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 Competencies
婊子英文Material Source: Journal of Business Strategy, 1993 volume13 issue 6 Author: Amy V. Snyder and H. William Ebeling, Jr.youu
The twin concepts of core competence and business process 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 process perspective address the question "How should we do it?"
qjd是啥意思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 rvices. Some activities are performed so much better than the competition and are so critical to end products or rvices that they can be described as core competencies. When a ries of activities are organized into a system that works better than the sum o
f its parts, this business process can also create competitive advantage, even if component activities by themlves do not.小学3年级英语上册
While business process reengineers have achieved significant汽修学校
success in decreasing costs while simultaneously improving rvice levels, relatively few firms claim to have correctly identified and fully exploited their core competencies or key activities. Throughout this article, we will u 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.
artist是什么意思In the cour of our work with the chemical company, we demonstrated that gaining a strong relative
gazashare in key value-added activities is more relevant to competitive position than gaining share of the related product market. In the 1970s, we ud the slicing knife schematic to demonstrate that asssing competitive advantage from a product perspective can lead to erroneous conclusions. The insight that
全职猎人138underlies the activity perspective is that a firm can not be viewed only as a collection of individual products or rvices 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.
宁波翻译公司
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 rvice.
12younggirlsIn the 1980s, Michael Porter documented the concept of the value chain and ud it to show how a ries 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,becau 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 reprent only a small fraction of the overall value of a firm's products
or rvices. The company that produced the page you are now reading would be better off with a competency in printing and page tup than in packaging, even though the printed journal was delivered in a protective package, becau packaging does not reprent a significant fraction of the overall value of the delivered journal.
FOUR IMPERATIVES OF CORE COMPETENCIES
The GE and Honda examples demonstrate the importance of organizing around "real" core competencies or activities and the implications of failing to do so. Once nior 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 lists
If nior management ttles 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 nior management can make. In our view, propod core competencies should: Contribute significantly to the ultimate value of the end product or rvice.
Reprent a unique capability that provides enduring competitive
advantage Have the potential to support multiple end products or rvices Rule 2: Achieve nior management connsus 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, nior management must reach connsus on which the are and act on the results of their lection process In working to build nior management connsus on key activities, we have achieved good results using the following approaches among others:
Activity-bad benchmarking.
Employee and ast distribution.
"What if" scenario development.
Activity-bad 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:
