How to Install an Innovation Process in Your Company

中文版 作者：Robert Tucker
发表时间： 2005-07-22
How will you drive growth in your company? Cost-cutting efforts can build your bottom line, but they cannot increase top-line revenue. They cannot fuel growth. To do that you must offer customers something new, something that they cannot get anywhere else. You must go after new customer groups with new offerings. You must come up with strategies that cause existing and new customers to buy more of what you sell. Doing these things is the essence of innovation.
There's nothing new about innovation. A PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of 399 global executives found innovation easily surpassing globalization and e-business as their top strategic challenge.There's only one problem. Despite knowing what they must do to achieve growth, fewer than one in four global managers know how to do it in practice. In most companies today, innovation is at the point where the discipline of quality was 20 years ago. Then, quality was a department. Today quality in most leading firms is an embedded process that makes it everyone's responsibility. It's ingrained in the culture, in the way they do business.Today, inside a small but growing group of companies, innovation is a systematic, embedded process. These Innovation Vanguard companies have discovered that, to drive growth through innovation, you must embrace five essential principles:Principle 1: Innovation must be approached as a disciplineTo practice innovation as a discipline, you must distinguish between creativity (coming up with ideas) and innovation (bringing them to top-line and bottom-line results for the company).Teaching innovation as a discipline involves showing people how to know which ideas align with the goals of the business. Teaching the discipline of innovation involved showing people how to champion and sell their ideas, how to find resources, and how to overcome obstacles and build coalitions of support.In firms with an innovation discipline, the search for growth ideas is organized, ongoing, and often embraces unconventional techniques. Perhaps the most predominant trait for these companies is their commitment to bottoms-up innovation to support the top-down strategic growth goals set by senior management.Let's go inside Citigroup, a leading financial services firm that illustrates the discipline of innovation. Victor Menezes, chairman and CEO of Citibank NA and head of Citigroup's Emerging Markets Division, was looking for a way to more than double net income every five years in emerging markets. Given such aggressive targets, there was no time to waste." At the end of the day," Menezes told his management team, "what's going to drive our business is top-line revenue growth, and that means innovation in terms of new products, new processes, new business models, and new services."In 2000, Menezes made the decision to undertake a fundamental redesign of Citigroup's innovation process. He appointed a 30- person task force of bright up-and-comers from throughout the organization, encouraged them to benchmark companies that already had exemplary innovation processes in place, and see what they could find out. He also urged them to listen anew to Citigroup's myriad customers for their ideas and input, and to meet with internal players to solicit their input on what the bank wasn't doing well to translate good ideas into revenue growth.The team found widespread agreement inside their own organization that the approval process for new ideas was bureaucratic and slow, that cycle time for introducing new ideas was too long, that the bank was excessively risk-averse. In addition, the team assessed Citigroup as not being good enough at identifying customer needs, its operations and technology function was said to be too slow to implement in an "Internet world," and the firm lacked idea champions. Team Challenge 2000 produced a report that laid out how the company could proceed to foster innovation from every unit and division in the organization.Among its key recommendations, the task force urged that an innovation initiative be launched, suggesting that it would be best to start on the corporate and consumer banking side in emerging market countries. Another finding was that tremendous top-line momentum could be achieved simply by getting individual countries to learn about and adopt the good ideas that were already generating revenues in other Citibank locales. Under the present decentralized arrangement, if Singapore happened to have invented a banking product that was showing great gains, Venezuela or Poland might not even have heard about the success.Its key recommendation was that, to successfully embed innovation into the very fiber of the organization, a steering committee of key regional leaders would be necessary, and Menezes tapped Jorge Bermudez, chief of the bank's e-business unit, to oversee implementation while still heading up e-business. Bermudez said, "Our role as catalysts is not to make innovation happen, but to facilitate its occurrence within line businesses and in key business functions. Our role is to knock down the barriers that exist."At the heart of the Innovation Initiative was putting the right metrics in place. The Citibank Division already had an Innovation Index in place that measured revenues derived from new products, but that was deemed insufficient. Bermudez challenged his team to come up with more meaningful top-line metrics that could be used to track progress and could be integrated into the balanced scorecard, and ultimately tied to compensation of senior managers. The team eventually settled on 12 key metrics. They included such things as: new revenue from innovation, success transfer of products from one country or region to another, the number and type of ideas in the pipeline (and expected new revenues), and time from idea to profit.Principle 2: Innovation must be approached comprehensivelyInnovation can't be confined to one department or an elite group of star performers. It must permeate the company. It must encompass new products, services, processes, strategies, business models, distribution channels, and markets. A comprehensive approach to innovation means that it becomes the responsibility of business units and all functional departments.What motivates managers and leaders across the organization to embrace innovation and give it priority? Metrics.
Look around your organization and chances are you'll find dozens of measuring systems in place: ROI, net earnings, growth, EVA, market share, performance reviews. These metrics all measure past performance, not future potential.Establishing new metrics will be essential. Executives in the Innovation Vanguard companies agree that the way you measure innovation progress (or lack thereof) determines the type of innovation you get, and the degree of magnitude as well. If a manager, team, or department is being measured (and rewarded) on short-term objectives, for example, the vision will likely be short-term as well. Metrics will determine whether your company's focus will be on incremental innovation or on breakthroughs.The most popular form of measuring innovation progress is to plot percentage of this year's sales revenues that come from products/services introduced in the past four or five years. 3M, which makes products ranging from Scotch Tape to asthmatic inhalers and liquid crystal display screens, has long maintained a policy that each division create 25 to 30 percent of its sales from products introduced within the past five years.While doing so, you need to avoid creating just look-alike products, line extensions, and small improvements. A 3M spokesperson said, "We put more emphasis on products truly new to the world, instead of line extensions. When we began this effort, two out of three new product sales dollars came from replacements. Today, the opposite is true; completely new products are producing two out of three sales dollars." By completely new products, 3M means something like Post-It Notes, which are original to the marketplace. By line extension, 3M means new forms of Post-It products, such as new designs, formats, colors, and sizes.You also need to measure your innovation processes. Research by PriceswaterhouseCoopers indicates that successful product innovators are also those who relate their output measurements back to the internal drivers of those measurements, like launch rates, success rates, time-to-market rates.You should also find ways to reward innovation, through financial rewards and/or recognition. Million-dollar ideas from individual contributors not on a bonus plan should be rewarded financially. Or simply showing enthusiasm when someone brings up an idea is a type of reward in itself.Once such goals are broadly communicated and rewards for achieving milestones are established, the pace of ideas to implementation accelerates. The result: growth.Principle 3: Innovation must include an organized, systematic, and continual search for new opportunitiesFirms that have an innovation discipline have specific systems and practices in place that help them focus on future possibilities. What methods does your company employ to detect changes that could spell doom - if appropriate action is not taken - or boom, if they are?Many firms are tempted to put off this part of their innovation strategy. Unless their backs are clearly against the wall, they point to recent performance and say, "We aren't doing that badly, just look."Listen to the head of mid-size specialty chemical company describe what happened to him. "We felt we had the market niche covered because of our strong relationship with a leading customer. Then a competitor came out with a less expensive substitute. Their product didn't do everything ours did, but it did everything our customer needed. Within months we had lost the account." The company eventually recovered, but the loss of that leading customer cost five years of profits. In hindsight the signs were all there: Articles about the new competitor and positive reports of the new product.The company's method of analyzing trends was inadequate. Innovation-adept companies scan and monitor sources of changes and opportunities. The types of changes are almost endless: global, economic, technological, social, regulatory, and political. McDonald's Corporation rode lifestyle changes to success as increasingly mobile people were eager for inexpensive, fast food of consistent quality. Federal Express rode a wave of customer demand for time-sensitive parcel delivery that existing freight forwarded had not yet noticed.Royal Dutch/Shell has a network of company engineers and managers scan the horizon for potential opportunities, to spot where they can "use technologies to attach an existing industry," in the words of a Shell executive. One program manager does nothing but scan the horizon for potential disruptive changes. He manages a global network of volunteer "scanners" who read industry journals, attend conferences, and report on global trends and changes. They ask themselves: What do these developments mean to us? What threats must we respond to now if we are turn this change into opportunities?As a leader of an innovative company, you need to create your own personal future-scan system. People like Federal Express founder Fred Smith, Intel chairman Andrew Grove, and Segway inventor Dean Kamen all are systematic in keeping abreast of trends and new ideas. They are like vacuum cleaners. They shower people with questions. They make time for reading. They connect with people through networking groups and special focus conferences.Finally, companies in the Innovation Vanguard question industry assumptions. Assumptions are what everyone knows to be true but may no longer be. Regis McKenna, who has helped many famous technology startups gain credibility, has a rule in his company: If you're holding a meeting, everyone must come with a list of questions to stimulate a discussion on assumptions that need to be assaulted. Similarly, the late Sam Walton encouraged questions as he built Wal-Mart into the world's largest corporation. "Our company works best when we continue to ask questions," says Maxie Carpenter, a Wal-Mart vice-president.Principle 4: Innovation must involve everyone in the organizationIn most organizations today, new ideas are almost always directed from the top down, rather than from the bottom up. Most organizations have no way to stimulate or harvest the good ideas of their people.If someone in your company has an idea, do they know what to do with it? When InnovationNetwork, a global consortium of innovation-minded thinkers and practitioners, recently surveyed 8,000 subscribers to its e-zine on this issue, the common response was, "We had some sort of program, but I'm not sure whatever became of it." By contrast, Innovation Vanguard firms have made idea management the centerpiece of their drive for new revenues. Some models of idea management include:§ The Suggestion System. Kathryn Kridel, a flight attendant of American Airlines, suggested that vendors supply caviar in smaller cans, so that when the passenger load was light, less caviaardl be wasted. The suggestion reduced expenses by $567,000, and Kridel was awarded a bonus of $50,000. Ideas like Kridel's save companies $2 billion per year, an average of $6,224 per suggestion. Suggestion systems are a hundred-year-old idea, but today's systems are computerized, professionally managed, and have real incentives. A panel of unbiased reviewers accept or reject them depending on pre-established criteria. The standard award is 10 percent of the amount saved during the first year of the idea's implementation. Many pay a nominal fee for successful ideas that have no quantifiable payoff.
§
§ Continuous Improvement Teams. Sometimes called Kaizen Teams, these mostly focus on product improvements, safety, workplace, and quality ideas. When these seemingly small, continuous improvements are added up, they can have substantial impact on the bottom line. Some Dana Corporation's plants receive four ideas per month, per employee, with a 75 percent implementation rate. Team brainstorming sessions at the plant level generate more than two million ideas per year.
§
§ New Venture Teams. The goal of such teams is not cost saving or process improvements. Rather, the goals is to surface and fund unconventional product, service, or strategy ideas. Procter & Gamble formed a task force called Corporate New Ventures (CNV), an autonomous idea lab that encourages new product ideas and fund the most promising ones, and speed them to market launch. Once CNV latched onto an idea that had potential, it analyzed market potential and cost feasibility, and if it decided to go ahead, the project launched within days. In a short time, CNV put 58 products into the market.
§
§ Innovation Teams. The gist of this approach is to set up a companywide network of people with demonstrated skills in innovation and give them clear instructions: Go out and find promising new ideas. Until Whirlpool Corp. adopted this unconventional new method of idea management, growth had come to a standstill, profits were falling, and its stock price was at an all-time low. Making matters worse, top competitor Maytag introduced a new washing machine that won over customers. Whirlpool's Innovation Team is an international cross-function group with 75 members. "We wanted to get rid of the 'great man' theory that only one person is responsible for innovation," says Nancy Snyder, a corporate vice-president. The team sought ideas from every employee. Out of an initial 1100 ideas, the team identified 80 of the most promising, then investigated 11 further, and finally pursued 6 ideas.
§
§ Innovation Catalysts. This model is similar to innovation teams, except that the ideas don't leave the business unit to be developed elsewhere. Instead, they are developed, tested, approved, and launched by the business unit.
Whichever system you implement, it must be able to solicit ideas from everybody. It must be easy to use. There should be at least one full-time person to manage it. It should give people permission to bypass the chain of command. It should respond promptly to idea contributors. It should involve the contributor whenever possible. And it should give recognition for contributing, regardless of what happens with the idea.
Principle 5: Innovation must be customer-centered
Innovation-adept firms know that the customer is fickle and always difficult to predict, but they don't let that stop them from trying. The discipline of innovation means learning to listen to customers and potential customers in new ways.
Where do most product ideas come from? A study of 252 products at 123 firms reported that new products are most often initiated by ideas from customers. Involving customers in your company's innovation process can be accomplished in a number of ways. You can form an advisory board of key customers. You can identify those who show a pattern of purchasing new versions of your products first. While their ideas must be validated with probes of the overall market, these "lead adoptors" can provide you with advanced insights into where the market is headed and how you might best respond.
BMW is constantly seeking to discover new technologies and design features to put into future cars. Its interest is not limited to internal research groups. To harvest other insights, the firm's Virtual Innovation Agency (VIA) is the point of contact for all external innovators who do not as yet have contacts within the firm. VIA makes it easy for car enthusiasts to communicate their ideas through its Web site, with additional online discussions that solicit ideas from fans around the world. Within the first after VIA was launched, 4,000 ideas had been received.
