《塑造工业时代》的原文摘录

  • 工业企业的竞争力取决于学习组织能力。包括技术、功能、管理。 技术能力:是学习的产物,而学习是应用已有的和新的科学和工程知识创造新的技术,并且新产品和新方法能够被商品化的过程。技术能力以知识为基础,是在研究与开发中满足研究所需要的能力。 功能能力:以产品为导向,涉及开发的能力(学习的商品化)、开发能力、营销和分配能力。 管理能力:成功维持企业长期健康和增长最本质的要点是最高管理层的学习能力。 (查看原文)
    Moneychan1984 1赞 2018-10-19 10:29:44
    —— 引自章节:塑造工业时代
  • 一是创造进入壁垒。通过采取某种公司战略和某种支持性管理结构,容许他们借助规模经济和范围经济获得的利益来降低单位成本,这样公司就创造了进入比列。规模经济反映了公司通过综合学习基础使某种产品商品化的速度和容量。需要获得规模和范围成本优势的基本战略是一个相关多元化战略,他与市场货技术相关。而另一个战略是非相关多元化,也就是公司跨越其受到进入壁垒保护的产业竞争场所。从组织能力的观点看, 这种战略不仅意味着以劣势参与竞争,更为重要的是实施非相关多元化战略的企业不能够从相互关联的规模和范围经济中获得利益。 二是确定战略边界。第一推动者和紧密跟随者通过规模化和多元化创造了进入的边界。这些战略边界以技术成就和财务汇报的方式反映了各个企业的竞争成功和失败。 三是增长限度。这个行业是夕阳还是朝阳行业,如果是夕阳行业,企业能否建立新的认知能力,树立起新的进入壁垒,确定出新的战略边界。 (查看原文)
    Moneychan1984 1赞 2018-10-19 10:29:44
    —— 引自章节:塑造工业时代
  • 微生物学和酶学中的应用认知是由来自信息革命的创新“以设计获得发现”(discovery by design)所推动的。在此之前,新药物的发现主要依靠甄别化学实体,以找到抵抗疾病的活性分子的种随机试错技术。20世纪70年代中期,研究人员开始采用他们的新知识,“使所谓“理想”分子的结构概念化,学者们希望这种理想分子能够修复被改变的(病态)平衡。然后把这种理想分子结构提供给实验室化学家,由他们据此寻求分子结构与理论模尽可能紧密匹配的物质”。这样的方法让科学家第一次在分子水平上理解疾病,并且把注意力集中于在所有生命形式中控制关键生物化学序列的酶。在两种新的光谱学技术X射线晶体学和核磁共振一一的帮助下,在数学计算和计算机分析方面取得巨大进步的支持下,药物发现的新模式不断得到强化。 (查看原文)
    书房生活家 1赞 2020-04-10 22:12:44
    —— 引自章节:第7章 美国公司:处方药路径
  • 制药工业的演进证实了这项研究的一个重要前提:首批竞争者建立起综合的学习基础,然后把产生的知识和利润用于成功地使新技术研究的结果商品化,从而创造出强大的进入壁垒。这些新技术则是以化学和其后的生物学带来的新知识为基础。 (查看原文)
    书房生活家 2020-04-14 21:19:42
    —— 引自章节:第9章 美国和欧洲竞争者
  • 第二次世界大战的影响复制了第一次世界大战的情形:德国厂商除了失去其在世界制药工业和化学工业中的地位之外,还失去了专利和经营设施,但是它们的组织能力依然得到保持。拜耳公司和赫切斯特公司都迅速再次登陆北美市场。 ———-资产被没收2次,却又两次东山再起,这个组织能力有多厉害啊。 (查看原文)
    书房生活家 2020-04-13 16:03:48
    —— 引自章节:第9章 美国和欧洲竞争者
  • 第二次工业革命在化学工业和制药工业中形成的一个结论性的历史经验是,当制药工业中生产商的数量增加时,兼并和收购会使中型生产商,甚至主要生产商的数量明显地减少。与此相比较,只有少量的企业创造了信息革命。 (查看原文)
    书房生活家 2020-04-16 14:57:25
    —— 引自章节:第四部分 认知的路径
  • By the 1920s the creation of the infrastructure had been completed. Of the fifty leading chemical companies and the thirty leading pharmaceutical companies in terms of revenues in the 1990s, only two chemical companies had entered successfully and they did so during World War II. (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-09 20:11:41
  • The creation of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries began suddenly in the 1880s, simultaneously in the United States and in Europe. (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-09 20:12:56
    —— 引自第4页
  • In market economies, the competitive strengths of industrial firms rest on learned organizational capabilities. ... The capabilities are product-related in terms of technologies used and markets served. These product-related capabilities, moreover, are learned and embodied in an organizational setting: individuals come and go, but the organization remains. Thus, in modern industrial economies, the large enterprise performs its critical role in the evolution of industries not merely as a unit carrying out transactions on the basis of flows of information, but, more important, as a creator and repository of product-related embedded organizational knowledge. The process of organizational learning in industrial enterprises begins with the building of a viable profit-making enterprise, which i... (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-09 20:12:56
    —— 引自第6页
  • The victors divided I. G. Farben into its three major constituent companies—BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst. (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-30 10:41:14
    —— 引自第26页
  • In 1995 Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz merged to form Novartis and began quickly to sell off their chemical businesses. ... Thus by the end of the twentieth century, the American chemical industry consisted of two multisectored core companies, Du Pont and Dow, as well as a number of specialty chemicals manufacturers still focused on products commercialized in the 1920s or in the 1940s and 1950s. The oil and gas companies produced feedstocks, basic petrochemicals, and commodity chemicals. Except for the German and Swiss companies, which from the start had commercialized pharmaceuticals, the European multisectored chemical companies had also become producers of specialty chemicals. For example, Britain’s ICI, after spinning off in 1993 its most profitable division (pharmaceuticals) as a separate ente... (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-30 10:41:14
    —— 引自第31页
  • The most important lesson to be gleaned from the table is the very different beginnings of the pharmaceutical industry in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the first movers were German and Swiss core chemical companies, which commercialized drugs based on organic chemistry. From their beginnings in the late nineteenth century, these giant enterprises quickly led the world in commercializing drugs and did the same in dyes and photographic film. This was not the case in the United States. Of the major U.S. core firms listed in Table 1.2, eight of the ten (all but Merck and Pfizer) created their initial integrated learning bases in the 1880s and 1890s, after the completion of the railroad and telegraph networks. They were, in the jargon of the day, “wholesaler/producer enterprises.” O... (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-30 10:41:14
    —— 引自第32页
  • The World War II crash programs in penicillin and sulfa drugs transformed the pharmaceutical industry by providing financing that expanded research and facilities even more than did those in high-octane gasoline and synthetic rubber in chemicals. The resulting “cascade of discovery,” first in penicillin and other antibiotic drugs—those miracle cures for infectious diseases—and then in other therapeutic areas, led to rapid growth along the prescription path. The result was a therapeutic revolution, underwritten in part by the simultaneous rapid growth of the healthcare insurance industry. In 1929 sales of prescription drugs accounted for 32 percent of all consumer expenses for medical drugs; by 1969 that figure had risen to 83 percent. (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-30 10:41:14
    —— 引自第33页
  • During the 1970s the goals of the American core firms in both paths of learning began to converge. (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-30 10:41:14
    —— 引自第34页
  • The evolution of the pharmaceutical industry during the 1970s and 1980s differed dramatically from that of industrial chemicals. Whereas the chemical industry encountered limits to growth and began restructuring, the pharmaceutical industry enjoyed new opportunities as advances in scientific learning introduced new technologies to be commercialized for worldwide markets. This new scientific knowledge created two sets of opportunities and with them different challenges. The first set of opportunities emerged from the new sciences of microbiology and enzymology and the new learning in biochemistry. ... The second set of opportunities was much more revolutionary. The advent of the new scientific discipline of molecular biology, which evolved from the discovery of the molecular structure of D... (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-30 10:41:14
    —— 引自第35页
  • The Europeans, in fact, created the modern chemical industry in the late nineteenth century, when German and Swiss producers in the Rhine Valley took advantage of local sources of raw materials and energy and of relationships with local universities and research institutes to establish formidable enterprises that dominated world markets until World War I. The evolution of the European chemical industry differs in significant ways from that of the American chemical industry. First, the world wars disrupted production and closed off markets for the powerful German companies, leaving them in the wars’ aftermaths to face much stronger competitors abroad. Second, because of World War II, the European companies, including the Germans, were latecomers to the polymer/petrochemical revolution, alt... (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-31 16:55:27
    —— 引自第114页
  • The second world war had an even more far-reaching impact on the chemical industries’ barriers to entry worldwide than did World War I. Not only were the Rhine Valley companies isolated from the world markets again for over a decade but, even more significant, the coming of World War II had launched the polymer/petrochemical industry, the second major period of the commercializing of new technologies based on new learning in chemical sciences and engineering. The American chemical and petroleum companies became world leaders. (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-10-31 16:55:27
    —— 引自第142页
  • In 1999 Exxon acquired Mobil. In the next year Chevron took over Texaco. Two years earlier, Chevron and Phillips merged their petrochemical units. Next, in 2002, Phillips and Conoco, the company Du Pont had acquired after its response to the oil crises of the 1970s, announced their merger and the formation of ConocoPhillips. The other significant consolidation was British Petroleum’s acquisition of the two most successful U.S. companies that entered petrochemicals during World War II: Amoco in 1998, and Arco shortly thereafter. By early 2003 there were five major players in international petroleum markets—in order of their revenues, ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, Royal Dutch Shell, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips—all still producing petrochemicals. (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-11-03 16:28:05
    —— 引自第160页
  • In the late 1940s and 1950s, as the opportunities created by the opening up of new paths and the enhancement of new technologies expanded, the number of new drugs introduced rose from an annual average of roughly twenty in the 1940s to fifty in the 1950s, and then fell back to an annual average of fewer than twenty between 1963 and 1969, and even fewer in the 1970s. New regulations governing pharmaceuticals exerted a significant impact on these figures, but the pattern was similar to that in chemicals. ... The 1970s saw two fresh waves of drug innovation that created new opportunities calling for the restructuring of existing learning bases and the building of new ones. The sources of new learning for the first wave rested on scientific breakthroughs in biochemistry and in the new discipli... (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-11-03 17:31:02
    —— 引自第180页
  • The applied learning in microbiology and enzymology was propelled by an innovation from the Information Revolution: “discovery by design.” Previously, the discovery of new drugs had depended on a hit-or-miss, trial-and-error technique of screening chemical entities to find the molecules active against disease entities. In the mid-1970s researchers introduced their new knowledge “to conceptualize the structure of an ‘ideal’ molecule that is expected to restore the altered [pathological] equilibrium. The ideal molecule is then given to the laboratory chemists, who search for substances whose molecular structures match as closely as possible the theoretical model.” This approach involved for the first time an understanding of disease at the molecular level and focused attention on the enzymes... (查看原文)
    目送飞鸿 2025-11-03 17:31:02
    —— 引自第181页
<前页 1 2 后页>