苹果的创新法则

美国Fortune杂志评出了全球最受推崇的公司。该杂志总结说：如果说所有这些公司有一个共同点的话，就是越是在不景气的时候，越要在创新上投资。 

在这个名单上排名第一位的，是苹果。下面是苹果公司的一些创新法则。 

 

不做市场调查。不问顾客要什么，给他们你觉得他们会想要的。

Apple scoffs at the notion of a target market. It doesn’t even conduct focus groups. “You can’t ask people what they want if it’s around the next corner,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO and cofounder. “We do no market research. We don't hire consultants. The only consultants I've ever hired in my 10 years is one firm to analyze Gateway's retail strategy so I would not make some of the same mistakes they made [when launching Apple's retail stores]. But we never hire consultants, per se. We just want to make great products.” 

 

招聘员工更要看激情，而不只看能力。

“When I hire somebody really senior, competence is the ante. They have to be really smart. But the real issue for me is, Are they going to fall in love with Apple? Because if they fall in love with Apple, everything else will take care of itself. They'll want to do what's best for Apple, not what's best for them, what's best for Steve, or anybody else. ” 

 

专注。专注，或者说战略，不只是你做什么，更是你不做什么。

“Apple is a $30 billion company, yet we've got less than 30 major products. I don't know if that's ever been done before. Certainly the great consumer electronics companies of the past had thousands of products. We tend to focus much more. People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the 100 other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of many of the things we haven’t done as the things we have done.”

 

Challenges for Creative Minds

Got a good idea? Your eco-friendly brainstorm or media scheme might be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars

by Bruno Giussani

Euroscan August 8, 2007, 11:30AM EST

 

If you have an idea for an innovative, executable consumer product or service that can "contribute to an eco-friendly lifestyle" or a plan for the smart use of media in communities, then get ready to jot it down, draft blueprints, and fill out the submission form: Your idea could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Three new initiatives challenge creative minds everywhere to come up with innovative ideas and designs related to sustainability and to digital media. Part of a growing trend of competitions seeking solutions for pressing problems, all three combine two powerful concepts: the social-change catalyzing award (à la TED Prize) and the competition-fuels-innovation contest (à la Ansari X-Prize).

Help Consumers Reduce Global Warming

The Picnic Green Challenge, the first of the three, is an eco-contest organized by Picnic, an annual conference and idea festival that takes place in Amsterdam this year from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29. The best ideas (one or several, depending on the quality of the entries) will win up to €500,000 ($670,000) in funding, plus free consulting and help opening doors that could bring the project to fruition.

The winning projects should be executable; the submissions (which must be received by Aug. 30) will include a concrete plan to bring the idea to market. In addition, organizers are looking for well-designed products and services that can "enable large numbers of people to effortlessly reduce their personal impact on global warming."

The winners will be selected by a jury chaired by Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, who has launched several environmental initiatives recently, including devoting part of the profits of Virgin Atlantic Airways to research on greener fuels. Other jurors are representatives of both big business (Unilever and Tommy Hilfiger) and environmental organizations (Greenpeace and the Climate Group) as well as designers and tech investors. (Disclosure: I've been asked to join the jury.)

Apply Fuller's Trimtab Principle

The Buckminster Fuller Institute, the Brooklyn (N.Y.)-based organization named for the visionary American inventor, has issued a broader challenge. The BFI seeks an idea with "significant potential to solve humanity's most pressing problems in the shortest possible time while enhancing the Earth's ecological integrity." Ideally, write the organizers, the entries should demonstrate Fuller's "trimtab principle", which posits that "small amounts of energy and resources precisely applied at the right time and place can produce maximum advantageous change."

BFI Challenge entries (which are due Oct. 30) can relate to any field, from art to industry—it remains to be seen if such a wide and vaguely described target will yield significant results (the most successful innovation competition to date, the X-Prize, has worked because of its very precise guidelines). The winner will receive $100,000 "to be used to take the winning strategy to the next stage of development". The judges have not yet been announced.

Reinvent Digital Media

Last week the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation in Miami issued its second News Challenge, an initiative that will award a total of $5 million to a range of innovative proposals for using digital technologies to "inform and inspire communities" and "improve the lives of people where they live and work."

Entries, due by Oct. 15, should employ digital media (ideally within an open-source framework), deliver news or information on a shared basis, and involve a geographically defined community. In other words, this is about collaborative journalism and information.

In 2006, its inaugural year, the jury awarded prizes to 25 individuals and organizations for projects such as community databases and immigrant newscasts. Although all the first-year winners were Americans, the News Challenge is open to innovators from any country and of any background.

Bottom Line: Executable Ideas

This is actually a common trait of the three challenges: You don't need to be a scientist to participate in the Buckminster Fuller Challenge, nor a journalist to compete for the Knight money. Ideas are what matters. Executable ideas, that is. This is no time for blue-sky dreaming. All three challenges seek realistic, achievable ideas and designs and explicitly intend the prize money to be used to bring the winning concept to the next stage of development or to market.

Innovation competitions and awards are nothing new, but they are a growing trend. Many have been inspired, no doubt, by the success of the Ansari X-Prize, which saw teams compete for the first private manned craft to reach space twice in two weeks. (The $10 million prize went to Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne team in 2004). The X-Prize itself has now been expanded to push scientific and technological advances in other fields, and similar challenges have been issued by a variety of organizations, from the Defense Dept.'s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (for the development of autonomous robotic vehicles) to the three outlined above.

But the success of the X-Prize isn't the only thing driving the trend. At its core, it reflects a change in how innovation happens. Long-term corporate research and development is declining, structured and slow traditional approaches are weakening, and at the same time we are witnessing the Internet-fuelled rise of open, nimble —and fast—innovation methods. In this perspective, challenges could become a future organizing principle for open innovation.

Bruno Giussani is a Swiss writer, tech entrepreneur, conference host and the author of "Roam: Making Sense of the Wireless Internet." He blogs at http://www.LunchOverIP.com.

  

At 3M, A Struggle Between Efficiency And Creativity

How CEO George Buckley is managing the yin and yang of discipline and imagination

 

Not too many years ago, the temple of management was General Electric (GE ). Former CEO Jack Welch was the high priest, and his disciples spread the word to executive suites throughout the land. One of his most highly regarded followers, James McNerney, was quickly snatched up by 3M after falling short in the closely watched race to succeed Welch. 3M's board considered McNerney a huge prize, and the company's stock jumped nearly 20% in the days after Dec. 5, 2000, when his selection as CEO was announced. The mere mention of his name made everyone richer.

McNerney was the first outsider to lead the insular St. Paul (Minn.) company in its 100-year history. He had barely stepped off the plane before he announced he would change the DNA of the place. His playbook was vintage GE. McNerney axed 8,000 workers (about 11% of the workforce), intensified the performance-review process, and tightened the purse strings at a company that had become a profligate spender. He also imported GE's vaunted Six Sigma program—a series of management techniques designed to decrease production defects and increase efficiency. Thousands of staffers became trained as Six Sigma "black belts." The plan appeared to work: McNerney jolted 3M's moribund stock back to life and won accolades for bringing discipline to an organization that had become unwieldy, erratic, and sluggish.
Then, four and a half years after arriving, McNerney abruptly left for a bigger opportunity, the top job at Boeing (BA ). Now his successors face a challenging question: whether the relentless emphasis on efficiency had made 3M a less creative company. That's a vitally important issue for a company whose very identity is built on innovation. After all, 3M is the birthplace of masking tape, Thinsulate, and the Post-it note. It is the invention machine whose methods were consecrated in the influential 1994 best-seller Built to Last by Jim Collins and Jerry I. Porras. But those old hits have become distant memories. It has been a long time since the debut of 3M's last game-changing technology: the multilayered optical films that coat liquid-crystal display screens. At the company that has always prided itself on drawing at least one-third of sales from products released in the past five years, today that fraction has slipped to only one-quarter.
Those results are not coincidental. Efficiency programs such as Six Sigma are designed to identify problems in work processes—and then use rigorous measurement to reduce variation and eliminate defects. When these types of initiatives become ingrained in a company's culture, as they did at 3M, creativity can easily get squelched. After all, a breakthrough innovation is something that challenges existing procedures and norms. "Invention is by its very nature a disorderly process," says current CEO George Buckley, who has dialed back many of McNerney's initiatives. "You can't put a Six Sigma process into that area and say, well, I'm getting behind on invention, so I'm going to schedule myself for three good ideas on Wednesday and two on Friday. That's not how creativity works." McNerney declined to comment for this story.
PROUD CREATIVE CULTURE
The tension that Buckley is trying to manage—between innovation and efficiency—is one that's bedeviling CEOs everywhere. There is no doubt that the application of lean and mean work processes at thousands of companies, often through programs with obscure-sounding names such as ISO 9000 and Total Quality Management, has been one of the most important business trends of past decades. But as once-bloated U.S. manufacturers have shaped up and become profitable global competitors, the onus shifts to growth and innovation, especially in today's idea-based, design-obsessed economy. While process excellence demands precision, consistency, and repetition, innovation calls for variation, failure, and serendipity.
Indeed, the very factors that make Six Sigma effective in one context can make it ineffective in another. Traditionally, it uses rigorous statistical analysis to produce unambiguous data that help produce better quality, lower costs, and more efficiency. That all sounds great when you know what outcomes you'd like to control. But what about when there are few facts to go on—or you don't even know the nature of the problem you're trying to define? "New things look very bad on this scale," says MITSloan School of Management professor Eric von Hippel, who has worked with 3M on innovation projects that he says "took a backseat" once Six Sigma settled in. "The more you hardwire a company on total quality management, [the more] it is going to hurt breakthrough innovation," adds Vijay Govindarajan, a management professor at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. "The mindset that is needed, the capabilities that are needed, the metrics that are needed, the whole culture that is needed for discontinuous innovation, are fundamentally different."
The exigencies of Wall Street are another matter. Investors liked McNerney's approach to boosting earnings, which may have sacrificed creativity but made up for it in consistency. Profits grew, on average, 22% a year. In Buckley's first year, sales approached $23 billion and profits totaled $1.4 billion, but two quarterly earnings misses and a languishing stock made it a rocky ride. In 2007, Buckley seems to have satisfied many skeptics on the Street, convincing them he can ignite top-line growth without killing the McNerney-led productivity improvements. Shares are up 12% since January.
Buckley's Street cred was hard-won. He's nowhere near the management rock star his predecessor was. McNerney could play the President on TV. He's tall and athletic, with charisma to spare. Buckley is of average height, with a slight middle-age paunch, an informal demeanor, and a scientist's natural curiosity. In the office he prefers checked shirts and khakis to suits and ties. He's bookish and puckish, in the way of a tenured professor.
Buckley, in short, is just the kind of guy who has traditionally thrived at 3M. It was one of the pillars of the "3M Way" that workers could seek out funding from a number of company sources to get their pet projects off the ground. Official company policy allowed employees to use 15% of their time to pursue independent projects. The company explicitly encouraged risk and tolerated failure. 3M's creative culture foreshadowed the one that is currently celebrated unanimously at Google (GOOG ).
Perhaps all of that made it particularly painful for 3M's proud workforce to deal with the hard reality the company faced by the late '90s. Profit and sales growth were wildly erratic. It bungled operations in Asia amid the 1998 financial crisis there. The stock sat out the entire late '90s boom, budging less than 1% from September, 1997, to September, 2000. The flexibility and lack of structure, which had enabled the company's success, had also by then produced a bloated staff and inefficient workflow. So McNerney had plenty of cause to whip things into shape.
GREEN-BELT TRAINING REGIMEN
One of his main tools was Six Sigma, which originated at Motorola (MOT ) in 1986 and became a staple of corporate life in the '90s after it was embraced by GE. The term is now so widely and divergently applied that it's hard to pin down what it actually means. At some companies, Six Sigma is plainly a euphemism for cost-cutting. Others explain it as a tool for analyzing a problem (high shipping costs, for instance) and then using data to solve each component of it. But on a basic level, Six Sigma seeks to remove variability from a process. In that way you avoid errors, or defects, and increase predictability (technically speaking, Six Sigma quality has come to be accepted as no more than 3.4 defects per million).
At 3M, McNerney introduced the two main Six Sigma tools. The first and more traditional version is an acronym known as DMAIC (pronounced "dee-may-ic"), which stands for: define, measure, analyze, improve, control. These five steps are the essence of the Six Sigma approach to problem solving. The other flavor is called Design for Six Sigma, or DFSS, which purports to systematize a new product development process so that something can be made to Six Sigma quality from the start.
Thousands of 3Mers were trained as black belts, an honorific awarded to experts who often act as internal consultants for their companies. Nearly every employee participated in a several-day "green-belt" training regimen, which explained DMAIC and DFSS, familiarized workers with statistics, and showed them how to track data and create charts and tables on a computer program called Minitab. The black belts fanned out and led bigger-scale "black-belt projects," such as increasing production speed 40% by reducing variations and removing wasted steps from manufacturing. They also often oversaw smaller "green-belt projects," such as improving the order fulfillment process. This Six Sigma drive undoubtedly contributed to 3M's astronomical profitability improvements under McNerney; operating margins went from 17% in 2001 to 23% in 2005.
While Six Sigma was invented as a way to improve quality, its main value to corporations now clearly is its ability to save time and money. McNerney arrived at a company that had been criticized for throwing cash at problems. In his first full year, he slashed capital expenditures 22%, from $980 million to $763 million, and 11% more to a trough of $677 million in 2003. As a percentage of sales, capital expenditures dropped from 6.1% in 2001 to just 3.7% in 2003. McNerney also held research and development funding constant from 2001 to 2005, hovering over $1 billion a year. "If you take over a company that's been living on innovation, clearly you can squeeze costs out," says Charles O'Reilly, a Stanford Graduate School of Business management professor. "The question is, what's the long-term damage to the company?"
Under McNerney, the R&D function at 3M was systematized in ways that were unheard of and downright heretical in St. Paul, even though the guidelines would have looked familiar at many other conglomerates. Some employees found the constant analysis stifling. Steven Boyd, a PhD who had worked as a researcher at 3M for 32 years before his job was eliminated in 2004, was one of them. After a couple of months on a research project, he would have to fill in a "red book" with scores of pages worth of charts and tables, analyzing everything from the potential commercial application, to the size of the market, to possible manufacturing concerns.
Traditionally, 3M had been a place where researchers had been given wide latitude to pursue research down whatever alleys they wished. After the arrival of the new boss, the DMAIC process was laid over a phase-review process for innovations—a novelty at 3M. The goal was to speed up and systematize the progress of inventions into the new-product pipeline. The DMAIC questions "are all wonderful considerations, but are they appropriate for somebody who's just trying to...develop some ideas?" asks Boyd. The impact of the Six Sigma regime, according to Boyd and other former 3Mers, was that more predictable, incremental work took precedence over blue-sky research. "You're supposed to be having something that was going to be producing a profit, if not next quarter, it better be the quarter after that," Boyd says.
For a long time, 3M had allowed researchers to spend years testing products. Consider, for example, the Post-it note. Its inventor, Art Fry, a 3M scientist who's now retired, and others fiddled with the idea for several years before the product went into full production in 1980. Early during the Six Sigma effort, after a meeting at which technical employees were briefed on the new process, "we all came to the conclusion that there was no way in the world that anything like a Post-it note would ever emerge from this new system," says Michael Mucci, who worked at 3M for 27 years before his dismissal in 2004. (Mucci has alleged in a class action that 3M engaged in age discrimination; the company says the claims are without merit.)
There has been little formal research on whether the tension between Six Sigma and innovation is inevitable. But the most notable attempt yet, by Wharton School professor Mary Benner and Harvard Business School professor Michael L. Tushman, suggests that Six Sigma will lead to more incremental innovation at the expense of more blue-sky work. The two professors analyzed the types of patents granted to paint and photography companies over a 20-year period, before and after a quality improvement drive. Their work shows that, after the quality push, patents issued based primarily on prior work made up a dramatically larger share of the total, while those not based on prior work dwindled.
Defenders of Six Sigma at 3M claim that a more systematic new-product introduction process allows innovations to get to market faster. But Fry, the Post-it note inventor, disagrees. In fact, he places the blame for 3M's recent lack of innovative sizzle squarely on Six Sigma's application in 3M's research labs. Innovation, he says, is "a numbers game. You have to go through 5,000 to 6,000 raw ideas to find one successful business." Six Sigma would ask, why not eliminate all that waste and just come up with the right idea the first time? That way of thinking, says Fry, can have serious side effects. "What's remarkable is how fast a culture can be torn apart," says Fry, who lives in Maplewood, Minn., just a few minutes south of the corporate campus and pops into the office regularly to help with colleagues' projects. "[McNerney] didn't kill it, because he wasn't here long enough. But if he had been here much longer, I think he could have."
REINVIGORATED WORKFORCE
Buckley, a PhD chemical engineer by training, seems to recognize the cultural ramifications of a process-focused program on an organization whose fate and history is so bound up in inventing new stuff. "You cannot create in that atmosphere of confinement or sameness," Buckley says. "Perhaps one of the mistakes that we made as a company—it's one of the dangers of Six Sigma—is that when you value sameness more than you value creativity, I think you potentially undermine the heart and soul of a company like 3M."
In recent years, the company's reputation as an innovator has been sliding. In 2004, 3M was ranked No. 1 on Boston Consulting Group's Most Innovative Companies list (now the BusinessWeek/BCG list). It dropped to No. 2 in 2005, to No. 3 in 2006, and down to No. 7 this year. "People have kind of forgotten about these guys," says Dev Patnaik, managing associate of innovation consultancy Jump Associates. "When was the last time you saw something innovative or experimental coming out of there?"
Buckley has loosened the reins a bit by removing 3M research scientists' obligation to hew to Six Sigma objectives. There was perhaps a one-size-fits-all approach to the application of Six Sigma as the initial implementation got under way, says Dr. Larry Wendling, a vice-president who directs the "R" in 3M's R&D operation. "Since [McNerney] was driving it to the organization, you know, there were metrics established across the organization and quite frankly, some of them did not make as much sense for the lab as they did other parts of the organization," Wendling says. What sort of metrics? Keeping track of how many black-belt and green-belt projects were completed, for one.
In fact, it's not uncommon for Six Sigma to become an end unto itself. That may be appropriate in an operations context—at the end of the year, it's easy enough for a line manager to count up all the money he's saved by doing green-belt projects. But what 3Mers came to realize is that these financially definitive outcomes were much more elusive in the context of a research lab. "In some cases in the lab it made sense, but in other cases, people were going around dreaming up green-belt programs to fill their quota of green-belt programs for that time period," says Wendling. "We were letting, I think, the process get in the way of doing the actual invention."
To help get the creative juices flowing, Buckley is opening the money spigot—hiking spending on R&D, acquisitions, and capital expenditures. The overall R&D budget will grow 20% this year, to $1.5 billion. Even more significant than the increase in money is Buckley's reallocation of those funds. He's funneling cash into what he calls "core" areas of 3M technology, 45 in all, from abrasives to nanotechnology to flexible electronics. That is another departure from McNerney's priorities; he told BusinessWeek in 2004 that the 3M product with the most promise was skin-care cream Aldara, the centerpiece to a burgeoning pharmaceuticals business. In January, Buckley sold the pharma business for $2 billion.
Quietly, the McNerney legacy is being revised at 3M. While there is no doubt the former CEO brought some positive change to the company, many workers say they are reinvigorated now that the corporate emphasis has shifted from profitability and process discipline to growth and innovation. Timm Hammond, the director of strategic business development, says "[Buckley] has brought back a spark around creativity." Adds Bob Anderson, a business director in 3M's radio frequency identification division: "We feel like we can dream again."

