ⓝⓘⓒⓨ

By Gary Hamel on General Motors's filing for bankruptcy (and maybe many more to come?)

Why Companies Fail — Part I

Dodgy quality, a toxic labor environment, incoherent brand identities, clunky power-trains, adversarial supplier relations, and subterranean resale values—these were the chronic symptoms of a management model that regarded profits as the game rather than the scoreboard, that valued financial finagling more highly than inspired engineering, and elevated MBA-types to rule over the car guys.

對比國營企業的私有化/民營化 
要說資本主義不好嗎?  它只是更貼近現實吧?!
挑戰  從脫離保護那時才真正開始

所以  為什麼大企業一夕之間轉而不再風光? Gary Hamel說:

First, gravity wins. There are three physical laws that tend to flatten the arc of success.

1. the law of large numbers 說 big things grow slower.
2. the law of averages 說 no company can outperform the mean indefinitely.
3. the law of diminishing returns 說 over time, it takes more and more effort to produce less and less in the way of incremental returns.

Second, strategies die. Like human beings, strategies start to die the moment they’re born. While death can be delayed, it can’t be avoided. Autopsies reveal three primary causes of death.

1. Clever strategies get replicated. 新穎的策略終究為競爭對手所模仿並以為更上層樓的立基
    (例: H-P on Dell, Facebook on MySpace, etc.)
2. Venerable strategies get supplanted. 絕妙的策略終究遭取代而導致產品市場的消失
    (例: 數位相機-底片, 音樂下載-唱片, etc.)
3. Profitable strategies get eviscerated. 獲利的策略終究剝奪利潤來源
    (例: 交易市場上之議價力轉移至消費者身上迫使生產者削減利潤、降價求售)

Third, change happens. product- and technology-based advantages have become more fleeting.

社會經濟環境在改變  且變遷速度更勝以往
組織過大  所需要的反應時間當然也就比較長
只是  反應時間的長短也在當下挑戰企業的存活  從而決定其是否遭逢被淘汰的命運... 

Why Companies Fail — Part II

Fourth, success corrupts.

慣性使企業/經理人於成就事業之後轉趨保守-故守所成  而失去了應有的原動力
挑戰既定的成功法則需要更大的決心與信念 
或許這也就是企業之所以要注入新血的原因:  求組織再生  跳脫舊有模式  重新活絡起來

好沉重的文呀...

製造業算是business case的常客吧 
美國汽車工業現在更是備受矚目  尤其在Toyota及Honda的壓迫下生存...
如今破產的破產  重整的重整  求售的求售 
GM, Ford, Chrysler (the "Big Three")...  還有殘存的美國汽車大廠嗎?

Gary Hamel asks: Should we care when a company struggles or dies?

Adding a fifth failure factor: catastrophes strike.

Why would we want to do anything that might reduce the cold efficiency of Darwinian competition in improving the breed? Wouldn’t it be better to simply admit that destruction, whether caused by ineptitude or catastrophe is, as Schumpeter claimed, creation’s unavoidable counterpart?

Prof. Henry Mintzberg:
http://www.henrymintzberg.com/about.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mintzberg

The MBA Menace by Henry Mintzberg, 12/19/07 -- my graduating year

If you are truly interested in management, as opposed to just fame or money, you may be ready to learn its practice. Find an industry you like, get a good job, and stick with it. The world doesn't need more case-study managers who flit from one industry to another. Prove yourself, and eventually you'll be tapped for a managerial position. That is when your management education will begin. Prepare then to learn about management. Live it. Experience it.