核心竞争力的研究英文版.doc

Is your core competence a mirage?Managers now consider just about everything a potential competence. Are you measurably better, can you sustain the difference, and does it matter? Building a core competence: three options.KEVIN P. COYNE, STEPHEN J. D. HALL, AND PATRICIA GORMAN CLIFFORD1997 Number 1Core competencethe idea that a company can succeed without a structural competitive advantage by becoming the best at a few key skills or in a few knowledge areashas enjoyed enormous popularity over the past six years. The article that introduced the concept1 has been one of the most requested reprints in the Harvard Business Reviews history. Executive management programs and MBA curricula routinely devote hours to the subject, and executives often refer to their own and competitors core competences as key drivers of strategy.But despite all the attention this concept has received, its tangible impact on corporate performance has been mixed at best, as these statements attest:Core competence has too often become a feel good exercise that no one fails.2True core competences are hard to define precisely and are often discovered retrospectively. That is, as you experiment, you define your competences by simply describing your successes and failures.3We talked to core competence experts and asked them to help us identify our core competences. But after having them work with our senior management, leading them through some group exercises, we really had a mess on our hands. We could not define what was core as opposed to noncore, and what was a competence as opposed to some process or offering we just did well.4Most managers we talked to were uncertain as to exactly what qualifies as a core competenceOur own observations bear out these views. Few managers we have talked to could claim to have utilized a core competence to achieve success in the marketplace, and even fewer to have built a core competence from scratch. Indeed, most were uncertain as to exactly what qualifies as a core competence.We are left with a conundrum. Core competence is clearly an important concept, and some companies seem to be able to make it work. But for most, it is like a mirage: something that from a distance appears to offer hope in a hostile environment, but that turns to sand when approached.Why do competences seem so elusive? One reason may be that there is no clear basis for identifying them, nor any established way of gauging progress toward them. To address the need for a more rigorous approach, we reviewed the literature, assessed individuals experience, and conducted case studies of companies that had attempted (successfully or unsuccessfully) to develop a core competence. This research produced four important findings: core competence is an umbrella phrase covering two distinct bases of advantage; certain tests can help predict whether a competence-led strategy will be successful; there are three distinct paths to developing a competence, each with its own benefits and drawbacks; and sustaining a core competence requires just as much rigor as developing one in the first place.What are core competences?While most of the examples in Hamel and Prahalads article concerned knowledge of one or more technologies, executives have extended the idea of core competence to cover many types of skills and functions, including process engineering, production, new product idea generation, and even corporate identity. They treat everything as a potential competence. One executive asserted, The way I determine core competences is that they are those few things that you do together with the customer that create value.In contrast, we believe a precise definition is essential. To mount a winning competence-based strategy, it is not enough to rely on broad generalizations like marketing, product development, or service. One consumer goods company with a reputation for marketing excellence assumed that it was superior in all aspects of marketing. Yet it is not particularly skilled at pricing, is only average at channel management, and has made some costly errors in a string of new product failures. Its true competence is much narrower: demand stimulation through image-based advertising. Companies must define their core competences with equal precision if they are to use the concept to its full advantage.The definition must also incorporate the applications and limits of the competence. A large regional bank believed that one of its core competences was its ability to process financial transactions with tremendous accuracy. It indeed excelled at cash management, check processing, and several similar lines. But it exited the mortgage servicing business after failing to master the transaction processing tasks involved.We propose a simple definition:A core competence is a combination of complementary skills and knowledge bases embedded in a group or team that results in the ability to execute one or more critical processes to a world-class standard.Such a definition excludes many skills or properties often cited by organizations as core competences. Patents, brands, products, and technologies do not qualify; neither do broad management capabilities such as strategic planning, flexibility, and teamwork; nor do high-level corporate themes like quality, productivity, and customer satisfaction.Core competences so defined can be grouped into two categories:Insight/foresight competences. These enable a company to discover or learn facts or patterns that create first-mover advantages. Such insights might derive from: Technical or scientific knowledge that produces a string of inventions, as with Canons optics knowledge and miniaturization ability Proprietary data, such as the behavioral and credit-scoring knowledge used by Citibank to build the United States leading credit-card business in the 1980s Information derived from having the largest share of leading-edge transactions in the deal flow, such as is now being exploited by Enron in the gas business Pure creative flair in inventing successful products, such as is displayed by the Walt Disney Companys animated film business and by 3M Superior analysis and inference, as evidenced by the outstanding financial returns realized by Berkshire Hathaway and the Fidelity Magellan Fund under Peter Lynch using the same data available to other stock analysts. What distinguishes this kind of competence is that value ultimately derives from the insight itself. A company may have to go to great lengths to exploit it, but others could do so just as effectively if they had access to it.Frontline execution competences arise in cases where the quality of an end product or service can vary appreciably according to the activities of frontline personnel. They can be defined as a unique ability to deliver products and services that are consistently nearly equal in quality to what the best craftsman would have produced under ideal circumstances. (Obviously, there is no opportunity for a frontline execution competence strategy when almost anyone can attain such quality, since there is no scope for differentiation.)In commercial lines insurance, for example, an individual underwriter decides whether the company will accept a policy, and prices that policy in line with his/her personal assessment of the risk. Although the underwriter refers to guidelines, he/she also enjoys great personal latitude. Studies