中国式创新

作者：波士顿咨询 Thomas Hout 出处：华尔街日报

中国发现建设创新型经济比生产型经济要困难得多。意识到高科技产业正逐渐被外国公司主导后，中国政府正在不断向研究开发机构拨款，并向中国公司提供补贴。但是中国想要的那种创新并不能简单地用钱购买，中国需要购买的创新也不是政府能够创造的。

现在中国国内生产总值(GDP)的1.6%（约为400亿美元）被用于研发，比五年前的1%有所上升。但是相比之下，这个比例仍远远低于美国的2.6%及日本的3.2%。中国的目标是缩小与这些国家在高科技产品开发上的差距。中国正在迅速发展其专利技术基础。但是，中国授予本国公司的专利中仅有12%属于自主创新，而授予外资公司的专利中自主创新占到了80%。政府承担了全国研发工作的四分之一（相当于美国政府承担比例的三倍），并且为国有企业的研发工作提供资金。中国的研发支出正在以每年17%的速度增长，是美国此类支出增长速度的四倍。

现在真正迫切的事情是政府减少此类支出。尽管中国高科技产品出口从2000年开始每年增长42%，但其中中国公司的产品仅占12%，而且这一比例在不断下降。另外的88%全部来自跨国公司，他们还继续在中国建立最先进的研发设施，以与世界其他地方的实验室保持同步，这也为中国带来了更多的创新。在华注册的在信息技术方面持有美国专利的前10大公司中，仅有一家是中国大陆的本土公司——华为。其他的都是西方公司以及日本公司等，这些企业的资金大多来自风险投资，而非公共资金。在快速发展的技术领域，政府一般只在基础研发突破方面提供资金上的帮助，而这些基础研发通常是在进行产品创新的15-25年前进行。

但这并不意味着中国公司不会创新。事实上，它们在另一种不同的创新上表现尤佳：找出开创新业务并节约资本的新方法。比如，格兰仕(Galanz)最早说服欧洲品牌将最新的生产设备带到中国，利用当地的低薪及工作时间长的优势进行生产，然后再将产品出口至欧洲。之后，格兰仕通过收入共享协议来利用欧洲的设备生产只在中国销售的产品，以此推出了自己的品牌。现在，格兰仕是按产量计全球最大的微波炉生产商。

中国的经营模式创新通常具有机会主义的色彩，但最重要的是这种创新很快就会产生回报。通常，一个新创企业家或者几个经理人对未满足的消费者需求拥有独特的见解，然后就此开办一家企业。从想法产生到实施的时间通常很短，所需资金也并不多。以携程旅行网(Ctrip)为例，这家企业开办于1999年，并迅速成长为中国备受青睐的旅行服务公司。携程意识到在中国使用信用卡支付可能发生的诸多问题，于是他们提供便利的网上订票服务，由快递公司送票，客户在收到票之后再支付现金。

与此相反，科技创新则要求一系列互补技术巧妙地结合在一起。创新者必须是大型企业，或者如果是新创企业的话，它们必须集中在一个技术密集的企业群中，便于相互沟通及共享知识技术。由于很多事情必须同时进行，研发一般会耗费一定的时间。因此，研发能否获得成功通常是一个风险较大的赌注。虽然这种创新不能用钱直接购买，但所有的参与者－－大技术公司、新创企业、风险投资者以及科研机构－－却是通过巨大的资金流联系在一起。

中国企业正是在这个地方碰到了问题。良好的经营模式创新必须由以技术为基础的产品创新作支撑。以宁波波导为例，它是中国最大的手机生产商之一。几年前，宁波波导通过促销活动及低廉的价格与诺基亚(Nokia)、三星(Samsung)及摩托罗拉(Motorola)等市场领头羊展开了激烈的竞争。但是，这家公司在新一代创新手机上却没能跟上市场发展的脚步，因为新一代技术的所有基础硬件及软件都控制在它的这些竞争对手手中。

核心问题是：中国企业为了开发新技术而承担与之相关的长期风险的做法很少获得回报。新知识产权时常面临被侵犯的风险，这导致中国企业之间不愿分享信息及进行合作。即使面临直接影响它们的全球技术变革，国有企业仍可以日复一日做着同样的事情并继续生存下来。电信及金融行业就是好例子，行业内的中国公司受着政府政策的严密保护。

没有几家中国企业的管理文化中有实验精神，它们也很少设立一个小团队来负责收集及实施新想法。国有企业的管理层收购通常是被禁止的。

不过，这一切都在发生变化。科技园区在中国不断涌现，特别是北京及上海的信息、通讯及生化科学领域更是如此。但是这些区域尚不成熟。

要想进行更多的创新，他们需要科学家、工程师、睿智的投资者以及知识产权律师搭建更加密集、互动的合作网络。新创企业家需要更多的风险投资资本来开办企业，需要风险承受力更强的IPO投资者。中国政府需要不断加强知识产权保护，让国有企业进行更多的技术革新，并且允许科学家分享基于国家资金支持的研究成果而创立的新创企业的利润。一旦这些条件就位，更多的创新将会接踵而至。（Thomas Hout是波士顿咨询公司(Boston Consulting Group)驻香港的高级顾问。）

 

Insight

By Chris Conley

 

Innovation All the Time

That's the daily order of business in the creative professions. Here's how to apply their practices to your own company

When was the last time you felt engaged with your work and your colleagues—like you were really making something new happen? I'm not talking about sending a PowerPoint deck around for feedback or soliciting ideas from everyone on an important initiative. I'm talking about really working on something together, giving shape to an idea, and spending time actually building it. It doesn't happen that often, and when it does, it usually happens "off the radar." Our current work-a-day world can be summed up in an easy to remember acronym: EEEMP.

Say it, "EEEMP!" Sounds a bit odd, doesn't it? It stands for "E-mail, E-mail, E-mail, Meetings & Presentations." It's odd that we allow ourselves to be enslaved to this way of working. The good news is that there's an alternative that's far more productive and rewarding.
Organizations in the so-called creative industries, such as fashion and entertainment, are the leaders in this way of working. At businesses such as Nike (NKE), Electronic Arts (EA), and my personal favorite, Pixar, innovation is a natural and everyday by-product of the way that people work through making and shaping ideas. Designers, artists, and engineers are constantly making and refining possible solutions through sketches, prototypes, and simulations.
ANTI-INTELLECTUAL BIAS.  Businesses in more "serious" industries, in contrast, pour significant resources into the study and analysis of innovation opportunities. Research reports, e-mails, and meetings to discuss opportunities take precedence over the creation of new, innovative content. Working on the actual idea—making sketches or prototypes—is seen as having already committed to a final direction.
Perhaps worse is the common practice of outsourcing any and all creative work because it's thought to be merely a production step. When companies do this, they forfeit the important dimensions of authorship and innovation that occur when people explore the concept tangibly and not just analytically. Without the chance to explore and evaluate the preliminary embodiment of ideas, the organization will struggle to identify good ideas to pursue—and fail to shape those ideas once they commit to them.
Yet long-standing, deeply held beliefs keep people working in their cubes, running to meetings, and otherwise zipping around while achieving little real progress. Our educational system has failed to balance the value of the intellectual with the tangible. "Thinking strategically" is automatically seen as more valuable than the shaping of an actual product.
GAINING INSIGHT.  I'm not arguing that designers should run the company, but I am suggesting that strategy making, market research, and product management teams use graphic and product design to explore and communicate concepts during the normal course of their work. Attempts to convey strategy become far more powerful when you can show what the company would be doing, making, and communicating if the strategy were successfully implemented. This doesn't require extensive production design of the actual environments, branding campaigns, and products. Instead, you can rely on models, simulations, and visualizations. It's fun, exciting, and more informative than a deck.
The reasons why it pays to get better at innovation are clear. Successful new products and services drive a disproportionate share of growth. Witness everything from Motorola's (MOT) RAZR to Whole Foods (WFMI) grocery stores to eBay's (EBAY) online community auctions to each and every one of Pixar's animated features.
Together, this handful of new products and services is worth tens of billions of dollars in market value. The surprising thing is how little insight companies have about the simple reasons these innovations were so successful. They also fail to realize how these innovations were shaped by the companies over time. Without this insight, organizations continue to try and analyze their way to success.
FIVE WAYS.  To become orders of magnitude better at bringing successful new products and services to market, businesses have to start working more like Pixar and less like McKinsey. Here are five ways to get started:
1. Take a Fresh Look.
Figure out what the unique character of your new product or service could be by really experiencing the market and seeing it with new eyes. Even though they all "knew" how fish swim and had seen it throughout their lives, Pixar creatives intently observed the movement of fish, the behavior of marine animals, and details of underwater terrains while planning Finding Nemo.
This inspection of everyday aquatic life was necessary to capture the essence of Nemo's story and to bring it to life. Likewise, if you think you know what the market wants based on multiple-choice surveys and feedback from salespeople, you're missing a feel for the street that can feed a new, innovative perspective on it.
2. Cast a New Role.
Establish a creative director role in addition to a project manager. Filmmaking always pairs a director with a producer—and each has a strong role to play. The director is responsible for the emotive quality of the film, the producer for the timetable, budget, and resources.
A creative director is great at assessing whether the work the organization is doing is remarkable and of high quality. Jeff Hawkins, who invented and shaped the first Palm (PALM) Pilot is a creative director. The director and producer constantly debate and negotiate what's desirable with what's feasible. Most organizations make no distinction between these roles, and as a result deliver banal quality on time, or never finish because the ideal couldn't be achieved.
3. Dive Into the Talent Pool.
Use the full range of talent in your organization. Companies are notorious for turning great people into office drones and harried executives. Pixar relies on more than 15 different kinds of artists and technical professionals to achieve success. Even though their process is iterative and organic, there's a strong organizational design, and everyone on the team contributes creatively to the project from their own expertise.
In your efforts aimed at innovation, involve people from each of your operational areas and get them engaged in the challenges of the problem. More heads (and hands) are better than one.
4. Go Lo-Fi.
Pixar doesn't work a day without drawing, modeling, sculpting, coding, or making other representations of the scenes in the film. Storylines, characters, and environments are all created in simple ways so they can be experienced and better evaluated in terms of whether they deliver value and build on the quality of the film.
The same can be done in our own organizations without resorting to full engineering or production prototypes. Use foam core and a color printer to simulate a new medical device. Get one of your young Flash whizzes to mock up an idea for an easy-to-use interface. Hack an existing product into something new. Rent a warehouse and build a new show floor from 2x4's, IKEA lights, and fabric.
5. Talk the Talk.
Foster a culture of productive give and take. If we've lost anything in modern business, it's the ability to engage in a productive critique of work as it's being shaped. People are so concerned about looking smart or being right that we've lost an ability to explore possibilities together.
For any given film production, "dailies" subject the prior day's creative work to intense review and criticism. It isn't a review to see whether the artists were right or wrong but a critique to see what can be done to make a scene even better. Imagine the quality of your product or service being shaped on a daily or weekly basis throughout its conception and development cycle. This kind of critique pushes everyone beyond their current talents to innovative achievements. It isn't a cakewalk, but it delivers unquestionable value in the end.
If you're pursuing initiatives aimed at innovation in your own company, you can't afford to ignore these principles and behaviors. Implementing them won't be easy and will require changes in attitude up and down the organization. But these ways of working are a whole lot more rewarding and productive for the company than the alternative—EEEMP!

 

Business angels

Giving ideas wings

Sep 14th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Entrepreneurs can struggle to raise the first million or so, even with a good idea. But a business angel might smile on them

IN AUGUST 2003 Skype released the first version of its software, which allows people to make free voice and video calls over the internet. The company had raised its seed capital only a year before from a group of private investors, who had later been joined by venture-capital funds. It was a remarkable investment. In September 2005 Skype was bought by eBay for €2.1billion ($2.6 billion). The deal made its Scandinavian founders, Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, millionaires many times over. For their part, the earliest investors saw a huge return, 350 times or so, on their estimated €2m investment.

Few start-ups can hope to become so big so fast. Most new companies wither and die in their first few years, leaving their investors out of pocket. That risk and would-be investors' unavoidable lack of knowledge when faced with unproven business plans explain why entrepreneurs struggle to finance their dreams. Not only must entrepreneurs find the money to get a business off the ground, but they will also need further finance if it is to flourish.