Market-leading home-builder KB Home has gained insights from customers that have led to a whole new way of doing business. In one market, the firm assumed people wanted fireplaces and basements. But surveys showed that many people preferred doing without basements. In another market, a covered porch was considered mandatory until surveys revealed that less than half the buyers cared about them.
By cutting the price of some offerings, the company could offer an array of other amenities: coffee bars in the master bedroom and built-in home offices. Not only did these amenities please buyers, they increased the home's selling price and fueled sales growth.
You also want to find out what are the "unarticulated needs" of customers - those needs that even they do not now about yet. Here, you are really asking people to think about hypothetical products and ideas, what they'd respond to if it were available.
Listen to David S. Pottruck, co-CEO of Charles Schwab, describe how he listens and creatively interprets what customers are trying to say. "First, I ask customers about their experience with services like ours," he says. "Then I try to listen, beyond what they say, for frustrations and dreams. I almost pretend I'm on a hunt to hear what they would say if they had the necessary experience. I love to ask customers to dream. They describe their problem and their ideal world where the problem disappears. It's up to us to listen and create something to overcome those frustrations."
When Callaway Golf Company launched its successful Big Bertha line, it did not focus on competitors. Callaway's developers went out to country clubs and public courses and hung around. They observed how golfers approached the game and asked how they felt about their level of skill. They talked to former golfers who hadn't set foot on a course in years. They concluded that many people liked the game but didn't play because it was too frustrating.
Callaway's innovation team saw that people wanted to play but were intimidated. So they made a golf club that was more forgiving. They marketed it as a way to make golf less difficult and more fun. The result was that more new players took up the sport and a lot of seasoned players traded in their old golf clubs for Big Berthas. By focusing on unarticulated needs, Callaway's innovation team created a blockbuster.
Where to Start?
After understanding the five principles, the question often is, where do you start to upgrade your innovation process? Most companies can best start by rethinking and redesigning their idea management systems. By doing so, you will be putting innovation on the agenda. You'll be looking at innovation as a function of the total company.
If you're like most companies, you will be pleasantly surprised that there are some many truly good ideas out there - that you might not have even heard about! So, start your own innovation initiative by focusing on how much more effectively you can solicit and reward and develop and act on the ideas that are in your organization. n
Robert B. Tucker is president of The Innovation Resource, a consulting firm based in California. He is the author of "Managing the Future: 10 Driving Forces of Change."
Reprinted with permission of the publisher. From the book entitled "Driving Growth Through Innovation" by Robert B. Tucker, Copyright ?2002 by Robert B. Tucker, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA. All rights reserved. www.bkconnection.com
 
（© 世界经理人）
张瑞敏：中国式管理的三个终极难题
作者：张瑞敏
来源：中国企业家网站
发表时间： 2009-06-12
他专门见了传奇CEO杰克.韦尔奇、郭士纳，他研判了德鲁克、托夫勒、纳什等的趋势引导，他扫描了《长尾理论》、《基业长青》、《圣经》，甚至云计算……经历了一系列的中外交锋、新旧激荡、自我颠覆，中国第一CEO张瑞敏再次以自己独一无二的格局和思考，直击中国企业家的管理软肋：如何做适应中国国情的管理？信息化时代如何管理创新？如何进行商业模式创新？
今天在这里我想讲三点：第一个是怎么样做适应中国国情的管理；第二，在信息化时代怎样做管理上的创新；第三，海尔自己在商业模式创新上的探索。　　中国现在有一个MBA悖论，一开始大家对MBA非常狂热，只要有了MBA的学生、受到MBA的教育企业管理一定能够上去。当然MBA是非常重要的，当然有一个MBA“退烧”的问题，用了之后觉得不像期望的那么高。主要原因是MBA案例大部分是国外案例，很少有中国自己的，中国没有自己的管理模式、管理方式。在改革开放前，中国没有自己的管理，改革开放后中国主要是学习日本的管理方法，而不是管理模式，比如像丰田这种管理模式。引进MBA还有一个是不是水土相服的问题，我自己也感觉到这确实是一个非常大的问题。　　难题1：怎么样做适应于中国国情的管理？ 　　去年11月我去美国波士顿，和杰克.韦尔奇专门有一个会谈，谈了很多问题，我问的第一个问题是：韦尔奇如何能够把GE做到世界最大，但是又做到了世界最小。意思是说他把公司做到了世界第一，但是公司里每一个人又能够充分地发挥、体现自己的价值，其实这是非常不简单的。在中国很难做到这一点，我请他谈一下他的体会。他说中国的企业文化和美国有非常大的不同，在美国很多方面可以放权，因为美国的财务制度非常非常完善，完善到了我自己都不了解，里面有非常复杂、非常详细的内容，但是可以帮助我把这个企业有系统地推进。我让员工更多地创新，因为在这个制度下反而会觉得受到很多的束缚。