have shown that when the best (rather than an average) underwriter handles a book of policies, the insurers return on equity on that book can rise by more than 15 percent.In retailing, Nordstroms ability to satisfy customers is an example of a frontline competence. Its stores achieve an unsurpassed level of service thanks to the actions and decisions of hundreds of members of its salesforce. These salespeople are embedded in a corporate culture that provides socialization, incentives, and a supportive environment for the Nordstrom way of doing business.Insight/foresight and frontline execution competences can coexist in the same company, but each will require its own managerial focus. McDonalds, for instance, uses its frontline execution competence to engineer the food delivery system at individual restaurants and its insight/foresight to identify winning sites for its outlets.Evaluating core competencesSuccessful core competences are rarer than many imagine. Most companies that claim a competence-led strategy are deluding themselves. So how can an executive in serious pursuit of such a strategy determine whether it is likely to prove worthwhile?The first step is to define the competence as precisely as possible, as described above. With definition in hand, the executive should ask four key questions:1. Are our skills truly superior?It is obvious, but usually overlooked, that any competence-led strategy requires that a company be the best (or at the very least, nearly the best) at its chosen competence. Many companies wrongly assume they can base their strategy on competence merely because a particular skill is important to their business or attractive to their customers. If a core competence is to form the basis of its strategy, a company must be demonstrably better at it than all or most of its actual and potential competitors.Instead of commissioning research, companies tend to infer their superiority from general usage and attitude surveysThe most direct check is simply to ask, Would independent tests show that we are better at this skill than leading competitors in technical terms or customer opinion (or both)?, and then commission research to find out. Surprisingly, this is rarely done. Companies tend instead to infer their superiority from more general usage and attitude surveys.Frontline execution competences offer output benchmarks that can help a company ascertain its relative capability. In banking, North Carolina-based Wachovia Bank has long been recognized for its credit skills. This superiority can be empirically tested by examining its history of credit write-offs and comparing it with the experiences of similar banks. From 1980 to 1995, Wachovia forfeited 0.6 percent of loans to credit losses compared with over 1.1 percent at the average regional bank, which translates into a 6 to 8 point advantage in return on equity for Wachovia.Similarly, publicly available data show that the best property and casualty insurance companies have an underwriting loss ratio that is nearly ten points below the industry average. The difference accounts for an improvement in return on equity of between 10 and 20 points. Where comparative data are not published, companies can usually obtain useful benchmarks through trade associations, best practice visits, vendors, and other sources.Measuring superiority in insight competence tends to be harder. Crude measures may exist: the number of patents granted in recent years, technical reviews in trade magazines, movements in market share, or changes in the profitability of insight-dependent transactions such as trading. Often, however, companies have to rely on input rather than output benchmarks. Here they have to assume a direct link between the amount and type of resources they dedicate to the task of finding new insights and their ability to develop superior insights or to be first with new ones.R&D personnel assessments represent a potentially valuable gauge of product development skills, for instance. Relevant measures might include the number of researchers, their academic qualifications, and their ability to influence product offerings. Although this method is less reliable than output measures, it may indicate whether a claim of superiority is justified. A firm that has difficulty hiring and retaining the best graduates should surely doubt its superiority in insight competence. By contrast, Microsoft is able to select from a huge pool of potential employees. Not everybody has the luxury we have of getting MITs best and Stanfords best, admits the companys Mike Maples.2. How sustainable is the superiority?A good start to answering this question is to ask how quickly your best-positioned rival could imitate your competence, assuming it knew how. Ease of imitation is a function of how rare a competence is, how long it takes to develop, and how difficult it is to understand its source. Sustainability can be assessed by investigating each of these in turn.Rareness is evaluated by comparing your competence to those of other firms in various industries (not just your own). The fewer examples you can find of similar competences, the more likely it is that you possess something rare.The time it takes to develop a competence is a function of its type and complexity. Even if a firm could pinpoint the source of a competitor competence and set out to copy it, the advantage would not be eroded immediately. With insight/foresight, the imitator must develop supporting mechanisms such as databases or personnel hiring, and it may be necessary to do this sequentially rather than in parallel. With frontline competences, it can take months or years to train personnel, revise policies, unlearn current practices, and make the multitude of other changes necessary to create and sustain a competence. A competence that is supported by diverse functions within an organization, rests on deeply held cultural norms, and draws on employees tacit knowledge of tasks and processes will be more time consuming and difficult to replicate.Whether the source of your competence can be understood by outsiders often depends on its nature. The inspiration that drives insight/foresight competences is intrinsically difficult to understand. In frontline execution strategies, skills may be deeply embedded in a companys culture. Attempts by competitors to hire underwriters from the best insurance firms, for instance, seldom produce the desired results. An individual underwriter may not be able to transfer an ability that is rooted in an entire culture.When a core competence relies on the subtle alignment of myriad elements, even employees may not know what is special about what they doThe number of organizational elements in a competence contributes to its sustainability and defensibility. A core competence comprising only a few elements is much easier to understand and imitate than one that relies on the subtle alignment of myriad elements. Indeed, in the latter case, even a companys employees may not know what is special about what they do.3. How much value can the competence generate in comparison to other economic levers?A common error is to assume that being the best at a particular skill offsets other disadvantages. The fact that a company has chosen to emphasize one or two skills does not erase a scale or scope disadvantage, or compensate for inferiority in other areas. For a comp