The search was never easy. But it has become harder in recent years with the opening of what has been called the “equity gap”—a scarcity of ready sources of outside financing for the smallest companies. This matters in an age that has recognised the part new businesses play in invigorating economies. Governments everywhere are desperate to help entrepreneurs start the companies that will create new jobs and new wealth.

Which is where the ragtag army of “business angels” comes in. Professional venture capitalists get all the kudos—and most of the money—but the informal choir of business angels plays a large role in starting the innovation machine rolling. Between them, the angels form an unofficial and little-known capital market on which the future is built.

The equity gap exists because two well-trawled sources of finance no longer overlap. In their earliest stages, start-up companies typically rely on precarious financing, such as their owners' credit cards, second mortgages or cash from close contacts. There is a limit to these sources, which professional venture capitalists disparagingly called the “three Fs”—family, friends and fools. They might provide the first $250,000 or so. But that is too meagre to bring to market the sort of groundbreaking ideas, like Skype, that can eventually turn into a billion-dollar business. So another source of funds is needed.

Once, businesses would have turned to venture capitalists, who put up money in return for a stake in the enterprise. A decade or more ago $1m could have been raised this way. But as venture-capital funds have developed and expanded, so their ambitions have grown with them. Many are no longer interested in deals unless they are worth much more.

Most venture-capital firms in America will now consider only deals in which they can invest at least $7m, says Jeffrey Sohl, director of the Centre for Venture Research at the University of New Hampshire. Europe is not much different. British entrepreneurs struggle to find well organised investors if they are looking for less than £2m-3m ($3.7m-5.6m), estimates Colin Mason, academic director of the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow.

A wing and a prayer

Where can business people go to bridge this equity gap? British entrepreneurs could try a television programme such as the BBC's “Dragons' Den”. Contestants pitch their business plans to a group of potential investors to win the prize of some backing. But television is about entertainment. So, one of the show's advisers recently confided, “I find them a few mad people and plonkers.”

To avoid humiliation, it might be better to seek help privately, from some business angels. Angels are rich. They usually have business experience and are often prepared to invest in a risky venture. But they do not operate by the standard rules typical of stock exchanges or formal investment firms.

For all its obscurity, the market they operate in is huge. Mr Sohl estimates there are up to 350,000 business angels in America who invest around $30 billion a year in some 50,000 ventures, an average of $600,000 per investment. In contrast, venture-capital funds in America invest on average $6m in each venture, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Business angels have a long history. America's National Venture Capital Association believes that over the past 30 years they have put more than twice as much money into new ventures as have venture-capital funds. In Europe business angels may be investing between €10 billion and €20 billion each year, thinks Mr Mason. He estimates there are as many as 40,000 business angels in Britain alone.

The angels' distant origins are on display in Mel Brooks's comedy “The Producers”. In the 1920s Broadway executives sought people like the little old ladies in the film to back their shaky new stage productions. In return, these backers—and here imagine a greenroom thick with endearments like “darling” and “angel”—could expect to rub shoulders with the stars at post-production parties. Rarely would they get their money back.

Where VCs fear to tread

Just as theatrical angels are now less star-struck, so business angels tend to be highly professional. Many are successful entrepreneurs in their own right. Others are well-paid managers or professionals who have specialist knowledge of an industry. Like most rich people, they prize anonymity and do not broadcast their activities, which can make them as hard to dig out as the details of their successes.

And they do expect success. Typically, a business angel is willing to invest between $25,000 and $250,000 in each of between five and ten new ventures. They expect to make money from the spread of investments, but Mr Sohl believes they also seek “psychic income”. Angels want the satisfaction of putting their commercial acumen, contacts and practical knowledge to work on behalf of talented people whom they like.

Such sentiment may explain why professional venture capitalists can often be critical of business angels. “Angels usually overvalue businesses. This makes it difficult for us to come in later on,” says one. Another adds: “Angels interfere in businesses, particularly in Britain where they have less experience.”

Mr Sohl agrees that there can be problems, cautioning would-be entrepreneurs to make careful inquiries into any prospective investors. “Finding out about your investors before you sign them up is critical,” he says. “And you have to understand what everybody wants from the business. It's a marriage without the possibility of divorce. If you can't make it work, bankruptcy is the only alternative.”

Sentiment also helps explain the differences between angels and venture-capital firms. The managers of venture-capital funds take an almost-universal fee of “two and 20”; a 2% annual management fee and up to 20% of any profits made by their funds. Angel investors set their own terms.

Despite the potential for acrimony, business angels and venture capitalists have to work together. Angels are an important source of deals for the bigger funds. In America, according to one estimate, angels introduce about two-fifths of the new investment opportunities seen by venture-capital firms.

Raising money will never be easy for the kind of new business that exists only on paper. Skype was no exception. Some 20 venture-capital firms are said to have refused to finance it in its early days. Many of these were sceptical about its business plan. Not only was the company setting out to take on the trillion-dollar telecoms industry, but its founders also bore the taint of litigation. In 2001 Skype's founders had set up Kazaa, an online file-sharing service that enabled people to download music from each other's computers—to the great irritation of copyright holders.

Litigation is just one of the things the big venture-capital funds now have to worry about. In the 1980s most funds were only worth $10m-20m. Today, most funds are worth more than $100m. The firms have to do a lot of work before investing. Because they owe fiduciary duties to their own investors, they must delve deeply into whether a new idea can work, the people behind it and whether there is a market for it. They must draw up contracts to allocate any profits and what will happen if anything goes wrong. These complex arrangements contain a baffling array of “liquidation preferences”, “redemption rights”, “anti-dilution protection” and other jargon. Few smaller investments justify all this paper work.

Another reason to avoid the smallest deals is that they promise lower overall profits than more mature ones do. According to the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, investments in “early stage” European ventures have in total made no money for their investors over the past 20 years, whereas later-stage ventures have provided 6% annual returns. Those totals, of course, contain a great many failures and a few big successes. Nevertheless, the record gives yet more reason for bigger funds to seek to avoid fledgling companies—especially those that have not yet put together a complete team of managers and so require extra attention.

Some entrepreneurs whose investment needs fall somewhere between venture-capital and angels can play one off against the other. But the market can be confusing. Venture-capital firms are often demanding, setting ambitious commercial objectives—milestones, as they are known—and complex provisions to protect the value of their shares. If things do not go according to plan, company founders can quickly end up losing their voting rights and even their jobs.

Besides offering entrepreneurs easier terms, angel investors have their own strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes, in fields where they have experience, they can advise managers on the nitty-gritty just as well as a venture-capital firm would. They may even have more time and patience to offer.

Their informality has its benefits, too. “The entrepreneur's life is a lonely one,” Mr Mason observes. “His wife will leave, his employees will look for other jobs and his bank manager will repossess his house.” Besides giving practical help, an experienced angel might also provide much-needed encouragement in the inevitable hard times. Angels can help young companies meet important new customers and recruit essential employees. And, says one business founder, business angels can help negotiate better terms with the venture capitalists when the day comes to scale up even further.

How should entrepreneurs find an angel? What was once a hit-and-miss affair is becoming increasingly systematic. Interest in investing in small businesses is growing among the wealthy, not least because of tax breaks that some countries offer. Business angels have started to organise themselves into groups that can go out and develop contacts who will steer promising opportunities in their direction.

These new networks gather angels into quasi-professional investment syndicates, allowing investors to spread their risk and take part in bigger and sometimes more attractive opportunities without betting the bank. Europe has perhaps as many as 200 networks already. Some contain a handful of investors; others have several hundred.

This more “professional” angel market is expected to bring with it specialisation and even brand recognition, thinks Mark Tluszcz, who is both an angel and a professional investor, as the managing partner of Mangrove Capital Partners, a Luxembourg-based venture-capital firm. Mr Tluszcz believes that a small number of angels will eventually form a “first tier” in each industry, investing in a few specialist businesses. The most promising entrepreneurs will probably seek out these investors first. Any scheme they back will gain credibility at critical moments, such as when they are signing up the first big new customers or trying to lure a manager with valuable experience.

This rapidly evolving capital market even has its own award. The first winner of a European angel prize sponsored by three European business schools and a number of financial institutions was the German-born Klaus Hommels. A former manager at AOL, the “Entrepreneurial Private Investor” for 2006 has focused on how the internet can foster new markets, linking millions of consumers. Luckily for Mr Hommels, investing came early. He picked his first shares at 14, when his grandmother gave him $20,000 to invest. His portfolio has included several successes, notably Skype, and now he has interests in a handful of internet start-ups in China.

In addition to expecting his entrepreneurs to apply sensible commercial disciplines, such as knowing their market, Mr Hommels looks for obsession in the people he backs. “If you talk to them about vacations, they must always find a way to bring the conversation back to the business,” he says. One common European pitfall is that entrepreneurs too often think locally or nationally, but fail to grasp that there are much bigger opportunities afforded elsewhere.

Even a better-organised angel market—with or without awards—will still have its flaws. Mr Sohl, of the University of New Hampshire, believes that some weaknesses have already started to surface in America. He identifies a new, emerging “secondary equity gap”. Loose networks of angel investors are beginning to codify the terms on which they can work together, such as by agreeing investment strategies and standardising investment terms. That is sensible, because it makes it easier to do deals. The trouble is that such angel syndicates may start to behave more like venture-capital firms.

This risks having two unwelcome effects. One is that the syndicates will spurn smaller deals because of the cost of the paperwork. This would be at the expense of the market for seed capital, which means more businesses could struggle to get off the ground. Second, a more organised market could become more prone to the herd mentality that infected the venture-capital industry in the dotcom craze.

Wary since last year of a fresh outburst of exuberance, Mr Sohl now monitors the share of business plans in America that succeed in getting finance. In the long run, he estimates that only 10% of new ideas get enough money to set up. However, in 2000 the proportion shot up to 25%, before falling back to the teens during the bear market. He frets that since 2004 the approval rate has steadily risen from 18% to 23%. It is still rising. This rise may reflect the increasing supply of capital as existing angels lend more and new angels join the throng. Either way, some undeserving businesses are probably raising capital.

The value of nothing

It is all very well to talk in general terms about an overheating market. But in any single deal how do the entrepreneur and the angel work out whether the price is right? As any corporate financier will privately admit, assessing the value of even an established business is more art than science. When that business has rarely made a sale, let alone a profit, valuation becomes inspired guesswork.

David Beer runs a network that matches British entrepreneurs with prospective investors. In 20 years of observing start-ups, he has developed a simple rule of thumb. “If it's just an idea, it's worth £10,000; if it has a credible management team in place, it might be worth £100,000. On the other hand, if it has sold something for real money to real customers, it could be worth £500,000.”

Another investor says that early stage capital is flowing too freely now. He remarks that managers now “think 30 pages of business plan are worth $5m without a management team or even having made a penny in sales.” He believes that entrepreneurs have less humility than they once did. “You have to make these guys understand that they are better off with a smaller slice of a really big pie than owning most of a tiny business.”

Although luck is a big part of finding the right opportunities, Anthony Clarke, president of the European Business Angel Network, offers further advice to budding angels. He advises avoiding lone wolves and backing fully formed founding management teams instead. The founders should show an innate ability to sell. And they must have a one-track mind and the obsession to work 60 or 70 hours week in, week out.

Perhaps of greater importance in raising finance is what angel networks now call “investor readiness”. Few entrepreneurs realise that most angels will decide whether or not to look at a business in depth after skimming a business plan for only a couple of minutes. In spite of this, one commentator suggests that fully four-fifths of business plans put potential investors off, by being badly written or making implausible claims such as “we have no competition”.

Ultimately, the success of any new venture will depend on the desire of people with ideas to risk their careers and livelihoods on the promise of wealth and success. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, an annual report of enterprise, the proof of such animal spirits depends on the fear of failure and the example of successful entrepreneurs. A survey on attitudes to entrepreneurship, sponsored by the European Commission, estimated that 26% of Americans would refrain from starting a business because of the risk to income and career. This share grows to 34% in Britain and to 46% in the European Union as a whole.

The European Business Angel Network says there is a social dimension to this disparate result. Americans are surrounded by entrepreneurs who have “cashed out” and have lived through a full cycle of founding, cultivating and then selling their businesses only to start all over again. Angels are more likely to put up their money if the person knocking on the gate has already worked out a heavenly exit route.

 

作者：李超　来源：21世纪经济报道

尽管点子的差异，有时候会产生互相语言不通的状况，但是有时候甲的方式也可以用来解决乙的问题，产生"他山之石"的效果。

　　上海报道本报记者李超

　　"一杯香茗，一屏洋文，满眼金星"，这是IBM上海分公司的christina这几天MSN的名字，也是她工作的一种写照。北京时间9月12日晚上10点到9月16号凌晨零点，是IBM"InnovationJam"（即兴创新大讨论）的第二个阶段，这个阶段的关键是对第一阶段选出的31条最佳"点子"进行"可行性研究"，并最终筛选出几个点子，使用1亿美元的IBM开发基金付诸实施。这位同事这几天不仅要组织协调上海IBM员工的在线讨论，还要做大量的在线翻译。

　　室内创意

　　9月13日下午，淮海中路瑞安广场的805会议室很是热闹，清一色的IBMThinkpad的笔记本一字排开，无线上网，参与人员多数是软件开发中心的工程师。侯雍容此刻有点兴奋，他在第一阶段提出的一个点子得到了IBM美国总部InnovationJam领导小组亲点，现在位列观点的前几位，正在被大家激烈讨论。"没准你的点子就可以拿到那一亿美元的基金来实施。"他一旁的兄弟鼓励道，"没那么容易吧。"旁边就有人开始请教，"盐分子和水分子哪个大啊？""叫我说不要弄什么一卡识别了，就生理识别好了，用静脉识别好了，静脉就可以取钱。"……这中间还不时有人抱着本本随时加入。

　　热闹的还有网上，第一阶段的众多网页和点子，此时已经有31条被筛选出来，其中谈论交通的"四方通达"一项就有10个点子进入第二阶段讨论，包括数字娱乐供应链、21世纪的铁路、公共交通信息的整合服务等。随意点开"21世纪的铁路"，这种新型铁路被解释为使用先进的信息技术，模型，优化技术和沟通网络极大的改变铁路交通的现状。网页对这种新型铁路的市场驱动力、革新焦点、新兴技术的使用、目标市场和商业价值也做了详细的解释。最有代表性的几个帖子被放置在网页的右边，马来西亚的Lim建议，"为什么不以国家为单位，考虑建立起连接各国和各大洲的铁路呢？"台湾的RupertWei想着，如果可以把铁路用在安静的小城市和拥挤的大城市的日常交通上，这样小城市的人每天去大城市上班，可以得到更多的发展机遇。

　　讨论被集中在几个问题下面，是否存在改进铁路的最大需求？改进铁路的哪些特征会增加你使用铁路的可能性？先进的技术如何被用来改进这些特征？谁最有可能为这些改进买单？政府还是私人企业谁更合适来管理21世纪的铁路？

　　尽管这个阶段Jam依然是只要有帐号，随时随地可以发帖讨论的，但是会议室依然是最为有气氛的地点，一台本本，一杯水，可以随时讨论的同事，和各种创意玩笑，效率和产出都相对较高，有些累了，可以随时抱起本本离开，临走领上一顶CAP帽做纪念。这情景多少有点"室内创意"的味道，随意即兴，靠的是灵感。

　　背后组织

　　与第一阶段几万人参与的大讨论不同，第二阶段讨论的一个明显特征是"精兵简政".第一阶段因为参与人数多，没有方向感，往往每个板块都需要一个"联合负责人"，引发讨论的方向，并随时控制无关的讨论，确保讨论的"集中".IBM大中华区CEO周伟焜是第一阶段"四方通达"的两个"联合负责人"之一，这个板块有十条点子被列入第二阶段的讨论，位居其他板块之前。到了第二阶段，由于内容已经被集中在31个点子上，而讨论的范围又以每个点子下主要的四至五个问题为主，这个阶段的讨论，不再安排相关的负责人，而主张在"集中"的前提下尽可能的"发散".

