen competence will eventually enable market-driven factory development to steer the entire organization.The company's power structure cannot be driven by several functions at onceSecond, a core competence strategy must be chosen by the CEO, not by department heads acting independently. Many companies get this wrong: "Some think everything they do is a core competency. This is especially true at successful companies; whatever department you talk to, the head of that department will say, 'My area is a core competency of the corporation.'"5This does not work; a company's power structure cannot be driven by several functions at once. The CEO must select only one, or at most two, competences to develop at a time.There seem to be three distinct routes to developing a core competence: evolution, where a company attempts to build a skill at the same time as the individuals involved perform their usual jobs; incubation, where a separate group is formed to focus exclusively on the chosen competence; and acquisition, where one company purchases another to obtain the skills it seeks.EvolutionAn evolutionary approach to developing a core competence poses the same challenges as any large-scale change program, plus a few of its own. Evolutionary programs that produce real benefits involve implementing and coordinating dozens of organizational efforts. Companies that have attempted to build core competences via one-off programs almost always fail. One firm recently installed a new incentives system, but saw no change in behavior. Another revamped its training system, to no avail. The inertia of the remaining organizational elements was simply too strong.Success in competence building comes from tackling many capabilities and practices simultaneously. One commercial lines property casualty insurer seeking to improve its core underwriting skills initiated over 60 programs. It changed its hiring criteria, used different managers to conduct interviews, and modified entry-level pay scales. It adjusted promotion paths for underwriters and revamped its training programs. To improve information, it introduced new underwriting guidelines and new information systems to provide more accurate historical and industry data.In addition, the insurer changed its measures and incentives to reward underwriting quality rather than volume. It revised its organizational structure, creating an underwriting manager in each office to break the link with branch managers, who were always under pressure. At headquarters, it made changes in the actuarial and underwriting policy departments, set up an underwriting audit team, and improved links with the claims department. Within three years, the insurer had improved its underwriting relative to the industry by the equivalent of an extra 15 percent return on equity.Any business initiative requires managers to quantify the projected benefits of investment, but this is especially important for evolutionary programs, which invariably turn out to be more difficult than expected. Mounting expenses and setbacks may tempt companies to cut these programs to protect short-term earnings. If they have not calculated the economic benefits they expect to see, they may find it hard to justify continued investment. The precision of such a calculation matters less than the conviction it generates. The potential benefits of the underwriting program were never estimated any more precisely than $40 to $50 million per year, but this was enough to create the conviction to proceed.Companies that succeed with the evolutionary approach demand payoffs from their programs along the wayCompanies that succeed with the evolutionary approach to building a core competence demand payoffs from their programs along the way. As one manager put it, "We don't want any Grand Canyon strategies." When asked what he meant, he replied, "What would happen to a motorcyclist who was 90 percent successful at jumping over the Grand Canyon? We want to have programs that make us money even if they are only partially successful."IncubationThe advantage of incubation is that it allows a competence to grow in a nurturing environmentIn this approach, an in-house team is isolated from the rest of the organization and charged with developing a competence over a two- to three-year period. The advantage of incubation is that it allows acompetence to grow in a nurturing environment. Once it has become strong enough to drive value within the incubator, the competence can begin to be transferred to other parts of the organization.Two companies that have recently followed this approach are Southwestern Bell, one of the seven large regional US telephone companies, and Brown & Root, an engineering services firm. Southwestern Bell developed a new competence in cellular telephony marketing, Brown & Root in logistics management. Both are reaping the benefits. Brown & Root is a global leader in logistics and emergency response management, with contracts with US and foreign governments and annual revenues approaching $500 million. Southwestern Bell has built a leadership position in the US cellular telephony market, with 3.2 million customers and $2.3 billion in revenues in 1995.Both companies created protected and stimulating environments in which the new competences were able to flourish. These environments were bounded not by fire walls, but by one-way membranes that allowed the incubator to beg, borrow, or steal people and practices from the main business, while not being bound by its rules. Brown & Root leveraged its existing project engineering competence in its new logistics business, but broke house rules within the incubator in a way that would not have been tolerated in the main organization. It used aggressive performance-based management approaches and freely adapted and cannibalized parent systems.As in the evolutionary approach, companies using incubation will rely on outsiders. While in the former case the imperative is to hire in sufficient numbers to counteract organizational inertia, in the latter it is to garner the needed skills as quickly and efficiently as possible. When Southwestern Bell's cellular division needed long-distance expertise, it hired not from the "big three" companies, but from the competitive long-distance resellers with "streetfighter" commercial skills.Both Southwestern Bell and Brown & Root focused on specific new business opportunities, not on building competence in the abstract. Their incubators were managed not by "competence stewards" or "knowledge leaders," but by business executives looking for bottom-line results. They employed simple performance metrics that measured the strength of their competences against external benchmarks, and concentrated pragmatically on delivering business results in a challenging new environment. Brown & Root set up its logistics operation at a time when the main business, hit by the oil price slump, was losing close to $1 million per day. Arthur Stephens, CEO of the new venture, confessed, "All of our futures were on the line. It wasmade very clear to us that we needed to build a successful business out of this concept."AcquisitionManagers often resort to acquisition out of frustration with the time and effort involved in evolution or incubation: witness the number of acquisitions performed in recent years for the primary purpose of obtaining skills. In reality, however, acquisition is more likely to fail than either of the other approaches. To improve their chances of success, managers must understand how the type of competence they seek affects their acquisition strategy, and be aware of the structural factors that will influence the outcome.In general, a strategy to acquire frontline execution skills is a safer bet than one concerned with insight/foresight. In the former, a raft of complementary organizational systems (for instance, incentive and knowledge systems) supports and promotes the competence behavior. Even if some people leave after the acquisition, these systems will tend to replicate the competence behavior in new hires. In the case of insight/foresight, however, key individuals who leave the company take their skills with them, and are extremely difficult to replace. Structurally, competence-driven acquisitions are more often successful when the acquired company is not fully integrated into the acquirer, but retains some autonomy. With frontline execution, it is vital to retain all the organizational systems that underpin the competence behavior, at least until the drivers of the competence are understood. Full integration may disrupt or even demolish these systems. In the case of insight/foresight competences, it is important to bear in mind that the acquired company's existing organizational arrangements may have persuaded talented individuals to join it. Rapid changes could make them leave. One professional services firm found that over 90 percent of the managers of the company it acquired left within two years of full integration.Choosing the approachWhile the availability of suitable companies to buy is often the deciding factor in the acquisition approach, choosing between evolution and incubation is a more subtle affair. Usually, though, the decision hinges on a tradeoff. Under the evolutionary approach, it may be harder to create a superior competence, but success will automatically affect the core of the company. On the other hand, the chances of building a new competence are probably better with the incubator approach, but bringing that skill into the rest of the company may pose great difficulty.Past successes with major change programs will favor evolution; a track record of skunkworks, incubation。
- 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。