GE在中国也有很多企业，在中国员工很愿意随意改动一些东西，中国没有一些非常完善的制度，这是两个国家在管理上非常大的差异。　　其实我们自己在国外设立工厂或者是和国外公司打交道后，也感觉到中国企业内部的文化和美国、日本的都有非常大的不同。比如说我们在美国南卡罗来纳州设立了一个工厂，我们的人过去告诉美国生产线的工人应该怎么去操作，但是过了几天，按照美国的条件可以再改动一下，美国工人就不干了。他说你前两天告诉我那样干，今天又告诉我这样干，到底哪个是对的。所以不能随便改。　　这就体现了一个“法”的概念，但是中国工人的这个概念并不是很强烈。比如，让日本人擦5遍桌子，但是中国人可能今天擦5遍，明天就擦3遍了。我们把日本的一家工厂并过来，研发了非常好的产品，在全世界都卖的非常好，我们就给这个研发团队特别的一份奖励，结果他们不同意。为什么呢？让这些人来干就开发出很好的产品，如果不让他们干，让其他的人干也会开发出很好的产品，这是我们的决定，而不是他们的能力问题，不可以给他们单独奖励，最后把钱还是平均了。日本人的这种团队精神也是和中国不一样的。　　中国的管理一定要适合中国自己的国情，这在国外可能会遇到很大的问题，但是怎么样来做又遇到了一个问题，现在金融危机来了，很多企业感觉到现在还谈什么管理，能过得去就行了。所以大家抱着能“过冬”的思想。　　今年1月1号温家宝总理到海尔视察，我谈了这方面的想法，现在很多企业不考虑什么管理不管理的问题了，就是考虑能“过冬”就行了。作为海尔我们的想法不应该是“过冬 ”，应该是“冬泳”，金融危机过去后你只能是低水平的重复，以前是廉价劳动力生产产品出口，你如果还是低水平生产产品出口的话没有多大的意思，所谓的“冬泳”是在金融危机中不但不能放弃管理，应该把管理提高一步。所有企业在金融危机中遇到的问题就是两大问题：一个就是库存非常多，二是应收帐款收不回来。特别是江浙一带欠的非常多。一般企业采取的作为是库存只好再降价、再销售，在金融危机的情况下“冬泳”就是把我的管理提高到可以消除库存、消除应收帐款问题，这样可以把整个企业的管理进行提高。　　当时我跟温总理说这个要靠创新，佛教禅宗上有一句话“凡墙都是门”，只要你创新，所有竖在你面前的墙都可以通过去。如果不能创新的话在你跟前的一堵门也过不去。这是我想说的第一点，怎样用创新来适合中国的国情。　　难题2：怎么样在互联网时代进行管理创新？　　现在进入互联网时代，互联网时代对企业提出来的挑战就两个字——速度。谁能够以更快的速度满足用户的需求。有人说农业时代解决饥饿工业征服空间，信息工业征服的是时间，所以对企业来讲时间是制胜的关键，能不能在第一时间满足客户的需求。德鲁克有一句话，互联网消除了距离，这就是它最大的影响。对于企业来讲只能做到和用户的零距离，如果和用户零距离你就赢了。　　先要做企业信息化，然后再提升企业信息化。作为企业信息化来讲中国企业还有很长的路要走。现在媒体报道中国企业ERP不能够成功的有93%，也就是说可以做到ERP的只有7%，而这7%还不一定能够成功。媒体上可以看到很多企业和做ERP的咨询公司打官司，说你给我做ERP，给我承诺做到什么程度，现在没有做到，我要求你索赔。这说明一个很大的问题，做信息化有一个非常大的误区，还没有做到以用户为中心满足用户的需求，然后就要求做信息化，其实做不到的。现在中国企业做的油水分离，本来业务就像水一样，现在把信息化做的像“油”一样，放在水上面。有点儿像《圣经》马太九章的一句话，没有人把新酒放在旧皮袋里去，如果把新杯放在旧皮袋里去旧皮袋一定会爆裂，新酒也会爆裂，所以只能把新酒放在新皮袋里。原来的业务流程就像旧皮袋一样，现在的信息化像新酒一样，把新酒装到旧皮袋中去肯定不可以。　　拿海尔自己来说，做信息化也废了很多周折，现在比较好地做起来了。举例来说库存问题，我们在做信息化流程时库存没有得到很好的解决，现在我们提出零库存下的信息化。我没有库存，但是用户要的话我可以马上送给你，用户不要就不会形成库存，实际上就是全流程的再造。比如研发，今天研发的产品必须是六个月后用户的需要。市场人员也应该了解到用户的需求，我的产品一定不会形成库存的。现在这个问题我们做的相对好一些了。　　这也是中国企业面临的很大的问题，比如说编成统一数据，2008年中国家电企业库存周转天数是64天，我们自己在2008年初库存周转天数是32天，差不多是中国平均周转天数的一半。尽管我们的流程再造现在已经降到了三天。这个过程其实也是很痛苦的。我们的销售在这个过程中也受到很大的影响，咬着牙做了之后，把全流程的信息化都做起来了。很多中国的企业基本上还是卖库存，我们能够是开始卖服务了，根据用户的需求来做。　　最近我看到一个报道，丰田汽车说它在金融危机的过程中之所以受到影响，就是因为它偏离了丰田之道。原来的丰田之道并不是表面所说的精益管理，而是我生产的汽车一定是有用户要的。现在我们的零库存做到现在，也做到在生产线上生产的产品出来后不是放在仓库里去，而是哪个商场、哪个用户已经定了，所以我生产线上生产的产品就是用户要的产品。而不是像很多中国企业为仓库采购、为仓库销售，这是一个非常大的挑战，我们的企业信息化从这里切入就是以用户为中心做的。　　接下来再往上做就是“信息化的企业”，怎么做我们也正在探讨。