　　郭韬是IBM大中华区的内部企业文化传播经理，她也是此次Jam中国地区的主要组织协调人。她说在进入第二阶段之前IBM专门组织了几百人的实验室工程师的队伍筛选出这31条点子，主要依据是技术实现的可能性，商业价值和社会价值的大小，商业和技术潜力等因素。同时另外一个独立的核心小组，阵对这31条点子又分别提出有关技术和商业实现的四到五个实际问题。进行第二阶段讨论的人群，主要分为两大类，一类是技术专家，一类是行业专家，技术专家主要是各实验室的工程师，IBM在中国就有十个实验室；另外一类行业专家主要是GBS（全球企业咨询服务部）和IBM商业价值研究院的专家。这样的人群安排可能在更短的时间内提高产出。

　　即使这样，专家依然有偏好和国别之分。郭韬介绍，中国的专家对于医疗、城市公共交通和能源等与中国市场密切相关的主题更有兴趣。"比如有人就提出现在的铁路购票系统有很大的问题，春节回家很多人买不到票。中国需要解决的主要铁路问题是长途运输和大量人口运输的问题。"这显然与美国不一样，"美国人提的铁路问题就是如何加强城市和近郊的连接，铁路如何更快速，更舒服，更准时（是按分秒计算的），甚至还有隔音墙的问题。"这就意味着一个点子根据国情的差异，又可以派生出不同的项目，甚至新的点子。

　　尽管点子的差异，有时候会产生互相语言不通的状况，但是有时候甲的方式也可以用来解决乙的问题，产生"他山之石"的效果。郭韬说她去过纽约，在一条靠近河边的路上，每隔100米就有一个路灯，但是这里从来不会堵车，"整个红绿灯转换的系统经过计算，非常智能，根据交通情况随时改变间隔时间。"而她本人所在的广州，"可能一边堵的要命，还是红灯；一边完全没有人过，还是绿灯。""这完全是可以借鉴的技术。"

　　按照JAM的组织程序，第二个阶段到15号结束的时候，也只是给出每个点子细化的技术和商业操作方案。最终被选出得到一亿美元赞助的点子，要到11月才能最后敲定。"可能由这个点子的提出者，负责这个点子的实施和资源调度。"无论如何，被选中都是件令人愉快的经历。

　　现实距离

　　尽管是技术出身，软件开发中心的金纪文还是明白"理想和现实的差距".他很乐于谈论如何改善中国的医疗系统，"现在大医院常常人满为患，小医院没有人，但是大医院往往要求我们做大量的检查，这些检查可能价格昂贵，而且消耗时间。有些病人还是从外地赶来，这些程序更加浪费他们的时间和金钱。如果我们可以建立起一套系统，让病人在家可以预诊，或者事先了解需要做哪些检查，并分散到其他医院去做，这样大医院和小医院的效率可能都会提高。"

　　尽管如此，金纪文也明白，就算这样的系统开发出来，大医院可能也会采取排斥的态度，因为这等于是帮助小医院抢自己的生意，"现在每个医院几乎都不承认别家医院的检查，一切需要从头再来。"如何分隔医院之间的利益，这已经不是技术能解决的问题。

　　此次Jam当中众多点子的实现都并不仅仅建立在技术的基础上，更多的是社会基础。侯雍容提出的通过SOA的技术将公交、地铁和出租车等大城市内的交通系统连接，同时将这些交通系统与手机或者笔记本电脑等运用终端相连，从而使人们可以通过终端直接查询最短的交通方式。"这些交通方式可能由不同的部门运营，要使他们能够顺利的连接起来，也并不是件容易的事情。"

　　其中很多的问题涉及如果分割不同社会单位之间的相关利益，谁来买单，谁会受益。最严重的一个社会问题是，这些技术的改进效益往往是可以外部的，但是需要某个内部单位买单，这些问题显然都是短时间内难以解决的。如果到了第三阶段，IBM投入一亿资金最终完成了某项技术的革新，但由于外部社会原因无法实现商业价值，如何继续？郭韬解释说，"我们会尽力在社会层面进行推进，即使暂时无法解决，但是一旦解决了，我们又有已经储备的技术，肯定会成为这个领域的受益者。"

 

AUGUST 17, 2006

Innovation

By Andrew Zolli

 

Today's Fringe Ideas, Tomorrow's Wisdom

What niche fields will contribute to tomorrow's great innovations? Ecology, gaming, and social networking, for starters

Wander the halls of any of today's ever-multiplying corporate-innovation conferences, and you'll find experts playing to packed houses, evangelizing the power of user-driven design, the importance of ethnographic research, and the value of an internal "innovation culture." Corporate managers are eagerly soaking up this "right-brain religion," hoping that an injection of creativity and customer input will help them stand out in markets crowded with interchangable piffle.

And eventually, corporate managers will master these skills, at which point every consumer product will be permanently dipped in white acrylic, come with an ergonomic fly wheel, and embody a whimsical anthropomorphic cuteness.

Then what? To find the next deep wellsprings of innovation, you have to learn to listen to "weak signals"—fringe ideas today that will be common wisdom tomorrow. Here are a few promising sources:

Ecovation: The ongoing revolutions in material science, biotech, and systems ecology have had a surprising side benefit: They have begun to unravel how engineering happens in the natural world. In the process, business is reaping a library of elegant new solutions to industrial problems. Think of the Great Barrier Reef: Iit was created at near-room temperature, using locally available materials, employing self-assembly, water-based chemistry, and the power of tides and the sun.

So-called "biomimetic" products that copy such natural processes are already starting to make it to market, featuring improved performance and lower cost. Lotusan Paint, for example, a "self-cleaning" industrial paint, copies the self-cleaning mechanisms of the lotus leaf, causing dirt and water to bead and roll off. Ecologists are yielding so many useful insights that 10 years' hence, every large corporation may have one on staff.

And eventually, corporate managers will master these skills, at which point every consumer product will be permanently dipped in white acrylic, come with an ergonomic fly wheel, and embody a whimsical anthropomorphic cuteness.

Then what? To find the next deep wellsprings of innovation, you have to learn to listen to "weak signals"—fringe ideas today that will be common wisdom tomorrow. Here are a few promising sources:

Ecovation: The ongoing revolutions in material science, biotech, and systems ecology have had a surprising side benefit: They have begun to unravel how engineering happens in the natural world. In the process, business is reaping a library of elegant new solutions to industrial problems. Think of the Great Barrier Reef: Iit was created at near-room temperature, using locally available materials, employing self-assembly, water-based chemistry, and the power of tides and the sun.

So-called "biomimetic" products that copy such natural processes are already starting to make it to market, featuring improved performance and lower cost. Lotusan Paint, for example, a "self-cleaning" industrial paint, copies the self-cleaning mechanisms of the lotus leaf, causing dirt and water to bead and roll off. Ecologists are yielding so many useful insights that 10 years' hence, every large corporation may have one on staff.

Andrew Zolli analyzes critical trends at the intersection of culture, technology, and global society. His firm, Z + Partners, helps global companies and institutions see, understand, and respond to complex change.

Meet five archetypal achievers from the IN25, our list of forward-thinking leaders

They are the best-kept secret of the business world: a whole new breed of "C-suite" managers who wear titles such as "chief marketing officer," "director, design and brand experience," or the voguish new moniker "chief innovation officer." They are different from others before them, polymath in skill (think an entire multidisciplinary team in one person), "bipolar" in thinking (using both the left and right brain in framing problems), and eclectic in education (dual math and art majors, English lit and MBA degrees). CEOs from Citigroup to Harley-Davidson, from Google to Procter & Gamble, are empowering these managers to build radically new cultures of creativity.

 

Let's welcome the Champions of Innovation. In an era when Six Sigma controls no longer guarantee competitive advantage, when outsourcing to China and India is universal, when creeping commoditization of products, services, and information hammers prices, innovation is the new currency of competition. It is the key to organic growth, the lever to widen profit margins, the Holy Grail of 21st century business.

Which is why these forward-thinking leaders have so much power. They roam the vast spaces of global corporations fighting to make innovation routine, not random; central, not marginal; exciting, not scary. They educate, inspire, cajole, hire, bribe, punish, build -- all to transform their companies' cultures.

So who are they and what, exactly, are they doing? The IN25 is our directory of the top Champions of Innovation. They share many traits, but three stand out: First, they speak the language of design and user-friendliness. Second, they derive their clout directly from the top and are the CEO's consiglieri on creativity. And finally, they are mostly women. Nearly 70 percent of the Innovation Champions are female. Ponder that.

We picked five from this group of 25 to show in detail how they do it. Every one of them does many things well but one best: Each represents an archetype who builds a culture of creativity in a specific way. There is The Talent Scout, who hires the über-best and screens ideas at warp speed. The Feeder, who stimulates people's minds with a constant supply of new trends and ideas. The Mash-up Artist, who tears down silos, mixes people up, and brings in outside change agents. The Ethnographer, who studies human behavior across cultures and searches for unspoken desires that can be met with new products. The Venture Capitalist, who generates a diversified portfolio of promising ideas that translate into new products and services. Here are their stories.

来源：中国新闻网

1：17000——关于工业设计，国外流行着这样一个的投入产出比例。简言之，在工业设计上每投入1元钱最高便会有1.7万元的产出。但每每被用来证明这个比例的案例，往往都是国外品牌，诸如ipod、sumsung等等。毕竟，短短二十年的工业设计发展史对于中国企业而言，确实是块短板。但近年来已有充分迹象表明：中国IT产业的工业设计意识正被提升至前所未有的高度，一批企业已在某些产品上有相当出色的表现，而正是因为他们，我们才可以说：中国工业设计正在崛起！
    走出第一步的中国企业
    “从步步摸索到日益成熟，经历了七年的奋起追赶，今天我们已经有了值得骄傲的作品。”在朗科公司的ID设计中心里设计师JOE如是说。
    他手中展示的是朗科最新的两款闪存盘U208和U260。如果说早年的朗科凭借全球闪存盘专利拥有了卓越技术而征服世界的话，那么在这两款U208、U260身上，则不难看出，朗科已成长为“内外双修”的高手，在工业设计上有了长足的进步。
    这两款U208和U260都保持了同一种设计风格：简约，将黑白二色以最简练的上下分割手法进行搭配。黑色面冷静沉稳，白色面清新灵动，二者的灵性碰撞，产生一种难以言喻的纯美。再加上圆润的弧角处理、纤秀的超薄设计，令人爱不释手。之前曾有一位高校工业设计资深教授如此高度评价这两款产品：“在目前国内的工业设计中，采用如此简约的处理手法相当罕见。与其说这是一次突破，不如说是一次大胆背离——一次对常见的缤纷、繁琐风格的背离，这意味着创新已渐渐成为一种特质融入到我们的某些企业之中！”
    可喜的是，“朗科现象”在国内并非单独案例，近期联想曾推出“天逸”系列笔记本，同样在工业设计上表现不俗。正是像朗科、联想这样创新求进的公司，引领着中国工业设计走出了第一步。
    设计是一场心灵对话
    “工业设计是一种边缘艺术，”朗科ID设计中心设计师JOE如此表述，“说它是艺术，因为没有艺术家的气质与灵感你无法完成一件优秀的作品；说它边缘，因为工业设计是一种商业设计，如果你沉浸在纯艺术氛围之中，你同样无法完成一件优秀的作品。”
    据悉，工业设计涵盖宽广，不仅包括色彩学、造型学，还涉及到人体工程学、心理学以及产品功能、消费人群使用习惯等方方面面，忽略其中任何一点，都有可能留下瑕疵甚至失败。
    “想象着你的消费者正在使用你的设计作品。他在看，他在摸，他带着它工作、吃饭、逛街……等等，你设计的每个细节都经受着他的考核，他的喜欢、他的不喜欢，你必须都要感知。”JOE试图描述他工作的核心意念，“通常，我习惯于将这称之为与消费者展开一场心灵对话。”
    据悉，正是在这种精益求精的设计意念引领下，朗科近年来在工业设计上佳作不断。除了U208、260之外，2005年底还曾推出过一款名为“酷贝”P200的随身娱乐终端，该产品除了融合电影、游戏、车载MP3等于一体的强大功能优势之外，最受市场好评的就是工业设计。该P200外型时尚酷炫，独有别具一格的手持电子游戏机式的操作面板，油然流露出一股潮流先锋的气质，充分满足了电玩族、时尚族的心理需求；而两侧对称的圆形五维按键更暗合人体工程学原理。朗科公司发言人透露，该款P200在2005、06年的MP4市场上大放异彩，甚至引起众多厂商纷纷仿效。
    工业设计投入力度需要加大
    尽管国内IT产业的工业设计已处于崛起进行时，但整体水准依然有待提高。来自市场的实况也同样显示，我国目前多数企业在工业设计上还处于模仿、改造的程度，一款优秀的工业设计作品面市，大家便一涌而上，纷纷对之“改头换面”，改到刚刚不能被上告侵权就推出市场。
    有专业人士如此形容国内工业设计形态：“金字塔”形。此形态与国外的“枣核形”是相对而言的，“枣核形”两头尖而中间大，指欧美国家工业设计能力最强的企业的和能力最弱的企业都分布两头，占较少比例；工业设计能力较强的企业则处于中间，占大多数；而中国则属于“金字塔形”，意谓位处塔尖的、具备优秀工业设计能力的公司极少，而设计水准较弱的企业则占据了大多数，尤其中越往下走(也即塔基部分)，企业密度越集中。
    “大家都知道优秀的工业设计可以有效增加产品附加值，但是在投入上总是会有人退缩。”一位业内人士指出了目前国内工业设计的重要症结。
    据悉，一款优秀的工业设计往往耗资不菲。朗科公司发言人透露，其酷贝P200的工业设计曾邀国际著名设计公司参与，总投入达百万元之巨。面对如此手笔的投入，姑且勿论多数中小企业无力承担，就是部分大企业同样也会能省就省。但“能省就省”的结果也是很明显的，最终作品同样会大打折扣。
    有分析人士指出，在工业设计意识已苏醒的中国企业界，当下最需要培育的就是投入意识，而一旦这种投入意识得到普遍重视与实践，中国的工业设计才能真正由崛起进行时进入到崛起现在时，“金字塔”形也才能过渡到“枣核”形。

 

作者：孙戴维   编辑：知识银行和先见策划

知识银行http://spaces.msn.com/knowledgebank

先见策划http://spaces.msn.com/foresight

 

最近几天参加2006联合国南南技术创新与资本市场的峰会感触很深，上海市政府和浦东新区政府出资召开这次大型的技术创新和资本市场峰会，并且首次在中国引入了联合国的全球知识产权交易系统GATES，上海联合产权交易所和张江科技园区分别推出了知识产权交易和科技创新的新政策。上海联合交易所如果能与GATES有效合作将推动上海的知识产权交易与全球的交流，张江推出的“四两拨千金”战略开创了知识创新和资本投入全新的道路。从这次会议我们看到了上海市政府和浦东新区政府已经开始积极投入推动知识创新建设。

自中国经济宣布改革开放以来，中国的来料加工产业和制造有了举世瞩目的发展，中国大部分生活产品生产总量已经超越了全球所有的国家，中国加工和制造产品几乎在世界各国的商店随处可见。然后中国自主创新的产品和技术占的比例却非常小，中国产品至今还是以低价格作为竞争主要手段。  在许多高新技术领域如信息技术产业和生物医药产业中国的技术创新能力更是落后于欧美、日本、韩国，甚至是印度。中国政府在90代初期也曾经注意到科技创新的重要性，也曾经大力支持高新技术产业的发展如在北京成立了中关村科技园区、在上海成立了漕河泾和张江科技园区。全国各地的科技园区也不少，虽然也诞生了一些著名科技创新技术和企业，如北大方正的数字排版技术，联想技术的计算机生产技术。然而就是联想这样的中国最有代表性的企业计算机核心技术的研发能力还是无法实现重大突破，最后只能通过资本收购的手段拥有了IBM的技术。国内许多过去打着高科技旗帜的企业实际上从事的业务与高科技无关。为什么我们会出现这样局面？

