联想集团技术创新【外文翻译】

外文翻译

原文

Lenovo Group Technology Innovation Material Source: R&D Management34，4，2004

Author: Wei Xie and Steven White

Lenovo’s development experience suggests several hypotheses regarding the relationship among a new firm’s competitive strategy, learning and capabilities on one hand, and its performance in a particular competitive and institutional environment on the other. First, the case clearly illustrates the evolutionary and path-dependent nature of capability development. Rather than being a constraint, however, Lenovo’s case shows that an initial set of resources and capabilities can support the development of additional complementary ones. In Lenovo’s case, the founders benefited in the early days from the spin-off’s external legitimacy based on its parent’s reputation. In addition, its personnel had technical expertise that could generate revenues from downstream activities – distribution, sales and service; these did not require scarce capital requirements. Changes in the institutional environment also allowed the founders to undertake such activities, although it also created constraints on its efforts for undertaking others (i.e., manufacturing). Given Lenovo’s initial resources and capabilities, however, it is doubtful whether it could have become a competitive PC manufacturer any earlier than it did.

The case also suggests that the motivation to learn and develop new capabilities may be related to the background, expertise and values of the founding members. While Lenovo’s founders initially established a sales and service firm, they themselves were researchers and engineers and always had the ultimate objective of moving upstream into manufacturing and R&D. Such motivation may be just as critical a factor for a firm to develop new capabilities as having the opportunity and resources (financial and technical) to do so.

Lenovo’s case also illustrates how the nature and direction of learning evolves in relationship to changing environmental features and the firm’s accumulation of relevant resources and capabilities. Hence, Lenovo began in the initial Mao phase by directing its resources to the sales and service opportunities that generated revenues

1

that not only financed its entrance into manufacturing during the following Gong phase, but also provided an enduring competitive advantage vis-a-vis its foreign and even domestic competitor-namely, its understanding of its customers and unique distribution network. Similarly, its experience in manufacturing not only generated revenues, but also provided the basis for identifying competitively important areas in which to focus R&D efforts during the current Ji phase. The movement into each phase was associated with business opportunities and enabled Lenovo to compete more and more directly with leading firms in the industry.

The case shows changes in the capabilities and domains in which a firm competes and also illustrates how the means to acquire new resources and capabilities much change. Initially, Lenovo could compete in sales by relying on other firms’ products or technology developed by its parent. In order to grow, however, it had to internalize first manufacturing capabilities and then R&D capabilities. This is pushed further as rivals begin to see the newcomer as an emerging threat and restrict access to resources or capabilities that they had earlier proved when the new- comer was seen as a partner.

Lenovo also represents the way in which a new entrant may challenge incumbents, especially foreign competitors, by developing resources and capabilities that are especially adapted to the local market. Lenovo accumulated customer knowledge and created a distribution network that has proven nearly impossible for foreign and even most domestic competitors to replicate. It has continued with this strategy as it has extended its capabilities into manufacturing and R&D; namely, a major objective of Lenovo’s ongoing activities is to develop products that are even more finely attuned to increasingly more specific customer segments. This consistent focus and deepening capability in this regard has also emerged as a significant competitive advantage for Lenovo in the Chinese market.

Such extreme adaptation to a particular market, however, may be a liability if the firm wants to expand to new markets, especially those outside its home market. Lenovo, although financially and competitively quite successful in the Chinese market, has only token sales outside of China (approximately 10%). It is not clear at this time whether such dominance of domestic over international sales is simply a matter of managerial focus, or an inherent limitation in the competitiveness of Lenovo’s products in other markets. Although the Chinese market alone promises to be a major growing PC market for the foreseeable future, the possibility that

2

Lenovo’s products may not match other markets would have to be addressed if or when Lenovo chooses to consider increasing its presence in foreign markets.

Finally, the Lenovo case illustrates an alternative path for a new entrant – whether a spin-off or firm that is diversifying into a new business – to become an integrated firm. This path begins with downstream activities in marketing, sales and service, and then expands upstream into manufacturing, product development and engineering, and finally research. This is in contrast to the path followed by most of the other firms that were newly established in response to new opportunities created by China’s transitioning institutional and market environment. These firms began with manufacturing and moved into marketing and sales (Xie and Wu, 2003). For example firms such as Changhong, a leading television manufacturer, began by importing production lines and then building their sales and marketing capabilities and, much later if at all, varying degrees of R&D capabilities. Other firms were spin-offs with truly proprietary technology that expanded their capabilities downstream into manufacturing, marketing and sales. The Founder Group Company is one such example of down- stream capability building (Lu, 2000). Around the same that Lenovo was founded, this company exploited the pictographic-language electronic publishing systems technology developed by Beijing University researchers and thereby produced China’s first high-resolution colour electronic publishing systems.