我的意思是说“企业的信息化”相当于以企业为中心满足用户的需求，而“信息化的企业”相当于把企业放到全球用户需求的链条中去，你只是这个链条中的一环，应该更快地在这个链条中进行运转。海尔要做的是怎样把我们从制造的企业转化成为服务型的企业。　　美国的安德森在《长尾理论》里有两句话，非常好了诠释了这一点，“在信息化时代每个企业应该是低成本提供高质量产品，高质量地帮助用户找到它”。如果低成本提供所有的产品，就不是中国企业现在大规模制造，而应该是大规模定制。因为大规模制作一定可以做到低成本。像长尾理论说的不是80/20原则，而是所有型号的产品用户可能都要用。那个时候，在大规模定制时，虽然是大规模，但是要定制很多型号的产品，这对中国企业来讲是非常大的挑战。　　高质量地帮助用户找到他需要的产品，现在用户面对的不是你一个企业，而是全球很多企业，要高质量地帮助用户找到他需要的产品要求你的产品在全球中非常有竞争力。这是对于中国的企业来讲，从现在开始，通过金融危机来转型是非常大的挑战。
我们现在具体探索的就是虚实网结合，所谓“虚网”就是互联网，所谓“实网”就是最后一公里，也就是鼠标加及时服务。用户在互联网上点鼠标之后我应该是第一时间送达，这就需要跟实网——物流、营销服务等结合。现在在实网方面我们正在努力地往前推进，因为中国的市场实在是太大了。特别是中国农村，现在扩大内需主要是农村，中国有2812个县，35000个乡，64万个行政村，一个县就有上百万人，广东地区有些地方一个很小的地方、一个县可能GDP就可以突破千亿，这个潜力是非常大的。但是这个网络深入下去就非常困难了，所以我们从县、乡、村一点点往下铺。
这和“虚网”——互联网要结合起来，他点了鼠标后你怎么样送达。国外很多大的物流公司到中国来希望和海尔进行合作。他的很多方面都比我强，但是就差一点，就是最后一公里。现在中国政府在推“家电下乡”，我们在“家电下乡”全国中的份额是最大的，是第一位的。就是因为我建设了庞大的网络。另外还有很多外国品牌和我是竞争对手，比方说美国、欧洲、日本的家电电器品牌都是我的竞争对手，但是他现在把农村的销售委托给我。为什么呢？因为它没有办法配送，也没有办法服务，到每个村、每个县是很难的。
中国很有意思，村里很重要的是村长，村长如果觉得我用海尔的产品很不错，村里的村民大概都会同意。因为他可以给你一定的优惠政策，比方说电价可以给你优惠一点。另外我们村的电工，如果说谁买了海尔家电我可以免费给你修理，村民当然会很高兴了。另外中国农村的电价是很有意思的，不是和城市电价一样，很贵。为什么很贵呢？因为有很多费用都摊到电价里去。农民买电器买得起，但是用不起。
这是非常重要的，现在进入到云计算时代之后，没有人去买服务器了，肯定只买服务就行了。就像没有任何一个单位说我买一个发电机，自己给自己发电就行了。但是你买什么样的服务就是一个很大的挑战了。这个服务一定要和市场是紧密联系在一起的。
难题3：什么商业模式上的创新王道？
我谈谈海尔自己在商业模式创新上的探索。到底这个商业模式是什么样的，现在有很多说法，所谓的商业模式不管怎么说就是一条，能不能创造客户价值。如果说你能够创造客户价值，能够体现客户价值，这个商业模式就是对的了。像丰田的精益管理、戴尔的直销模式。
我们自己现在在做的过程中，怎么样能够统一一个目标来创造客户价值。海尔1984年开始创业时只有600人，原来是一个濒临倒闭的小工厂，现在是一个国际化的企业，发展的比较快。在发展的过程中很多管理的东西都没有跟上，慢慢地就会有一种大企业病。所谓大企业病就是内部员工和部门相互间的博弈。就像1994年获得诺贝尔奖的纳什所说的，每个人都从自己利益最大化出发，最后形成一个博弈。可能是我为了自己的利益损害了公司、别人的利益，这一点在我们自己集团中也慢慢形成：部门间相互做一个防火墙，这样就形成一个非常大的问题。现在我们所做的是怎样使大家的目标都集中到创造用户价值上，怎样能够协同起来。
第一步把各个组织结构颠覆了。按照职能管理原则，组织结构应该是金字塔型的，是一个中三角，企业最高领导在最上面，然后是次要领导，然后是一级级领导下来，到最下边一定是员工。但是员工面对的就是客户。客户所反映的问题员工要逐级反映上去，领导再做决策下来，这里面除了内部的消耗外还有一个很大的问题是不能够非常好地直面市场、快速做出决策。现在就把这个三角形倒过来，变成倒三角。客户在最上面，然后是一线经理、员工直面客户，最后一级级下来，最高领导成了最下面的了。这样企业的最高领导从原来的发号施令变成在最下端为一线经理提供资源。所有的部门在这当中都为了一线经理和客户提供资源，从发号施令者变成提供资源者。
集团内部的各个部门因为都要面对客户，所以要打破各部门间的壁垒，我们叫做自主经营体，大家共同来达到客户的价值。
今年4月份我到美国佛罗里达和郭士纳（IBM公司前任董事长）谈了，他写了《谁说大象不能跳舞》，就这个问题我们进行了交流，我画了这张图，从正三角到倒三角，我们现在是这么做的，你觉得怎么样？他说我在IBM做头的时候想这么做，但是我没有做。他说这个方向肯定是对的、方法肯定是好的，但是当时没有做的原因是什么呢？主要有两点：第一，如果你在上面叫一线经理变成一个个的经营体，经营团队就会产生一些问题，市场上一些新的机会就不会关注了，只会关注他对的客户，这样会丧失很多新的机会。第二，一线经理团队对着客户，身后的资源不能及时提供给他，他要回过身来找资源，对客户的关注下降了。因为这两个原因当时在IBM没有采用这个方法。