如果我们仔细分析中国最近20多年发财致富的企业和富豪，绝大多数不是靠知识创新和技术发明成功的，而是靠商品贸易和仿冒别人产品技术和加工贸易发展起来的。由于中国经济开放初期市场中商品短缺严重，走私贩卖商品销路通畅，仿冒他人技术和产品无需成本，也不会得到惩罚。  因而在巨大经济利益的驱使下，中国各地的产品和技术仿冒现象日益泛滥，而真正具有创新技术的企业只要新产品和新技术一上市就被迅速仿冒，创新企业的知识产权利益无法得到保护。 以至于今天中国许多富有的企业习惯成自然彻底丧失了自主创新的能力和动力；广大从事技术创新人不得不转行从事销售等等其他工作。如果这种环境继续下去中国就将失去自主创新的能力。

我们很高心看到中央政府最近两年强调要将“中国制造”转变成“中国创造“，中国要加强自主创新的建设。那么要实现自主创新最重要的条件是什么？

现在中国普遍存在一个严重的误区，认为资金是知识和技术创新的首要条件，一直将中国企业的技术创新资金投入不够作为说词，什么欧美企业每年投入研发多少资金，中国企业投入多少。其实这是错误的。

要让一个企业和人才主动积极去搞知识技术的创新主要不是资金问题，而是知识技术创新的人才和企业的利益能否得到保护？  假如若干年以后大多数创新人才和创新企业的知识产权利益得到了充分的保护，仿冒他人技术的个人和企业得到了严惩，自然人们就会蜂拥去从事知识和技术的创新工作。

因此中国要实现自主创新首要条件是要加大知识和技术创新保护力度，解决打击仿冒他人技术产品的行为。让大多数的创新人才和企业能够得到创新的利益。

要做到这一条需要很长的时间，需要全国各地政府和企业付出巨大的努力。可喜的是我们已经看到了行动的开始。

第二条要创建一些知识技术创新和风险投资高效运做体系和实验基地。

任何创新都是有风险的，我们撇开被仿冒的风险不谈，一个创新的技术和知识从设想到研发到投入市场，并且从进入市场变成畅销产品每个环节都存在风险。 因此推动一项创新知识技术成果的研究和畅销需要政策支持和资金的支持。 我们看到了美国硅谷的成功推动了美国信息产业发展，我们也看到了最近几年许多国际风险投资在中国大陆的巨大成功，在国际风险投资机构的支持下诞生了新浪、搜弧、百度和阿里巴巴这样的企业。 因此我们更希望看到中国风险投资机构的崛起，诞生一些像微软和英特尔这样的企业。

如果能够制定和完善创新的政策让风险投资资金和创新人才技术有机的结合，在中国创建出几个成功的知识技术创新基地对推动中国的知识技术创新会起到积极的作用，今天张江推出了四两拨千金的做法就是很好的尝试。

中国不缺少有创新才能的人才，我们更需要创新的机制和环境。相信通过政府企业和个人的共同努力，中国有希望诞生一些像Google,Intel,Microsoft那样的企业。

 

先见策划http://spaces.msn.com/foresight

知识银行http://spaces.msn.com/knowledgebank

bestname99@163.com, foresight89@yahoo.com.cn,

2006年5月20日星期六

作者：Tom Doct…　来源：环球企业家

“不求最对，只求最贵”这句话并没错，但关键是要让用户感觉到价值所在

　　中国新兴中等收入阶层的心理往往夹杂着种种矛盾，几千年的封建思想和儒家文化所导致的“矛盾冲突”，也同时需要跨国公司的市场营销家们小心谨慎地应付。新兴中等收入阶层往往存在着这样一种自相矛盾的心理特征：即追求其社会地位和个人财务状况不断发展的雄心，和等级化的社会结构所带来的保守心态。由此，中国人的灵魂深处同时存在着两种截然不同的思想：雄心勃勃和小心谨慎。

　　中国的中等收入阶层群体受到了表现个人地位和保护家庭安定的双重渴望的驱使。由此，与争取一个稳定的将来相比，积极地把握现在更能激励这一特殊的人群。鼓励消费和传统的勤俭持家的思想，是一对矛盾。生活方式和经济机遇的爆炸性变革，加上微薄的收入、生锈的铁饭碗和昂贵的住宅等一系列现实情况，使这种矛盾有加剧的趋势。聪明的市场行销家们必须帮助消费者解决这一问题。下面的讨论将会囊括解决问题的六种建议。

　　【对大众消费收取更高费用】

　　中国人需要表露地位，如钻石作为晶莹夺目的地位表现工具，现在的消费出现了显著增长，今天上海的钻石消费能力已超过了日本，然而大部分新兴的中等收入阶层的人手头并没有多少现金。所以要根据消费者支付的额外费用的范围来淘汰人群。对此，在销售时公开展示产品是很有必要的，可以证明其相对较高的价格，比如TCL、海尔、康佳、长虹都是这么做。

　　【把地位作为工具】

　　在中国，“好的家庭出生”的概念是存在的，而且中等收入阶层对他们的未来非常乐观的。在最近一则男士钻石的印刷广告里，标题写着，“一朵火花就足够创造一个强大的男人。”

　　这个广告主角指间戴着一枚戒指，他品质到处闪耀，使得其上司和竞争对手都眼花缭乱，而帕萨特，高级的大众车，同样通过电视广告宣布，“他就是掌控输赢的人。他就是创造道路、书写规章的人。他就是移动最快、取得最大成就的人。”

　　这些都说明地位必须作为一个武器来使用。它必须要保护平凡的战士努力争取到的各项成就，无论是靠机智聪明还是艰苦辛劳得来的。商场就是战场，生活就是忍耐力的测试。

　　【让愿望变成现实】

　　中国人是儒家传人，儒家传人都是目标驱动的，因此所有的广告应当都要一针见血。它必须散发出1950年代迪斯尼短片鼓舞人心的光芒。它必须表现出眼界开阔但仍处于渴望状态的下一代的理想化的经济渴望。如每个女人都是“幸福女人”（即：幸运地享有婚姻、事业和爱情的满足）。每个婚姻都是“美满”的（即：拥有爱情，富足和孩子的“完美”）。男人必须节节攀升。家庭应当是祥和宁静的。

　　简单，廉价的商品具有对大众的吸引力，所以它们成为了广泛的目标。例如，左岸咖啡采用了“巴黎口味”的平台。广告的背景浪漫、多雨有诗意。镜头里充溢着复杂的情绪和日落下的石子路。这个创意很具吸引，因为它要表达的是梦想的瞬间，而不是野心勃勃的人像。另一方面，张柏芝主演的力士广告似乎表现了柔软的头发就是前往有着金凯利歌舞剧的法国的护照，通向富有和著名的生活方式的入场券。这种错觉的前提已经远离了广大的中等收入的洗发水顾客。

　　【保持一个低调的外观】

　　现在就要讲一些小技巧了。在新兴中等收入阶层的行为清单里我们已经建立了一个鼓吹的形象，那么精明怎样才能与之平衡？一定能，也必须做到。中国人对地位相当敏感，的确如此，他们可能会竭尽全力来证实。但是适度的身份表现是给人留下印象的最佳方法。我们不该忘记儒家也有其两面性，相对立又保持平衡。

　　豪华汽车就是一个恰当的例子。一个奔驰的标牌完全可能激发嫉妒之心。价钱实在太招摇了。某些“红眼病”会表面上表示赞美可内心想着：“他哪里来的钱？”奥迪A6就相对谨慎一些。突出不等同于抢眼。中国式的酷是“单色中带有一波彩色”或“凝视中夹杂一个眨眼”。应当没有鼓起的肌肉，没有惟我独尊的虚张声势，以免枪打出头鸟。

　　【将家作为堡垒】

　　表现地位又要自我保护的世界使人感到压力。一个喜欢成功的人必须向前挺起他的胸膛的同时，防护好自己的后背。为获得安全感和自尊，家起了至关重要的作用。自我表达不仅仅是对你的家实现你想要的改变，而是在你自己的家实现你希望的改变。TCL，大陆最创新的电视生产商采用了一个有力的主张，戏剧地表现它的等离子显示屏：“如果你的电视机只有7厘米厚的话，有谁还能说服你去别的地方看电视呢？”在他们的一个广告里，一个英俊男子把它放在了浴室里，这样在剃须时，他就能与屏幕里的迷人女子互动传情。

　　【地位表现，自我保护和孩子】

　　文化价值观念毫不留情地撞击着下一代的心灵。表现和保护的本能继承给了子孙后代，他们是代表着家庭对未来憧憬的小宝贝。孩子们必须是最优秀的。“保护”孩子有两种形式：1）躲避危险和2）培养才能。简单的产品可以帮助孩子的成长。奥妙洗衣粉鼓励母亲让她的孩子“探究他周围的环境”，即使它可能会把衣服弄脏。“有效去除污渍，不用担心宝宝的成长。”一旦孩子进入正轨，家长就会公开表彰他的成绩，就像打开了强光灯。教室，小提琴朗诵和科学展览都是展示孩子的天赋的舞台。芳草，一种农村市场的洗衣粉，通过使一个小舞蹈演员的芭蕾短裙亮丽如新，生动描绘了它的漂白力。孩子在舞台上表演时，邻座说她“象小天鹅一样可爱”。然后当小女孩鞠躬谢幕时，母亲沐浴在热烈欢呼鼓掌之中。

　　以上这些是跨国公司在营销时的建议，但是近几年中国本土公司的进攻，也让跨国公司一度失去不少市场，因此下一步的措施除了营销，也要更加注重产品、研发等后发制人的战略。

　　所有进入中国的国外投资者，特别是对自己的文化遗产特别有自信的法国朋友：不要天真地以为中国消费者会喜欢你的产品。如果你真的那么设想，那只能说明你还没有准备好进入中国大陆市场。

　　事实是，国际品牌当然是一个卖点，但却远远不是促成交易的全部。

　　星巴克对此深有体会。它知道中国人不喜欢喝咖啡（原因还是因为热量太高），所以，就相应地作了调整：1）同时供应茶；2）增加点心三明治的品种；3）店址选择在客流量较多、交通便利的地方；4）扩大店面的平均面积。在中国，星巴克不仅提供了喝茶、喝咖啡的舒适环境，它更是社会精英们聚会时选择最多的公共场所之一。它已俨然成为当地人们日常生活的一部分。

　　大多数汽车公司不生产双开门车型，因为其车型主要出现在价格较高的大型或超大型车中。但是中国有钱人却常常喜欢摆阔，所以福特汽车针对这种心理，推出了总统式轿车林肯航海家，专门针对那些有权有钱族，以充分显示他们的自信和尊贵。

　　联合利华的夏士莲洗发水推出了一款黑芝麻配方，将食物和洗发结合起来，其效果是使头发更黑更亮。其他的本土化产品（如为发质较差的消费者配制的人参洗发水，为油性发质配制的绿茶洗发水）也收到了良好的效果。自从1998年进入中国市场，夏士莲的定位可以说是180度大改变，从“自然安全”到“自信”到“加固男女朋友关系”，“避免尴尬”到现在回归自然。与宝洁的飘柔品牌相比，夏士莲的媒体投入少得多。它目前仍然屹立不倒的唯一原因是它的本土化举措，能够推出针对中国顾客的特别产品。

　　【不惜重金投入研发】

　　跨国公司大体上在研发方面的投入都比本土公司要多得多。这种比较优势来源于三个方面：首先，国有企业和其他中国企业的历史相对比较短，因此在再投资能力上实在有限。其次，由于大量农村打工人员涌入城市，平均个人收入增长水平很大程度上受生产率水平的影响。而技术创新对于增长的贡献却很小。第三，中国是一个儒家文化至上的国家。中国人注重实际，而非细节。几乎所有的知识，从科学知识到观测得到的知识，都是应用于实际的问题。在这个功利主义大环境下，长期为研发买单当然不是一件令人高兴的事情。日本相反却是一个注重细节的民族。创新来自于好奇心，一种对传统智慧的质疑。

　　【引导大众】

　　跨国品牌从前在中国都只瞄准非常小的受众市场，主要是沿海城市的一些消费层次较高的受众。因此，本土竞争者有机会进入跨国品牌所留下来的大片的空白市场，其产品主要针对大多数价格敏感的消费者。但是，如今一些跨国公司开始注意到规模效应的重要性，如通过授权经销商来扩大中国市场。

　　大多数本土公司都停留在销售驱动的层面。商品即产品，价格都差不多，质量也大同小异。而大多数的跨国品牌都有可观的高价差额，但定价之高也让很多人可望不可及。近来，更多的国际品牌开始采取双重策略：用最高端的一线产品来打广告，树立品牌形象，而用大众化产品来获得销售额的增长。例如，通用汽车从进入中国的第一天开始就是赢家。它以高档产品别克进入中国市场，将自己的光辉形象一夜之间树立起来，所以即使最近它开始引进低价车，但其品牌形象也不会打一点折扣。而大众一开始的定位就是低档车市场：寒酸的门把手，70年代末的设计，锡杯底盘。所以，尽管现在引进了帕萨特以及更高档的品牌，但大众的品牌形象和市场份额仍然每况愈下。更可悲的是，低档车中也不乏像奇瑞这样的有力竞争者。福特在市场上起步较晚，但还好蒙迪欧拯救了它。这款高档车的上市耗资3000万美金，这个数字远远超过它在早期的大众化品牌嘉年华上的投入。可喜的是，福特因此提升了自己的品牌形象。

　　【要有未卜先知的本领】

　　跨国公司可以预见未来。台湾的康师傅以其方便面产品成名。在人们收入上升，大批中产阶级涌现的时候，康师傅预见到了方便面市场将会大有作为。因为收入上升必将意味着工作压力的增加，时间紧了，方便面的需求当然会上升。由于进入市场早，康师傅迅速占领了方便面市场。此外，他们也是第一个推出“杯面”的品牌（面条是中国的传统食品。方便面的营养价值不高，通常商人们在一夜的狂欢、卡拉OK之后会吃点方便面填饱肚子，青少年在放学后也会吃点方便面）。

　　再说碧柔。泡沫洗面乳市场是一个受众比较小的市场，而碧柔目前的目标顾客是较小年龄的顾客，其策略也就是在他们还“小”的时候就“赢得”他们。根据在北美和欧洲的销售经验，碧柔也很清楚地知道，随着收入的上升，人们的护理用品会从简单的肥皂上升到沐浴露再到洁面乳。还有夏普。夏普在电视机市场的份额非常小。但在液晶电视机市场，它却有很大的市场份额。你现在可能还不熟悉他们，但如果他们继续保持这样的策略，那么若干年后，夏普将成为中国高端超平电视机市场的霸主。

　　【眼睛的盛宴】

　　最后，坦白地说，跨国公司在广告方面还是有明显优势的，相比本土公司，跨国公司更能把握消费者的心理，沟通信息更一致，品牌资产和媒体投放战略方面也更有优势。尽管也有人对此提出质疑，但是总体而言，西方企业的营销巨头们更了解一个良好的品牌定位的重要性。而且，毋庸置疑，跨国企业都是视觉品牌推广领域的高手。在这个视“简单”为圣经的市场，能够生动地展现自己的品牌往往直接决定了其存亡。飘柔的“一梳到底”（放开手，梳子可以直接在头发上面滑下来）也许是广告史上最杰出的作品之一。吉百利的“两杯牛奶”的广告现在频繁出现在电视广告和店内广告中。无需多言，在母亲们的眼中，吉百利巧克力即可口又营养，决不是简单的垃圾食品。

