[問題] 個案翻譯問題討教

看板Management (企業管理)作者atpx (秋雨的心情)時間15年前 (2009/05/18 00:36)推噓1(1推 0噓 3→)

留言4則, 2人參與討論串1/1

最近在翻譯一個個案教學文章, 翻完看了很多次還是覺得怪怪的(很多英文用法看不太懂也找不到). 所以來版上請大家協助, 若這邊不能發這類文請跟我說, 我自己刪掉. 我的翻譯: 邁向以知識為基礎的組織管理者若想將公司轉成以知識為基礎之組織，應聚焦於以下活動：將知識定義為組織之任務及目的。例如世界銀行組織（the World Bank Group）將自己定位為知識銀行，而且不只是口號而已，世界銀行致力於了解、管理各想知識，以學習如何減少世界的貧窮。世界銀行明白光提供發展基金並不是一個有效解決貧窮問題的方法，而改成助長知識之產生及分享，現在借款只是銀行任務的一部份。類似狀況亦發生在 Lincoln Corp.，該公司幾年前被Swiss Reinsurance Co. 併購時，亦將自己定位為提供知識為基礎的風險管理，而不僅是再保險的銷售者；該公司之策略、組織技術架構及核心執行力都聚焦於建立及維持策略性知識平台，並據以提供產品及服務。因此，就如同 Lincoln Corp.一般，一家公司必需要定義知識在組織內扮演的角色，組織才有可能成為以知識為基礎的組織。以產品與服務為基礎的傳統SIC編碼已經無法再呈現公司如何適應產業的真實現象. 重點是競爭者們今日共同擁有的同樣知識, 而不是產品. 舉例來說, 食物製程與藥物公司擁有不同的SIC編碼, 但是擁有同種類的專利、受雇者技能與其他知識基礎制度. 懂得產業基礎名詞的藥物官員會注意食品加工公司的低膽固醇食品風行. 攝影產業中的官員體認到消費性電子公司知道如何去製造下一代數位攝影機, 比他知道的更多. 在腦中利用知識設計策略. 一個以知識為基礎的組織基於他所瞭解與他做什麼來定義策略. 找出比競爭者懂的更多的策略性槓桿作用點(strategic leverage points)能提供競爭優勢. 他也認識到把知識強加在公司能順利執行的事物上是有極限的. 第一資本財務公司(Capital One Financial Corp.)的核心知識, 舉例來說, 是在小眾行銷(micromarketing)與目標風險分析 (targeted risk analysis), 並不是賣信用卡. 他以優秀的統計建模知識與由經驗學來的構思來建立他的個人財務風險管理策略. 然而, 他明確的承認, 也無法對在統計上做分析來支持快速循環實驗法(rapid-cycle experimentation.)的專利性資料庫新發展階段不敏感的市場(例如那些涉及借貸與保險)上競爭表現的這麼好. 實做直接支援公司的策略知識需求的知識管理流程與架構. 知識管理近來被批評, 但是很大一部份能被歸因於大部分知識管理倡議沒有聚焦在策略知識的因素. 一個組織用知識術語(terms of knowledge)在定義他的策略與確認策略性知識槓桿作用點 (strategic knowledge leverage points)會瞭解他的知識管理成果聚焦在哪邊, 能從他的投資得到長期回報, 與能勝過競爭對手的知識管理成果. 將公司轉變為策略的學習型組織. 一個組織維持知識優勢的能力是以他的學習能力為基礎. 成功的公司尋找機會來實驗與從他們策略性考量的知識領域中學習. 舉例來說, Lincoln Re尋找困難的再保案件來製造學習機會. Holcim也做同樣的事, 搜尋新奇的建築機會(novel construction opportunities). 影響客戶、貿易夥伴、供應商、消費者、利益團體也同樣重要----簡單來說, 任何人能幫助企業建立他需要的知識. 最後, 學習是將公司的策略視為假設與做測試來從中培養. 舉例來說, Capital One像實驗般衡量、測試、改進來審視每個市場、每樣產品與每個流程. 區隔公司的客戶與市場依據能從中學習多少, 而不是基於產品與服務. 像Capital One 與Lincoln Re這樣的公司依賴去開發他們知道能提供更多學習機會的熟識客戶, 也主動搜尋他們只知道一點點的市場區隔. 新的客戶區隔是最重要的學習來源與未來的策略性機會 . 把學習成本當成投資, 而不是費用. 管理者應該對學習上的投資評價是未來的行動機會, 而不是依據傳統ROI與DCF分析當成沉沒成本. 讓企業虧本的客戶是好的投資, 假如他提供特定的對未來市場機會的學習或是保持企業有足夠機會學得更多. 舉例來說, Lincoln Re慣常的使用選擇權定價模式(options-pricing models)來估價他在知識與學習上的投資. 以知識為基礎的組織明白學習的經濟與策略價值. 重新思考經營模式. 公司從銷售主要實體產品或服務給以知識為基礎的對象來做轉變會看到經營模式徹底改變的經濟上可行性. IBM公司從銷售他的知識來賺錢, 會對競爭者的產品做出建議, 假如這符合客戶的最大利益. 這家公司知道他的知識對客戶來說比硬體更有價值(也讓IBM賺更多的錢). Buckman Labs 發現他賣給客戶更少的化學藥品對客戶更有利也是類似的情形. 公司依照這個規則來轉變必須發展以知識為基礎的定價以及傳遞典範與支援給對的人、報酬與文化. 認真看待人力資源管理. 以知識為基礎的組織招募員工與以知識為基礎來培養他們的職涯需要去競爭與執行策略. 他建立與依靠社會資本來成為知識建立、交換與應用的關鍵動因. 當他們學到一課時, 獎勵創造力、風險承受、實驗方法、想像力甚至是失誤. 補強組織的使命透過協調內部與外部溝通. 成為以知識為基礎的組織很重要的部份是察覺這個. 所以Buckman Labs在他的員工身上也就是以知識為基礎的觀點的組成要素, 投資重要資源在溝通. Lincoln Re透過配合年報、貿易文章、學術期刊、主管的演講以及其他活動來主動地培養與管理外部形象為以知識為基礎的組織. 步驟的概要. 當然並不容易完成. 嘗試去實做這些步驟的管理者需要專注在想像力與努力來讓他們的組織真的以知識為基礎. 但對他們來說販售以知識為基礎的產品與服務來達成這個成果是特別重要的. 像TRG所做的, 在機會中降落與迷失很危險. 換句話說, 任何公司, 即使是做水泥的, 成為以知識為基礎的組織都能找到重要與可維持的競爭優勢. 原文: Steps Toward a Knowledge-Based Organization Rethinking process, place, purpose and perspective is a daunting but achievable goal. Managers who want to turn their companies into knowledge-based organizations need to focus on several key actions: Define the organization's mission and purpose in terms of knowledge. For example, the World Bank Group now refers to itself as "the knowledge bank." This is not merely window dressing. The World Bank has gone to great lengths to understand and manage the role of knowledge and learning in reducing world poverty. It realized that just supplying development funds was not an effective solution and has invested and reorganized to foster knowledge creation and sharing. The money it lends is just one part of how it carries out its mission. Similarly, Lincoln National Corp. (Lincoln Re), at the time of its acquisition by the Swiss Reinsurance Co. (Swiss Re) a couple of