Managerial implications

Some of the conceptual elements of the Lenovo case have clear implications for management. Two elements – path dependence and capability building – should suggest to managers that they clearly link their existing set of resources and capabilities to desired changes in those features that they see as necessary to compete. Finally, after almost 15 years, Lenovo put together an integrated set of functional capabilities, from R&D to manufacturing to sales and service. Furthermore, because it started with sales and service, its current success can arguably be attributed to it first mastering and understanding manufacturing activities before investing significantly in R&D. Furthermore, each step of its expansion into new activities and capabilities was supported by its success in preceding stages.

The case also shows how each stage in a firm’s development of new capabilities requires different strategies and structures for learning. The firm will

3

acquire different capabilities through different means; for example, through acting as a subcontractor to leading firms, collaborating with a partner, acquisitions, licensing or other means. Furthermore, as the firm develops capabilities new functional areas, or broadens the range of capabilities in a particular function, the organization must be restructured to support effective and effective coordination of increasingly diverse activities.

The case has lessons that are also particularly relevant for latecomer firms, especially but not only those in developing countries like China. Although investments in R&D may be considered vital to compete at the leading edge of an industry, and governments may even reward investment in R&D, it is necessary to realistically assess the opportunity costs and probably outcomes from such investments by a firm with limited resources compared to those of large multinationals. Firms with limited resources should allocate them to activities and learning efforts that will enable it to compete successfully with its rivals. Developing resources and capabilities that set them apart from otherwise much better funded and endowed rivals represent a better strategic option that attempting to compete on the same basis with such firms. Lenovo’s investments in distribution and product development attuned to Chinese customers, for example, have so far more than offset the reality that its investments in R&D are very small compared to the R&D expenditures of its multinational rivals. However, in the long term, Lenovo needs more R&D or move to a more R&D-focused model. Firms invest in R&D not only to generate innovations, but also to learn from rivals and external knowledge sources (Cohen ,1990).

译文

联想集团技术创新

资料来源:研究与发展管理34，4，2004 作者：谢伟，史蒂芬怀特 联想集团的发展经验给了我们几个启示，一方面，关于一个新企业竞争战略的学习和能力间的关系，另一方面，关于在特定竞争力下它的性能和环境的关系。首先，该案件清楚地说明了能力的发展演化和路径依赖的性质。然而，联想的案例表明，对资源和功能的初步建设可以支持更多辅助性的发展，而不是约束。在联想的案例中，创始人受益于衍生企业从早期对外合法性母公

4

司的声誉。此外，其有技术专长的工作人员可以从下层工作即分配、销售和服务中创造或提高收入，这些并不需要稀缺的资本要求。环境的变化使创始人进行这种管理，但同时也造成对他从事其他事情（即制造业）努力的。鉴于联想的初始资源和能力，令人怀疑它是否已经比其他任何企业更早成为有强大竞争力的PC厂商。

案例还表明了学习和开发新的功能的动机可能与背景、专业知识和创始成员价值观有关。虽然联想的创始人初步创立了销售和服务公司，他们本身就是将生产和研发水平推向世界前列为最终目标的研究人员和工程师。这种动机可能只是公司为拥有新资源新能力（财政和技术）的发展机会的关键因素而已。

联想的案例也说明了学习演进的性质和方向如何与不断变化的环境的特点和公司对有关的资源和能力的积累有关。因此，联想在最初Mao阶段开始指导其其资源、销售和服务创造和增加收入的机会，不仅在接下来的Gong阶段未为进入制造业进行资助，而且还提供了一个相对于其国内甚至国际的竞争对手更为持久的竞争优势，即其对客户和分销网络的理解。同样，在制造业的经验，不仅指创造的收入，而且还为确定竞争力的重要领域集中在当前阶段研发工作的基础。进入每个阶段的活动与商业机会及启用联想去面对行业领先企业越来越直接的竞争相关。