　　总之，跨国企业挥舞着“跨国品牌”的旗帜，极力宣扬自己的本土化能力，从高端女性护理用品到大笔研发投入，创新出更有视觉效果的品牌形象，使自己始终成为未来潮流的领导者。不可否认，中国的战场将会更为变化莫测。（作者为智威汤逊大中华区CEO，本文摘自作者《Billionssellingtothenewchineseconsumer》一书，经作者授权刊登）

 

作者：程亚婷　来源：环球企业家

一间创意十足的旗舰店远比一件经典款式的产品更能打动人，也能让你的品牌长久流传

　　秋后的一个下午，一对崇拜路易威登（LouisVuitton）的日本银发夫妇，步行到了LV旗舰店，站在店门口深深地一鞠躬，接着眼神凝视店内，过了许久，才恋恋不舍地离开了这家闻名东京的旗舰店。

　　对塑造品牌来说，没有什么比建立旗舰店更有效果了，但是，请注意，拼规模的招数似乎已经太过老土了，如今在旗舰店内为顾客提供撼动人心的体验已经成为跨国公司的首选。

　　但对大部分中国公司而言，依然没有摸清旗舰店的要领，他们将旗舰店等同于营业面积和规模略大的单店，而且认为其最大的功能就是拉动销售。然而事实上，旗舰店并非只为增加市场影响力，更重要的是提升公司产品品牌形象和整体形象，甚至为公司在市场中塑造高处不胜寒的感觉。下面就是几个建旗舰店的方向，它们共同的特点都是让顾客参观完之后意犹未尽。

　　【做成当代艺术馆】

　　路易威登绝对是做有创意的旗舰店的好手。2004年为庆祝LV创立150周年，路易威登将香榭丽舍大道的旗舰店规模扩增两倍。出人意料的是，路易威登特地制作两个超大的招牌旅行箱，架在旗舰店的大楼外面，赚足了过往行人的眼球。这里不仅展出有LV历史上28件珍贵的古董行李箱，而且位于旗舰店七层的LV美术馆，也首次选用了一群尖端艺术家的作品，在店内做永久性的陈列。其中一件由白女人裸体构成的字母“L”和黑女人裸体构成的“V”组成的图案颇为打眼。徘徊在路易威登旗舰店的漫步长廊，你将发现美国艺术家JAMES的灯饰雕塑，以及丹麦概念艺术家OLAFUR专门为路易威登设计的作品。

　　你完全可以把这样的旗舰店视为当代艺术馆。如果你这么认为，那就正中LV的下怀。并且，比起LV的许多竞争对手主要为了满足购买者的虚荣心设置旗舰店，LV的这个店面每天有3千到5千人前来膜拜，据说在巴黎是排在埃菲尔铁塔和巴黎圣母院之后最有人气的旅游胜地。

　　另一个顶级奢华品牌PRADA东京旗舰店则犹如伫立着的一块巨大水晶，是一座高达六层的玻璃体大楼。该店的外墙设计颇具革命性，由数以百计的菱形玻璃框格构成极具现代感的幕墙。菱形玻璃能产生虚幻却透彻的视觉效果，人们既可从店外透视店内陈列的PRADA服饰产品，也可从店内欣赏店外的景致。2003年一开店，这里就成了东京著名的时尚景观。

　　【体验式布局】

　　如果说奢侈品的旗舰店带来的是心灵的震撼，那么层出不穷、渐迷人眼的消费电子产品所开设的旗舰店，其着眼点就在于顾客亲自动手去体验。在全球拥有无数狂热粉丝的苹果电脑，其体验中心分为苹果旗舰店、一般规模的AppleCenter和规模更小的AppleCorner。不过，无论是走进哪类零售店，都能看到苹果产品被陈列在井然有序的枫木桌子上，个性而不张扬。2002年，北京东长安街上开出了第一家苹果旗舰店，购买者能舒适地在这里试用先前在其它电脑上可能从未试用过的产品，比如创建一部家庭电影。精通Mac计算机的销售人员只是在“天才吧”(GeniusBar)里随时等候顾客的询问，并不像其他销售人员那样主动接近而使顾客有压迫感。与其说这里像个商店，不如说它更像个俱乐部，经常光顾此地的苹果迷就是这么认为。

　　2005年12月11日，同样位于东方广场、与苹果旗舰店门对门的索尼探梦迎来了开业以来的第50万个参观者。这家展馆在2000年开张，是当时亚洲唯一一家互动体验型展馆。游客不仅可以站在旁边欣赏这里的展品，而且几乎每一件展品都可以让他们亲自操作。不仅如此，除了每个月例行的两个休息日之外，索尼探梦每天都会在特定时间向游客表演现场试验。这不，今年春节期间还策划了“逛游童玩世界--老北京发声玩具展”，请来老艺人现场表演老北京的玩具，把古老的传统玩具与声学知识巧妙地串联在一起。

　　这里的展品，除了部分来自旧金山Exploratorium的展示品，那些一看就让人着迷的数字产品全部是索尼自己的杰作。索尼探梦着力把自己打造为孩子们的科普乐园，当然在为孩子们讲解科学奥秘的同时，也把索尼的品牌形象烙在了孩子们的心底。索尼的公益心毋庸置疑，只是今天的这些孩子很可能就是明天索尼最忠实的消费者。

　　【诠释文化内核】

　　星巴克（Starbucks）一直以咖啡为重心，目前有了稍许的转移。它把旗舰店设在著名而高级的书店内，在咖啡飘香的环境中读书自是一种享受，这招很有效，强化了咖啡的高雅形象。另外，为了吸引音乐发烧友，星巴克又与销售音乐CD和多媒体的商店结盟，在其间设立旗舰店，再次成功地扩展自己的客户群。

　　去年6月，麦当劳在美国总部附近的OakBrook设立了一家新的旗舰店，号称是一家数字媒体站。不仅提供CD烧录设置，还可以下载手机铃声、冲印数字相片，店里还配有多台等离子电视和Wi-Fi无线网络接口。当然更少不了咖啡，以及新式的鸡肉三明治。作为快餐业的老大多年，麦当劳一贯以鲜艳的店面装饰和明快的音乐彰显自己的“快速”文化，这家新开业的旗舰店却成功地表达了麦当劳的新领悟：希望留住顾客。

　　正如PRADA第三代掌门人缪科雅?普拉达（MiucciaPrada）说过的那样，现代人所需要的，不再只是商品，而是生活态度。一间创意十足的旗舰店远比一件经典款式的产品更能撼动人心。这就是所谓的“体验经济”的精髓。体验经济强调商业活动带来顾客的独特审美体验，它将消费者的参与融入到体验设计中，以产品作为“道具”、环境作为“布景”，而企业的服务就是舞台。

 

作者：林景新　来源：东方企业家

提要：聚焦于停滞市场的细分部分，加速产品的技术变革，重新定位产品，才能发掘新的市场需求。

　　数年前，恒基伟业公司推出的PDA品牌商务通，并打出“手机、呼机、商务通，一个都不能少”的广告语，使商务通占领了中国过半的PDA市场。但是，不过短短二年时间，智能手机的大肆流行，在手机功能进步的背景下，变成了“手机、呼机、商务通，一个就足够了。”中国PDA市场全线萎缩，市场发展陷入停滞。

　　市场的变化永远超出企业的预测，即使身为技术天才、IT界巨头，比尔盖茨也曾对互联网的发展判断失误，差一点令微软发展步入歧途。面对着千变万化的市场环境，企业虽然无法抗拒某一个市场发展陷入停滞或需求下降的趋势，但是企业可以在价值创新理念的指引下，可以通过跨越现有竞争边界，实现对不同市场的买方价值元素进行筛选与重新排序，从而重建市场和产业边界，在停滞的市场中找到能够继续增长的机会，开启新的需求。

　　雅马哈钢琴：重新定义市场

　　近些年来，全球的钢琴需求一直在下降——现代的父母并不像上几代父母那样重视孩子的音乐课，作为钢琴行业的领导者，雅马哈公司对市场销售的下降心急如焚。但是，无论是加大广告投入还是适当降低促销，市场反馈却令人失望。

　　为了突破市场增长停滞的困境，雅马哈公司对市场进行了研究调查，了解拥有钢琴的家庭如何使用钢琴。调查表明，美国、欧洲和日本的4000万家庭中绝大多数很少使用购买的钢琴，在大多数情况下，购买钢琴时候的原因已不存在。孩子要么停止了音乐课，要么长大成人离开了家庭，家庭成员也很少弹钢琴——只有很少的一部分人是出色的钢琴弹奏者。对绝大多数家庭而言，钢琴只是一件家具，虽然没有经常进行调理，但仍然状态良好。

　　在经过仔细的研究分析之后，雅马哈公司认为，虽然总体的钢琴市场发展需求停滞，但是只要转换战略思路，重新定位，雅马哈依然能够取得业务增长的可能性——雅马哈把高级家庭中闲置的钢琴看作为一个潜在的发展机会。雅马哈技术部门为这种闲置的钢琴研制出一种附属播放器，这种播放器能够将家庭已有的钢琴转化成一种古老的自动播放式钢琴，它能够播放很多存储在一张磁盘上的曲目。在售价上，相比于价格高昂的钢琴，播放器的价格可以让钢琴拥有者无需多加考虑就可以下决定心购买。

　　对于雅马哈公司来说，钢琴市场发展的停滞并不意味着市场需求的全面萎缩，而是因为某些次要的原因导致造成，如练琴的孩子长大离家，但在购买钢琴的家庭中，他们对音乐的需求仍然是存在的，这就是增长停滞钢琴市场中的新增长点所在——雅马哈公司不断推出多种类型的钢琴附属物，最大程度地使家庭中闲置的钢琴得到重新利用的机会，赋予了钢琴一种新的定义，即将家庭钢琴由一件只供孩子练习的工具而用转化为一件高级音乐播放器，从而开创新的需求。

　　雅马哈通过对钢琴的重新定位，在保持钢琴高雅格调、彰显家庭品位的同时，延伸了钢琴的使用功能，突破了钢琴在价格高昂与使用不足上的矛盾，不仅抑制了钢琴销售额下降势头，也间接刺激了新的客户购买意愿，一片全新的市场出现了。

　　误解价值创新，TCL钻石手机昙花一现

　　为走出盲目的战略模仿困局，应对日益加剧的同质化竞争，一些企业开始思考突围之路，企图通过营销创新、战略创新或是产品创新的方式找到新的市场突破点。在此过程，有些企业的创新之举虽然方式新颖，在短时间内重新启动了需求，但是这种举措对于客户而言，缺乏真正的价值创新，最终只是能昙花一现，很快被市场抛弃。

　　数年前，在国产手机产能过剩、行业发展停滞的情况下，TCL推出售价高达万元的钻石手机，在疯狂的概念炒作及大规模的广告投放的推动下，停滞的市场一时间被炸开一个缺口，终端销售迅速上升，领导此次行动的万明坚更是获得“手机狂人”的称号。

　　但是好景不长，不久就有媒体披露出消息，号称每一颗钻石彰显尊贵地位的TCL海韵3388手机上的76颗小钻每颗仅值2.1元的信息，同时，大量购买该手机的消费者投诉，手机菜单反应迟钝，通话质量极差。为了挽救负面报道的影响，TCL对这种双屏幕宝石手机的市场零售价连续几次大幅度调低，先由3180元降至2980元，再由2980元降至2480元，一个月内下降700元，接着又降至1500多元，业界一片哗然。但是，钻石手机的虚幻概念破灭之后，消费者对此手机已经失去了兴趣，降价并不能刺激起新需求，这种认为是给“乡长老婆用的”的钻手手机在很快就被市场彻底抛弃。

　　赋予手机新的定位，让TCL手机突破现有手机营销困境，这是万明坚开发出款钻石手机的最初目的。但是，从价值创新的角度上，钻石手机的重点放在哗众取宠的廉价钻石之上，而对手机应有的基本通讯质量、使用方便性却无从保证。这种舍末逐末的创新方式违背了消费者的需求心理，最终难逃被淘汰的命运。

　　从价值创新的角度看，企业的创新之举是否切实可行，可以经过以下四个步骤的检验：

　　一、买方效用——商业创意是否包含了杰出的买方效用？

　　二、价格是否能让买方轻松偿付？

　　三、企业是否能达到成本目标以便在战略价格基础上获利？

　　四、企业在价值创新付诸实践的过程中会遇到哪些接受上的障碍？是否从一开始就着手解决它们？

　　从这四个步骤分析，TCL钻石手机的失败就在于无法为消费者提供杰出的买方效用，对手机舍本逐末的价值重建很快就证明是错误的。从价值延伸的角度上，手机不可能如手表一样，装饰功能高于实用功能，缀满钻石的名贵手表可以提升佩戴者身份与品味，而同样缀满钻石但使用质量极差的手机却不可能达到同样的目的——尽管TCL钻石手机原先锁定的目标客户群是收入丰厚的社会精英，事实上证明，最终购买者却是多数是爱好炫耀的中学生，这种反差式的讽刺冥冥中注定了钻石手机走不了多远的结局。

　　成功的商业创意应该是真正能为消费者带来实实在在的价值，或延续产品的使用属性、或创造新的产品使用价值，而不是炫目一时却无法为消费者带来实际效用的所谓创新。

　　同样，另外一些商业创新失败之处也是违背了以上原则的某一项，如摩托罗拉铱星计划的失败就是由于是运营成本高昂，导致消费者使用成本太高而失败。

　　停滞市场中的三种增长策略

　　当一个市场陷入停滞之时，除了增长明显放缓之外，行业的竞争也会随之变得激烈起来，利润随之迅速走低。在这种情况下，企业都试图通过价值创新的方式重建市场边界，冲出竞争激烈、利润低薄的红海，开创一片无人争创的蓝海。从价值创新、重建市场边界的角度上，企业可以采取以下三种增长的策略可行突围：

　　一、聚焦于停滞市场的细分部分

　　造成市场发展停滞有多种原因，其中一种原因可能是消费者的消费选择发生了变化，或者是由于新技术出现导致原有产品功能被覆盖，在这种情况下，企业需要对原有市场进行细分，将目标群客户的需求进行分类，将产品进行新的定位。

　　在手机价格不断降低、多数人都有能力购买手机的情况下，传呼机市场全面萎缩。但是，有传呼机生产企业对市场进行细分，并将传呼机的市场增长点聚焦于股民之上，在传呼机原有功能之上进行延伸，即使传呼机可以为这些需要即时了解股市信息的股民提供信息服务——依靠着这种准确的市场聚焦，传呼机企业在一个不断萎缩的市场中获得了新的增长点。

　　二、加速产品的技术变革，以新产品频率刺激新需求

　　在一个消费选择快速变化的时代中，企业如果不能通过快速的技术变革创造出新的产品，就可能受到市场的淘汰——数个月前，东芝手机败走中国市场，正是由于此原因。

　　当市场增长陷入停滞，其中重要原因之一就可能是喜新厌旧的消费者对原有产品失去了兴趣，而转向购买其他代替品。在速度为王的竞争时代，加速技术变革、不断推出新产品，即是抑制竞争的有效策略，更是不断刺激市场新需求的重要动力——韩国三星高度的创新能力与技术变革能力，使得它得以在增长缓慢的中国手机市场中，不断攻城掠寨无往而不胜。

　　三、产品重新定位，发掘新的市场需求

　　对产品进行重新定位，赋予产品全新的价值功能，这同样可以使增长停滞的市场获得新的发展动力。在这方面，日本的DoCoMo就是杰出的代表。

　　随着竞争的加剧，通讯话费的不断降低，新任DoCoMo总裁立川启治认为移动话音服务方面的竞争已到了尽头，DoCoMo需要另辟蹊径进行新的产品定位，以开创一片全新的利润蓝海——DoCoMo对移动通信进行了新的产品定位，即由纯粹的话音通讯，转向了无线移动商务之上。