years ago, thought of itself as a provider of knowledge-based risk management rather than a seller of reinsurance. Its strategy, organization, technology infrastructure and core processes were all focused on creating and maintaining the strategic "knowledge platform" from which it derived its products and services. Like Lincoln Re, a company that wants to change must be able to define the strategic role knowledge plays in the organization. Define the organization's industry and position within it in terms of knowledge. Traditional SIC codes based on products and services no longer give a true picture of how companies fit into industries. The most important thing that competitors have in common today is similar knowledge, not products. For example, food processing and pharmaceutical companies have different SIC codes but have similar kinds of patents, employee skills and other knowledge-based metrics. A pharmaceutical executive who understands her industry in knowledge-based terms would have an eye on food-processing companies making cholesterollowering food spreads. An executive in the photographic-imaging industry would realize that consumer-electronics companies might know more than his own company about how to make the next generation of digital cameras. Formulate strategy with knowledge in mind. A knowledgebased organization defines its strategy based on what it knows as well as what it makes. It finds strategic leverage points where knowing more than competitors provides a competitive advantage. It also recognizes that knowledge imposes limits on what the company can successfully execute. Capital One Financial Corp.'s core expertise, for example, is in micromarketing and targeted risk analysis, not in selling credit cards. It built its strategy of individual financial risk management on the basis of its superior knowledge of statistical modeling and experimental design. It explicitly recognized, however, that it could not compete as well in markets (those involving lending or insurance, for example) that were not susceptible to the development of proprietary databases that could be statistically analyzed to support rapid-cycle experimentation. Implement knowledge-management processes and structures that directly support the company's strategic knowledge requirements. Knowledge management has gotten a bad rap lately, but much of it can be attributed to the fact that most KM initiatives are not focused on strategic knowledge. An organization that defines its strategy in terms of knowledge and identifies the strategic knowledge leverage points will know where to focus its KM efforts, will get a long-term return on its investment, and will best the KM efforts of competitors. Transform the company into a strategic learning organization. An organization's ability to sustain a knowledge advantage is based on its ability to learn. Successful companies look for opportunities to experiment and learn in knowledge domains they consider strategic. Lincoln Re, for example, searched for difficult reinsurance cases to create learning opportunities. Holcim did the same, seeking out novel construction opportunities. It's also important to involve customers, trading partners, suppliers, consumers, interest groups - in short, anyone who can help the business to create the knowledge it needs. Finally, learning is fostered by treating the company's strategy as a hypothesis and then testing it. Capital One, for example, views every market, every product and every process as an experiment to be measured, tested and improved. Segment the company's customers