案例显示了在企业竞争中能力和领域的变化，也说明了获取新资源和能力手段的大变化。最初，联想可以通过依靠其他公司产品或其母公司在技术提升来销售竞争。为了发展，无论如何，它必须先在内部创造能力，然后研发能力。这是进一步推进作为竞争对手开始看到的新威胁新来的、获取资源或能力以至于他们能早先证明新进者是看作为一个伙伴的。

联想的案例还代表了作为一个新进者尤其是国际竞争者，如何通过开发资源和极端适应当地市场的能力来挑战任职。联想累积顾客知识和建立的销售网络几乎已经证明了是国外和国内的竞争对手不可能复制的。它与这一战略的继续，因为它已经扩展到制造和研究发展的计划，即对联想正在进行的活动主要目标，是能够开发出更适应日益精细更具体的客户群，这种相同的重心和深化这方面的能力也成为了联想在中国市场的重要竞争优势。

这种极端的适应某一特定市场，但是，如果公司要拓展新的市场，特别是本土市场以外的，可能是一个责任。联想，虽然财政和竞争力在中国市场相当的成功，但也只是中国以外的销售（约10％）。目前尚不清楚是否在这个时候这种国内优势已超过国际销售是一个简单的关于管理重点的问题，或在其他市场的联想产品的竞争力的局限问题。尽管中国市场有望成为一个大的增长可预见性的PC市场，联想的可能性的产品可能不符合其他市场就必须解决，如果

5

联想选择或考虑增加其在国外市场的存在。

最后，联想的案例说明了一个新加入者另一途径 - 无论是衍生企业或公司，正在跨入一个新的业务多样化- 成为一个综合性公司。这条道路开始在市场、销售和服务的下游活动中，然后扩展到上游制造，产品开发和工程，最后研究。这与大多其他公司因中国的过渡和市场环境创造的新机会设立所遵循的路径相反。这些公司开始进入生产和市场营销和销售（谢和吴，2003）。举例来说，比如领先的电视制造商长虹，公司始于进口生产线，然后建设自己的销售和市场营销能力，然后不同程度提高的研发能力。其它公司由真正的专利技术扩大其能力到制造、营销和销售下游权衡来衍生。方正集团有限公司就是这样一个上下游能力建设的例子（Lu，2000）。与联想成立的相同，这家公司利用了由北京科技大学研究人员开发的象形语言的电子出版系统，从而产生了中国首个高清晰度彩色电子出版系统。

管理意义

联想案例的一些概念元素对管理有明显的影响。两个元素-路径依赖和能力建设，应加以经理们清楚地把资源他们现有的资源和能力设置有关的期望变化功能，认为有必要竞争特征。最后，经过近15年，联想集团推出了一套从研发制造到销售和服务的综合系统。此外，因为它开始与销售和服务的一套综合设置，其目前的成功可以说是由于它首先掌握和了解投资前在研发方面的显着生产活动。此外，其在前面阶段的成功都支持它每进入一个新的活动和能力的扩展步骤。

此案还显示了每一个公司的新功能的发展阶段，需要学习不同的战略和结构。该公司将通过不同的方式获得不同的功能，例如，通过充当领导分包企业、与合作伙伴、收购、许可或其他方式合作。此外，该公司开发的能力新功能区或扩大在一个特定功能的能力范围内，该组织必须进行改组，以支持有效的和有效的日益多样化的活动的协调。

该案件不仅仅是后发企业尤其是中国这样的发展中国家的教训。虽然R＆D投资可被视为在一个行业中具有领先的优势的重要竞争，而且甚至可能在R＆D投资上有投资回报，并从有限的资源中与公司相比切实评估机会成本和有可能的投资结果是很有必要的。资源有限的企业应分配给活动和学习的努力，使它能够与对手竞争的成功。分开开发资源和能力从其他更好的资金和赋予竞争对手代表更好的战略选择，试图在相同的基础上与这些企业竞争。在配送及产品开发联想投资切合中国客户，例如，到目前为止，抵销了在R＆D的投资的现实，研发支出的差距较小的竞争对手。但是，从长远来看，联想需要更多的研发或转移到更多的研发中心的模式。公司投资于研发，使之不仅

6

创新，而且要学习竞争对手和外部知识源（科恩，1990年）。

7