　　DoCoMo的商业模式是“移动门户”，也就是经由DoCoMo的平台进行各式各样的商务活动与信息交流，与内容提供商进行广泛而深入的合作，为用户提供方便上手的接入服务。DOCOMO把无线移动商务的“Anytime””Anywhere”发挥到极致：每天用户增加5万个，用户一开机就能够上网聊天、购物、炒股票、看新闻、玩游戏。

　　DoCoMo的价值创新很快被证明是正确的，在短短二年时间中，DoCoMo就成为世界上最赚钱的移动运营商之一。

　　追寻停滞市场中的利润“蓝海”

　　在一个千变万化、行业发展一日千丈的市场中，企业面临的发展最大危机往往不是竞争对手的进攻与蚕食，而是由于技术的快速革新、消费心理不断变化所带来的不确性的威胁：一个原本发展迅速商机无限的市场，很可能就因为某一项新的技术出现或者新的消费潮流到来，而变成一个增长停滞的“鸡肋”市场。

　　社会在快速地发展，没有人可以阻挡得了市场发展变革的步伐。每一个行业、每一种产品的寿命将会越来越短，升级与变化，已经成为我们这个商业社会一种最基本特征。虽然我们可以无法去阻挡某一个行业、某一种产品被市场淘汰的命运，但是，正确的价值创新却可以大大延伸其存在的寿命，更可以为企业带来丰厚的利润。

　　正如市场战略的角度看，没有夕阳的产业只有夕阳的企业，正确的运营策略、正确的价值创新为我们所带来的，不仅仅在增长停滞的市场上获得短期突破，更是可能开创一片前景广阔的利润蓝海。

 

作者：熊学慧   来源：中国经营报

一场历经近四年的“马拉松”式的官司至今还在等待着最后结果。对于一个快速更新的新技术领域来说，四年是何等漫长。

　　邓国顺，这个朗科的领军者本想通过技术创新获得巨大的市场回报，

　　但他发现这种新技术的最大受益者却不是自己。

　　“不创新等死，创新是找死”。创新企业正走进死胡同。

　　在侵权成本低廉的制度安排下，作为“创新主体”的企业遇到极大困惑。“建设创新型国家”这一战略目标也在经历严峻的考验。

权威调查

朗科知识产权案调查：四年官司的尴尬

　　本报记者 熊学慧深圳报道  4月26日是“世界知识产权日”，随着这一天的临近，一场历经近四年的知识产权纠纷案被社会各界所关注。深圳市朗科科技有限公司（以下简称朗科）与北京华旗资讯数码科技有限公司（以下简称华旗）之间的专利纠纷案，一度被外界称为“中国IT知识产权第一案”。

　　日前，记者获知，二审法院仍未确定开庭审理的日期。一名了解案情的人士说，按正常审理程序，一审6个月、二审3个月就可审结，此案拖了四年多还没审结是因为其中“人为阻碍因素太多”。

创新成果“被无情吞噬”

　　邓国顺（朗科总裁）这名“金海龟”的笑脸只是在他起身迎接记者时的几十秒之间出现过，之后便是一脸的无奈。

　　邓国顺告诉记者，朗科拥有闪存盘（优盘）的中国和美国专利权，因为这一产品是他与合作者突破种种技术难关才研制成功的，并获得了国家的专利授权。邓说，在新加坡留学期间，他发现用软盘存储的资料有限，且容易损坏，遂产生发明一种“便于人们实现电脑数据存储与交换的新产品”的念头。邓与成晓华在1999年发明了世界上第一款优盘，此后，朗科与全球的移动存储企业成功地将软盘、软驱从计算机上“抹去”。

　　邓本以为自己可以获得期望中的“专利回报”，但这种利益却只能眼睁睁地看着别人拿走。邓说，他“感慨”的不是其艰难的创业过程，而是通过创新技术获得利益的“痛苦经历”。在几经磨难后，“优盘”被投入到市场中，但接下来的遭遇又让邓始料不及。据称，1999年11月“优盘”投入市场后，就像电脑病毒漫延的速度一样，市场在“一夜之间”就冒出无数个与朗科类似的“优盘”。

　　邓本想通过其技术创新获得巨大的市场回报，这也是他能长时间生活在创新“黑箱子里”的精神动力，但这种新技术的最大受益主体却不是自己。邓认为他的“创新成果被侵权者无情吞噬”，遂决定诉诸公堂。

　　2002年9月，朗科诉华旗等企业侵犯其专利权。双方争论的一个焦点问题是，朗科关于“用于数据处理系统的快闪电子式外存储方法及其装置”（闪存盘）的专利权主张是否有效。

专利制度留有“侵权空间”

　　在对“侵权者”提起诉讼后，邓国顺原以为很快就会有结果，谁知案件一波三折。从2002年9月至2004年6月，在历经21个月的漫长等待后，朗科终于获得一审法院的支持。

　　此案一审法院、深圳市中级人民法院判决认为，（朗科）闪存盘采用了USB技术与闪存技术，但不是简单地对上述公知技术的移植和叠加，而是包含了通过创造性劳动实现快闪电子式外存的存储管理方法、供电系统策略、连接关系、物理结构和可靠性等关键技术，故对被告公知技术抗辩主张不予支持。

　　但华旗等企业依然认为朗科的闪存盘采用了公知技术，遂联合多家企业向国家专利局提出“专利无效”复审申请，并提起上诉。该案到现在仍无终审结果。对于记者问到的这起专利权案件为何久拖未决、是否存在专利策略等问题，华旗法务部一位负责处理华旗与朗科专利纠纷的人士告诉记者，一起案件要走完法律程序需要长时间处理，在案件没了结之前谈这些问题“很敏感”。

　　这位不愿透露姓名的人士说，企业遇到专利纠纷是很正常的事。该负责人称，企业在申请专利时要进行有效地调研，有一些专利，比如有人提到的“垃圾专利”，就不一定能保护到。而朗科相关部门负责人则坚称，朗科的专利不但应该得到保护，而且还应当享受“专利垄断利益”，否则企业进行自主创新就没有意义。

　　负责为朗科整理侵权资料的广州盛道营销管理咨询公司负责人汪华东告诉记者，国家相关部门对自主知识产权的保护“留有很大空间”，这种空间滋润着市场上的侵权者“像雨后春笋般成长”。汪华东说：“知识产权保护是中心环节，这一层如果断裂，企业自主创新就会成为空话。”

　　关于“侵权空间”的问题，朗科法务部负责人路攀进行了说明。据称，按照专利申请流程，发明专利审批需经过初审期、公开、实审、授权四个阶段。为了便于监督，在第二阶段时，法律规定专利内容要全部公开。据介绍，朗科申请处于第二阶段时，市场中一下冒出10多个移动存储品牌。2002年，这一品牌数量迅速膨胀到100余家。“侵权者”以极低的成本获得了专利技术，并开始先于朗科获利。

　　“在公开阶段，提出专利申请的企业随时可以生产。但问题是，专利向社会公开没有固定期限，在没有拿到专利证书前，我们又不可以追究侵权者的责任。”路攀说，侵权问题正是在这一阶段出现。

企业创新风险扩大

　　从提出专利申请到获得专利授权，朗科用了近两年的时间。而从打第一起侵权官司到现在，朗科已经走了近四年路程，还没有走到尽头。

　　在接受记者采访时，邓国顺拿出一款新研制出的产品对记者说，我现在能做的就是不断加大投入、加快“创新”步伐，比侵权者走得更快一些，而获利期却更为遥远，“不知什么时候是个尽头”。

　　邓国顺说他是在“忍无可忍”之下才起诉的，因为“涉嫌侵权的人”以很低的成本获得巨大的市场利益，如果不起诉，朗科就会失去市场生存的机会。“企业向社会公示专利内容是尽企业的义务，但国家有关部门授予的权利又体现在哪里？”路攀说，有关部门的专利意识不强、保护不力是侵权者获利的主要原因。

　　侵权者在获利的同时，也不会受到什么制裁，就算被起诉或被处罚，“赚到上亿元被罚去几十万元也只是九牛一毛”。邓国顺称，朗科现在面临“高成本、低利润”的困境，企业需要新的出路。他到现在“还谈不上获利”。

　　“不进行自主研发就无法做到差异化，也就没有市场竞争力，而进行技术创新需要企业投入大量资金，获利期又难以预计。”邓国顺说，如果自主知识产权得不到有力的保护，企业就难以获得创新利益，自主创新“主体”就会失去创新动力。这就形成一种恶性循环，一些想投入创新的企业在面对大批的侵权者时会选择“退出”。

谁举保护知识产权“大刀”

　　据了解，朗科与华旗的案件已由二审法院、广东省高级人民法院受理。根据案情的进展来看，朗科与华旗的专利权纷争还需延续一段时间。

　　邓国顺希望，行政及司法机关加强保护自主知识产权的步伐走得更快一些，因为“维权的成本太高，企业经不起这样长时间的折腾”。如果侵权者长期得不到法律的惩罚，朗科在技术研发方面的巨额投入将难以为继，从而影响该产业的持续发展。据称，朗科在闪存盘技术研发方面投入超过6000万元，在维权过程中，朗科“损失可能高达亿元”。

　　“侵权者利用专利保护的‘空当儿’，已经获得了巨大利益。”汪华东说，当企业的自主知识产权最终得到有效保护，这种专利产品或许已经失去市场价值，因为更新的技术已经出现。就算朗科赢了侵权官局，也已经输掉了其专利产品的应有市场。

　　一名了解案情的人士说，此案拖了四年多还没审结是因为其中“人为阻碍因素太多”。比如，很多业内企业不希望朗科在二审中胜诉。如果胜诉，朗科今后就可以向每家生产优盘的企业收取“专利费”。另外，“二审结果将直接影响到整个优盘市场的格局”也是其中一个重要原因。

　　路攀认为，知识产权保护制度本身没有什么大问题，主要是执行力度问题。

　　对于这种说法，华旗法务部相关负责人也提出了自己的意见。该人士认为，中国专利保护还处在起步阶段，需要经历一个发展过程。“要一个刚上学的小学生去写北大、清华的毕业论文显然要求过高。”该负责人说，“人都会慢慢长大，自主知识产权的保护环境会慢慢得到改善。”

　　该人士的说法得到相关专家的认同。国家知识产权局知识产权研究中心副主任曹津燕说，案件久拖未决有具体原因，一个单一的案件要走完司法程序，司法机关应以公正的立场审理侵权纠纷案件。而国家层面在保护专利及制订相关政策时则需要权衡利弊，因为有受益方就必定会出现受损方。

　　事实上，国家早已建立较为完善的自主知识产权保护体系，其中包括行政保护体系及司法保护体系。路攀说，仅这些保护是不够的，现在需要提高全民专利保护意识。“意识不统一就会阻碍企业创新。”路提到的“意识”包括认清“是不是保护了专利就会制约行业及民族产业发展”等问题。

 

访谈

合法规避发明专利的风险

　　《中国经营报》：有国内企业反映，当申请发明专利进入“实质审查”阶段时，由于核心技术被公开而遭到别人仿冒。在这种情况下企业怎么保护自己的技术？

　　李顺德：我认为，这里所说的发明专利申请的“实质审查”阶段，应该是指提交的发明专利申请被依法公开以后到取得专利授权以前这一阶段。这一阶段发明专利申请在法律上属于弱保护，原则上别人要用这个技术应先经过申请者授权，但如果没有授权，别人使用，申请者不能切实有效主张权利。因为，在没有被授予发明专利之前，这项技术还不是发明专利，也就无法对它按照发明专利提供法律保护。如果要起诉未经许可使用该技术的人或单位，只能等拿到专利授权证书之后才可以。

　　这种情况很常见，无论在国内、国外，发明专利的申请都将面临这样的风险，这是专利制度本身决定的。

　　《中国经营报》：有没有规避这种风险的办法？

　　李顺德：办法是有的，那就是，你不要把所有的核心技术都在申报专利时加以公开。在达到申请专利必须充分公开的前提下，那些符合商业秘密法定条件的核心技术，可以通过“技术秘密”形式，自己保护好，不必在专利说明书中加以披露，这样就不必担心被公开的风险了。“技术秘密”是指该技术是在该领域内不为大家所共知的、具有一定商业价值或潜在商业利益的技术，它不需要认定或登记，只要自己用相关措施保护好就行。如果有人通过非法手段（如窃取、泄密等）获得你的“技术秘密”时，你可以对他提起诉讼，向法院证明这是你的“技术秘密”，法院认可后，就可以要求赔偿和停止侵害。

本报记者 孙晨采写

 

避免地方保护的想法可以理解

　　《中国经营报》：有关人士提出设立专门知识产权上诉法院的构想，这在国内是否行得通？

　　武卓敏：我对建立“国家知识产权上诉法院”的必要性持怀疑态度。为避免地方保护而建立上诉法院的想法是可以理解的，但并非是解决问题的最终方案。如果不解决好现在法院系统的问题，再建立一套系统也同样会存在这些问题。人员素质问题、诉讼体制问题仍然需要解决。知识产权保护是重要的，但是也不能因为它目前得到的关注太多而过分地强调它的特殊性。

　　《中国经营报》：在知识产权保护还存在缺陷的情况下，企业该如何做，以获得创新的持续动力？

　　武卓敏：企业在期待政府和法律完善权利保护机制的同时，还必须主动地寻找新的、更具市场潜力的经营方式。一方面建立合理的知识产权战略，另一方面应注重开发合理的知识产权共享模式，增强知识产权纠纷中的协商能力，寻找合作的契机。在司法层面，我们还需要进一步完善权力救济制度，使其更加有效和平衡。

本报记者 熊学慧采写

 

纵深

“严刑重典”或成解救良方

　　本报记者  熊学慧广州  深圳报道 高昂的创新成本正在逼退一大批以技术创新为主的高科技企业。“一些企业家在盘算着回家买地养老。”广东高新产业商会秘书长王理宗说。王所指的是，创新企业背负的风险太大，不敢再冒险投入。

需要“严刑重典”？

　　“有关部门有一种这样的想法：如果加大自主知识产权保护力度，国内会有一大批企业遭受打击，地方税收可能因此受到影响。” 负责为朗科整理侵权资料的广州盛道营销管理咨询公司负责人汪华东说，地方利益问题也使得有关部门在打击侵权者时畏首畏尾。

　　事实上，司法部门、知识产权保护部门对于知识产权保护亦做出了努力。最高人民法院最近公布的数据表明，在刑事司法保护方面，2005年全国地方各级法院共受理一审案件3567件，共审结3529件；在民事司法保护方面，2005年各地法院共受理包括不正当竞争在内的知识产权案件1.66万件，审结近1.65万件。全国公安、海关及工商等机构2005年共立案侦办近1800起侵犯知识产权案件、查获1200余起侵权货物。侵权案件同比增长30%左右。

　　另有消息称，未统计到的案件数量远比这些数字大得多。

　　中国社会科学院知识产权中心主任郑成思就此接受媒体采访时说，中国有世界上最严格的知识产权法律体系，关键是执行力度不够，不能很好地落实。

　　企业主及有关学者提出，要“严刑重典”打击侵权者。有学者提到了美国及欧洲国家在这一方面的做法。据介绍，美国对盗版等侵权行为处罚严厉，被认定为侵权者会得到“5年以上的牢狱生活”，一些中小企业也会“被罚得倾家荡产”。

“司法改革”酝酿

　　“知识产权保护问题是一个难题。”新增选为深圳市政协常委的高科技企业主杨子江说，如果不能有效保护自主创新企业的利益，国家通过创新提升竞争力的计划也会受影响。

　　杨的说法也得到中国企业联合会最近进行的一项调查报告的支持。接受调查的诸多企业家表示，知识产权纠纷、与企业创新的相关政策不完善等因素正制约企业自主创新。接受采访的诸多企业主表示，仅依靠企业自身重视知识产权保护是不够的，政府部门需要加大保护力度。