and markets not only on the basis of products and services but also according to how much can be learned from them. While companies like Capital One and Lincoln Re look to exploit what they know with familiar customers who offer incremental learning opportunities, they also actively seek market segments that they know little about. New customer segments are the most important source of learning and future strategic opportunities. Treat the cost of learning as an investment, not an expense. Managers should evaluate investments in learning as options for future action rather than sunk costs according to traditional ROI or DCF analysis. A customer taken at a loss is a good investment if it provides significant learning for future market opportunities or keeps the company in the game long enough to learn more about an opportunity. Lincoln Re, for example, routinely used options-pricing models to value its investments in knowledge and learning. Knowledge-based organizations understand the economic as well as the strategic value of learning. Rethink the business model. A company making the transition from selling primarily physical products or services to knowledge- based ones will see the economics of the business radically change. IBM Corp., which makes most of its money today selling its knowledge, will recommend competitors' products if that is in the best interest of its clients: The company knows that its knowledge has even more value for clients (and leads to more profit for IBM) than its hardware. Similarly, Buckman Labs found that it provided more value to its customers by selling less of its chemicals. Companies that make a change on this order must develop knowledge-based pricing and delivery models and support them with the right people, rewards and culture. Take human resource management seriously. The knowledgebased organization recruits employees and develops their careers on the basis of the knowledge it needs to compete and execute its strategy. It builds and relies on social capital as a key motivator for knowledge creation, exchange and application. And it rewards creativity, risk taking, experimentation, imagination and even failure when they generate important lessons learned. Reinforce the organization's mission via coordinated internal and external communication. A large part of being a knowledgebased organization is being perceived as one. Thus Buckman Labs invested significant resources in communicating to its employees the substance of its new knowledge-based perspective. Lincoln Re actively cultivated and managed its external image as a knowledgebased organization via pieces in its annual report, articles in trade and scholarly journals, speeches by executives and other activities. THE STEPS OUTLINED here are not easy to accomplish, of course. Managers who try to implement them will need to employ both imagination and effort to make their organizations truly knowledge- based. But it's especially important for those running businesses that sell knowledge-based products or services to make this effort; there is great danger in coasting along and missing out on opportunities, as TRG has done. On the other hand, any company - even one that makes cement - can find a significant and sustainable competitive advantage in becoming a real knowledgebased organization. -- 哪裡～都那麼熟了～ ╮ 口桀口桀... ╭ 謝謝你們來參加我們的婚禮～ ◢███◣ ◢███◣ ◢███◣ ◢███◣ ◢███◣ ▄▄▄▄▄▆████◤ ███◥◥ ██◤◥██(◥◥◥◥█● █████ █████ ███ + ▆█▆█◥ ●▄●▄██ ◥████◤◥███◤◤ ██◤ ◤ ◥︺███◤◥－███◤ ◢ 同梯 ◣ ◢ 室友◣ ◢ 哥哥 ◣ ◢▼██◣ ◢▏█▉◣ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.117.72.236