我们也考虑到这两个问题，现在在采取措施解决。一个企业可能很大，但是再大、再小的企业就是三张表，损益表、资产负债表和现金流量表，现在我把损益表做到一个团队，在倒三角型最尖端的领导个人损益表是要关注这个企业在市场上的战略方向和战略目标，当然企业新的机会就是他损益表的任务。为了防止一线经理和客户承诺后还担心背后的资源没有共享，所有背后的这些人，比方说人力、财务等等都有各自的损益表，这个损益表和这个团队对客户的承诺内部要形成一个契约。我们也进行了一些试点，效果还不错。收到了一些效果，这完全颠覆了过去的思路，过去我到企业里来干，根据我的职务、能力、所做的工作给我开工资或者是奖金，现在完全变成了你到公司来干，你拿到的是公司的资产，你拿到的资产必须要增值，如果不增值的话就亏损了。你拿到资产后我给你时间划定，做到多少是保本，挣到多少是公司利润。一个是市场行业平均利润、一个是市场标杆企业的最高利润，第一步可以达到平均率，第二达到最高，把这个利润留下后，把所用的费用拿掉，剩下的进行分成。
现在市场上很多企业做着做着就要降价。过去一个经理派到北京来做，他说产品不好卖了，要降价，他就申请，我们批准后，这个事就和他没关系了。现在是买断了，降价一定会亏损，亏损后你就没有工资。你就不可能再创造价值。有点儿像中国农村改革开放一开始的时候。中国农村从1978年开始改革开放，很短时间内就上来了，也就是“先国家、后集体，剩下是自己。”我给你这样一个平台，比方说你销售一百万，之前是公司资产，现在你必须要增值十万或者是二十万。
这样做了之后有三个好处：第一可以适应信息化时代多变、快速的市场。现在市场变化太快了，等到市场变化反馈回来你再做决策肯定不行的。但是我把市场给你了，你来运作，他自己来做的话绝对就可以了。就像托夫勒在商业新文明中说的一句话一样，现在的时代是金钱与光速的时代，信息需要比这个更快才行，信息要比光速还快，
在农村就有这些，举个小例子，我们的产品到农村很受欢迎，电冰箱、洗衣机都有防鼠板，如果不打老鼠的话，老鼠就把电线咬断了，我们就加了一个防鼠板。我们一线人员发现防鼠板不管用。达尔文的进化论在这里起作用了，老鼠进化了。原来农村房屋很差，门什么都是敞开的，老鼠随便进出。现在门窗都严密了，老鼠进不去了。四公分的小老鼠就可以繁殖下一代，原来的防鼠板根本防不住老鼠了。他们在现场马上采取措施把这个问题解决了，类似这样的事非常多。
第二，解决内部博弈的问题，就是人单合一的文化。人就是员工，单就不是狭义上的定单，而是市场目标。每个人都有自己的市场目标，要和市场目标协同起来变成双赢。他可以给用户创造价值，也可以从这个价值中得到新的价值。
中国的员工很聪明，不管你下达什么政策都有办法对付你，很快就修正了。但是有一条，只要花公家的钱办公家的事，肯定是——第一效率低，第二浪费钱。如果花自己的钱办自己的事，第一效率高，第二省钱。这样就很简单了，你拿的资产都是公司的了，现在我划到你名下，变成你的。把这个资产给你，让你来运作。你运作增值的话就得好处，亏损的话就没有工资了，就不会把很多难题推到你这上面来了。英国哲学家培根说了一句话，追逐私利的人往往会烧掉大家的房子来煮自己的鸡蛋。其实这样的事多了去了。
第三个，对于传统管理会计进行新的推进和探索。我们推行的这些东西，美国会计协会和我们探讨过几次，他觉得很有意思。现在美国的管理会计已经到顶了，很难突破了，海尔所做的这一切提供了一个突破现有管理会计的新思路。作为管理会计，说到底就是管理未来、规划未来的会计。如果一个企业规划未来规划的很好，也就是说你的战略很好，但是员工不能协同，不能直接反映到市场上也是白搭。如果把管理会计、规划未来的会计变成每个人都来规划未来，每个人规划未来和自己的未来是连在一起的，这样管理会计一定会充满活力的。
最后我想说一点我个人的体会，我在企业里干了30多年，我觉得作为企业领导人最难的是要不断地战胜自己。因为你不是神仙，不可能主观的判断总是会适应客观规律，所以就很难了。因此不能够自以为是，要永远自以为非，只有这样才能不断地挑战自己。所以国家领导人来海尔的时候说，金融危机你们什么目标？我说就四个字：剩者为王，你能剩下的话就一定赢了。要剩下就不这么简单了，不是充分低水平的剩下，而一定要提高。怎么样创新、怎样提高呢？就像《基业长青》所说的，对于领导人的挑战，你不能做报时人，应该做造钟师。都靠你来做决策，你再英明也会有失误的时候，做造钟师，能够把每个人都打造成为了体现自身价值而不断创造新价值的主体。这样企业就不是靠你一个人来运转，而是像一部精密的时钟一样准确地运转，会克服所有的问题。
我自己的目标是希望把这个企业打造成一个自组织、自运转，能够应对所有的挑战、所有的危机，真正能够做到基业长青。
（本文为张瑞敏6月12日在沃顿全球校友论坛上的主题演讲，有删节，未经本人审阅）
本文经《中国企业家》许可转载。（© 世界经理人）