　　“政府部门不能姑息迁就，现在有必要树立起一个自主创新的标杆企业，比如华为、中兴等。”江华东说，自主知识产权保护不仅关乎国内企业的利益，更关系到国家的整体利益。

　　国家知识产权局副局长张勤在回应全国政协委员提出的《关于“十一五”期间我国科技自主创新的提案》时说，有些地方在知识产权保护方面还存在不少问题。比如，在审理专利案件上，程序最多达到6级，这“对于中小企业来说是很大的负担”。

　　张表示，国家有关部门将通过改革司法体制来保护我国的自主知识产权。而设立“国家知识产权上诉法院”是酝酿中方案之一。据称，在司法体制改革上，如果成立国家知识产权上诉法院，统一受理所有的上诉案件。“既可破除地方保护主义的问题，同时又支持了高科技企业的发展。”

 

观察

到政府站出来的时候了

　　“成功谁保护、失败谁帮助”，这是创新企业最为关心的话题。就第一个层面来说，邓国顺和他的朗科已为我们做出“令人不安”的诠释。

　　创新环境需要改变。林肯曾经说过：“由于我们所处的情况是新的，我们的思维也必须是新的，我们的行动也必须是新的。”然而，我们看到，在创新已经成为国家战略之际，我们的创新环境还有诸多不完善之处，比如对专利的保护，虽然中国有世界上最严格的知识产权法律体系，但其执行力度不够是块很明显的短板。

　　执行力度不够的“板子”该打在谁的身上，不能一概而论。专利的认定过程是不能省的，法院的判罚也需要时间，这就有了所谓“打赢官司，输掉市场”的怪现象，这是一个世界性的难题。

　　一个有中国特色的现象是，在对专利侵权的惩戒执行层面上，我们看到了地方政府“不规则”的身影。有的侵权企业是当地的利润大户，如果这些利润大户受到制裁，当地政府将失去一块很重要的利润来源。地方政府为了政绩考虑，千方百计地从中“周旋”，把专利发明方拖入官司的持久战中，不使自己任期内的GDP缩水，为自己谋一个好的官场“前程”，将问题拖给下一届就任者。如此下去，还有哪家企业敢去创新？

　　地方政府的“短视”背后，其实就是目前的政绩考核标准在作怪，“国家知识产权上诉法院”的酝酿实属无奈之举的一种心境。

　　我们不能再眼睁睁地看着创新者成了弱者。

　　日本人在20世纪80年代打败美国半导体业的时候，英特尔的创始人之一诺伊斯“勇敢”地站了出来：离开了自己开创的企业，选择了国家利益。在他的领导下，短时间内整合被称为“一盘散沙”的美国行业联盟，以有计划、理性的综合系统来应对日本人的进攻。

　　谁将成为“中国诺伊斯”？我想该是政府站出来的时候了。

 

李新      2006年03月05日

日本是自然资源极其匮乏的国家，所需的石油和天然气等资源几乎全部需要进口。为了解决能源短缺的难题，日本多年来一直致力于新能源和新技术的开发及应用。3月3日，东京大学的农业科学家宣布，他们发现了一种能够用于生产汽油的新资源——牛粪！

    据美联社报道，东京大学农业和科技项目研究小组称，通过使用高压和加热的技术，他们已经能够成功地从每3.5盎司的牛粪中提取出0.042盎司的汽油。科研人员将牛粪放进一个容器，再向其中加入了几种金属催化剂，然后对容器实施高温和高压，最终成功提取出了少量的汽油。科研人员没有透露所使用的金属催化剂究竟是哪几种。

    这项技术不仅可以从一定程度上解决能源问题，同时也将减轻日本家畜饲养者每年倾倒大量动物粪便的负担。据统计，日本每年会产生大约551155吨牛粪。如果无法对这些牛粪加以利用的话，清理它们将是很大的负担。科研人员透露，他们将会继续改进这项技术，以便能够在5年内用于商业用途。

    其实，对牛粪加以研究和利用已有先例。之前，一些科研人员曾经从牛粪中提取出了香兰素，可以作为芳香剂用在洗发水和蜡烛当中。此外，牛粪还可以用来生物发电。日本岩手县葛卷町第一座牛粪便发电厂早在2003年4月便开始运转，葛卷町还计划利用牛粪便发酵后产生的沼气制造燃料电池等等。不过，日本负责自然资源和能源问题的官员表示，从牛粪中提取汽油的做法他们还是第一次听说。

来源：中国日报网 

作者：林牧

前言：还记得ＰＣ广告最后那段“Intel Inside”加上四声铃铛声的结尾吗？这段让人们再熟悉不过的口号，已然成为IT销售的经典教材，不过现在却成为绝响，以后大概也没机会听到了。 1月初，在拉斯维加斯所举办的ＣＥＳ（消费性电子大展）中，全球半导体龙头英特尔，正式宣布将启动新的品牌再造计划。英特尔使用了37年的品牌商标，2006年起全面改变，Intel商标中的‘ｅ’，原本是比其他字母低一阶，新商标中则改为环绕整个名字，代表英特尔将朝全方位半导体厂商迈进的宏伟大图；而过去十四年来，几乎就与ＰＣ画上等号的推广口号‘Intel Inside’，也改为‘Lead Ahead’（向前跃进）。

英特尔改造：“在飞行中更换飞行引擎”

“现在已经进入运算无所不在的时代，电脑必须针对人们的需求，”英特尔CEO欧特里宁（Paul Otellini）指出，这也是英特尔进行成立以来最大规模改革的原因。他举例，无论是iPod或是智能手机，功能就宛如一台ＰＣ，但打动消费者的关键，则是满足生活娱乐所需，而非强调本身强大的功能。对销售额约80％来自ＰＣ领域的英特尔而言，随着ＰＣ产业增长趋缓，如何将英特尔的芯片，放进更多其他电子产品中，直接影响着英特尔能否持续维持半导体的霸主地位。第一波新品牌销售与推广费用，预估将投入25亿美元，并将推出更多应用在不同领域的新芯片，估计今年新产品线的数量，将超过成立以来的总和。

“从许多方面来说，这都像是在飞行当中要更换飞行引擎，”品牌顾问公司Landor Associates策略长梅尔（Russ Meyer）形容。因为英特尔不仅要和强悍的对手竞争，更要一举将过去长期成功建立的品牌形象推翻。

根据知名品牌鉴定机构Interbrand 2005年的排名调查，“Intel”品牌价值达355.9亿美元，高居全球品牌第五的位置。

借由新品牌形象进入新领域，对英特尔来说，是场与时间的赛跑。1月18日，英特尔公布了2005年第四季财报，结果大出市场意料之外，第四季营收102亿美元，低于英特尔原本自行预估的104至106美元之间，不仅造成英特尔当天股价下跌12％，更引发1月底全球科技股大幅下跌。过去3年中，英特尔平均营收增长13％，但分析师估计2006年增长率将减缓至7％；盈利更将从过去三年的40％增长率，大幅下滑至5％，ＰＣ产业高度成熟化，直接导致英特尔增长力道消失，“英特尔要更快地开发来自ＰＣ领域以外的营收，”位于波士顿的科技顾问Adventis科技部门主管古鲁墨西（Ragu Gurumurthy）指出。

科技技术转型科技应用

这场英特尔的大规模再造运动，希望借此将“英特尔”从“科技技术”的品牌形象，一举改变为‘科技应用’型的领导公司，让科技不再是绕口难懂的名词，而是更为贴近消费者生活所需的。

“现在要经营科技，你得要让消费者用更简单的方式使用它，你不能再讲速度或是效能，” 英特尔CEO欧特里宁指出。

过去，是科技创新带动消费需求，在两位前CEO摩尔（Gordon Moore）“摩尔定律”以及葛洛夫（Andy Grove）“唯偏执者得以幸存”的铁血领导下，靠着推出速度更快、功能更强大的芯片，每次英特尔新代的微处理器推出，往往创造一波ＰＣ换机潮，为英特尔打下半导体龙头的宝座。

但如今，科技创新带动的消费需求有限，消费者需要更贴近生活所需的科技，使得消费性电子产品成为这几年当红商品，竞争关键成了操作界面、产品设计等外观因素。

为改造英特尔，2005年5月接任CEO的欧特里宁，着手将英特尔从科技技术的厂商，转为科技概念的厂商。其中，最受瞩目的就是2005年将COO的位置，交给了来自三星（Samsung）的Eric Kim。自从1999年起，Eric Kim便领导三星的销售部门，借成功的品牌操作，让三星手机从原本不被看好直冲至世界第三的位置，并成功塑造出三星消费性电子大厂的品牌形象，“我告诉英特尔的员工，他们不只是制造芯片，他们更是在协助人们改善生活，我们必须让全世界都知道这点，”他指出。

从党的十六届五中全会，到2005年底国务院发布《国家中长期科学和技术发展规划纲要(2006-2020)》，作为面向未来的重大战略，“建设创新型国家”这一战略目标开始进入实施阶段。

    然而，问题和挑战依然不容忽视。“新华视点”记者邀请两位专家——中国科技促进发展研究中心主任王元、中国科学院科技政策与管理科学研究所所长穆荣平，就建设创新型国家所面临的挑战进行点评。

    挑战一：1.5%目标迄今未实现科技投入能否大幅增长 

     我国历史上科技投入占GDP的比重最高是1960年的2.32%，以后逐年下降，到1998年为0.69%，2000年以后有所回升，到2004年为1.23%，但与我国有关法规规定的1.5%还有差距。

    王元：我国目前科技投入总量仍然不足，关键是没有形成稳定增长机制，以政府为主体的投入增长滞后于发展需要；同时，投入不足和浪费低效并存。在建设创新型国家的背景下，中央财政的科技投入会有明显提高，并将引导和动员企业等社会资源的投入，从而保持全社会科技投入的持续高速增长。

    挑战二：对外技术依存度居高不下产业发展何时不再受制于人

    我国对外技术依存度高达50%，而美国、日本仅为5%左右。关键技术自给率低，占固定资产投资40%左右的设备投资中，有60%以上要靠进口来满足，高科技含量的关键装备基本上依赖进口。许多重点领域特别是国防领域的对外技术依赖，会对国家安全构成严峻挑战。

    穆荣平：对外技术依存度居高不下，一方面反映了我国产业总体技术发展水平较低的现状，另一方面也反映了国内还没有形成“注重创新能力建设”和“保障创新领先者权益”的政策环境。创新能力建设需要政府加大政策引导力度，在鼓励企业增加消化吸收国外先进技术投入的同时，以重大创新任务带动创新能力建设，根本扭转对国外先进技术的依赖局面。

    挑战三：自主产品“叫好不叫座”政策能否营造一片天空

    “国外的再贵也要用，国产的再好也不用”，许多自主创新产品和技术在市场上步履艰难。自主产品缺乏政策环境支持，成为阻碍创新型国家战略落到实处的一个重大问题。

    王元：这个问题比较复杂，不能仅仅说消费者和企业缺乏爱国心。在自主产品和自主品牌的培育过程中，政府的作用确实独特而重要。比如，政府采购目前的一大问题是没有充分发挥支持本土产业的功能。建议政府采购动真格的，真正发挥其功能性作用。同时在税收、金融等方面采取措施，推动自主产品尽快成长。

    挑战四：高层次人才严重不足谁来承担创新重任

    虽然我国人才总体规模已近6千万，但高层次人才十分短缺，能跻身国际前沿、参与国际竞争的战略科学家更是凤毛麟角。在158个国际一级科学组织及其包含的1566个主要二级组织中，我国参与领导层的科学家仅占总数的2.26%，其中在一级科学组织担任主席的仅1名，在二级组织担任主席的仅占1%。

    王元：作为最宝贵的战略性资源，应为人才在自主创新的基础上搭建一个更大的舞台，有舞台才会出现领军人物和科学大师。神舟六号有非常值得总结的东西，如果是传统体制，怎么能容忍这么多年轻科学家成为项目带头人、总工程师和总设计师？政府要通过一些重大项目来凝聚人才，更重要的是要通过政策激励企业增加研发投入，吸引更多人才进入企业和产业。

    挑战五：管理评价体系简单僵化创新指标能否成为科研指挥棒

    长期以来，许多单位以论文数量作为考核的主要指标，导致科研人员片面追求论文数量，花大量时间跑课题、要经费、写总结。论文质量却无法让人乐观：1993年至2003年，世界各学科领域按照作者统计的SCI(科学引文索引)论文被引用次数，前20名没有中国学者，前100名仅有2人。

    穆荣平：论文数量与质量的不对称问题不可回避。片面追求论文数量带来负面影响：一是反映论文质量的指标落后；二是与经济增长密切相关的专利产出发展滞后，目前我国发明专利数量仅占世界总量的2%。未来我国在资源配置上应从提高自主创新能力出发，大幅度提高以专有技术为代表的知识产权的开发利用；加大对需要团队合作攻关的技术创新的支持。

    挑战六：浮躁之风挥之不去创新文化能否觅得一方净土

    目前，功利化、工具化的科技观还较为严重，以创新为主导的价值观尚未成为普遍风尚。“官本位”等传统文化中的消极因素，使科研成为一些人追名逐利的工具。传统教育体制和方法也不利于创新意识的培养：重知识灌输，轻能力培养；重趋同一致，轻标新立异。

    穆荣平：创新文化建设是实现创新型国家建设目标的关键。应创造一种鼓励创新、容忍失败的政策环境和文化氛围。一方面要鼓励创新人员增强社会责任感和历史使命感，力戒急功近利；另一方面要改革人事制度和教育、科研体制，创造一个公平、竞争、合作的创新环境。

    挑战七：仅万分之三有核心技术企业能否成为创新主体

    国内拥有自主知识产权核心技术的企业仅为万分之三。企业难以掌握核心技术，重引进、轻消化吸收再创新的问题一直未能有效解决。2004年，规模以上工业企业技术引进经费支出397亿元，消化吸收经费支出仅61亿元，远远低于日本和韩国的水平。科技创新能力严重不足，使许多企业陷入受制于人的被动境地。

    穆荣平：我国企业总体技术创新能力较弱，许多主导产业核心技术依赖引进，短期内很难有根本改变。企业技术开发投入严重不足，难以开展重大关键技术研究开发；同时，自主创新还没有成为企业寻求发展机会的第一选择。有关研究表明，目前“政策寻租”空间仍较大，依靠政策或其他要素获得的超常规发展机遇要比依靠创新容易。因此要大力引导和鼓励企业增加创新投入，更应压缩“政策寻租”空间，全方位支持企业参与竞争。
九大问题挑战"创新型国家":对外依存度居高不下
    挑战八：资源分散重复、忽视绩效创新精神能否觅得培育空间

    目前，我国科技基础条件资源仍然存在着薄弱和分散等突出问题，成为科技、经济发展中的瓶颈。据有关部门统计，我国大型科研装备利用率只有25%，而发达国家则达到170%到200%。

    穆荣平：我国目前创新基础条件资源短缺与浪费现象并存。共享创新资源是缓解短缺矛盾的唯一选择。因此，一方面要加强重大创新基础设施的前瞻布局与合理规划；另一方面要加强资源管理，鼓励共建共享创新基础条件平台，特别要注重采用市场机制调节。此外，要打破目前小而全的“小生产”创新模式，注意围绕解决关键技术问题搭建创新平台。

    挑战九：经济社会发展面临瓶颈关键技术能否提供支撑

    资源环境瓶颈需要科技攻关、全面建设小康社会离不开科技的贡献……面对经济社会发展提出的一系列战略需求，科技能否提供坚实支撑？在众多科技领域中，应怎样有所为有所不为？新的“两弹一星”离我们有多远？

    穆荣平：重点跨越是我国科技发展道路的必然选择，必须加强关于国家经济社会发展趋势及其对科技需求的研究。要在我国有优势的技术领域集中必要资源，形成自主发展能力；在有比较优势的领域加强技术集成，占领国际市场；在技术创新活跃、投资规模较小的领域发展创新型小企业及其专业群体；在事关国家安全的领域发展自主技术，培育自主创新能力。

来源： 经济参考报