平台严格禁止发布违法/不实/欺诈等垃圾信息，一经发现将永久封禁帐号，针对违法信息将保留相关证据配合公安机关调查！
2010-5-30 08:34
Innovation is a word like democracy. Everyone is in favour of it, but different people attach different meanings to it. Sometimes the term is used to describe anything that differentiates one product or process from another. At other times, innovation is the product of men in white coats who conduct rarefied experiments in biotechnology or electronics.
Is Easyjet an innovative company? Along with Ryanair, the company transformed the European aviation market. But everything the company did was already done by someone else, and the entire product and process were close to those South West Airlines had pioneered in the US. There is no purpose in arguing about what is the correct definition of innovation. What matters is that people understand what they are saying when they talk to each other. The frequent, often unnoticed, shift between wide and narrow definitions of innovation may be seriously misleading. Generalities about the importance of innovation in creating competitive advantage in business are translated into specific policies to subsidise research and development and the promotion of particular kinds of scientific education. Such policies are described as “techno nationalism” in an important recent book called The Venturesome Economy by Amar Bhidé. Techno nationalism is derived from the belief that economic growth depends on high technology and that we will benefit fully from it only if it is our own high technology. Techno nationalism is as common in Europe, which believes it is falling behind, as in America, which fears it may be overtaken. But the fear that western economic prosperity is endangered by China's flood of engineering graduates is not only exaggerated: it may be the reverse of the truth. The central fallacy of the New Economy bubble was that most of the benefits of new technologies would go to pioneering companies. But the repeated experience of economic history is that competition ensures that the larger part of the benefits of these technologies accrue to users. In an admittedly speculative calculation, the American economist Bill Nordhaus has suggested that consumers get more than 97 per cent of the value of innovations. What is true of companies is also true of states. The US has a world leading position in information technology but the products of that technology are available everywhere with minimal delay. And cheaply: the profits of Microsoft, though large in absolute terms, are less than 0.1 per cent of the national income of the US and Europe. That is why economist Paul Romer can observe that: “In 1985, I paid $1,000 per million transistors for memory in my computer. In 2005 I paid less than $10 per million and yet I did nothing to deserve or help pay for the windfall.” But Prof Bhidé is not so sure that Prof Romer did nothing to deserve it and nor am I. What distinguishes the US is not just its innovative technologists, but its innovative manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Discoveries are made in an environment that is responsive to ideas, ready to embrace change and always willing to try out something new. People who are likely to invent things want to be part of a culture that is open to novelty, and cultures that are open to novelty are those that will reward innovators best. That is why there are so many entrepreneurs of Chinese and Indian origin in the US – and Britain – even as more and more mundane jobs are outsourced to China and India. The pesky American students who are ready to challenge every assertion the instructor makes contrast with students from other cultures who believe their aim is to transcribe every authoritative statement that is delivered. These voluble business students are the bane of the MBA teacher's life. They are also the people who make American business great. Commercial and economic success, even in technological industries, depends not on the quality of technology, but on the match between technology and the needs of its customers. That is why the growing technological capabilities of China and India create more commercial opportunities than threats for American and European businesses. 创新这个词就像民主：每个人都支持它，但不同的人会赋予它不同的意思。有时，这个词被用来描述将一种产品或流程与另一种区分开来的事物。其它时候，创新又是那些身穿白大褂、从事生物科技或电子学领域精密实验的人的生产成果。
Easyjet是一家创新公司吗？它和瑞安航空(Ryanair)一起，改变了欧洲航空市场。但这家公司做的每一件事都有其它公司做过了，整个产品和流程都与西南航空(South West Airlines)在美国率先采用的做法相似。 本文无意争论什么是创新的正确定义。重要的是，人们在交谈时，明白彼此在说什么。创新广义和狭义定义之间的频繁转换常常不为人注意，但却可能产生严重的误导。关于创新在建立业务竞争优势中的重要性的抽象原则，被转化成为资助研发和推广特定种类的科学教育等具体政策。 在阿马尔•拜德(Amar Bhidé)最近的一本重要著作《冒险性经济》(The Venturesome Economy)中，这种政策被描述为“技术民族主义”。技术民族主义源于这样的信念：经济增长依赖于高科技，而只有高科技是我们自己的，我们才能充分获益。技术民族主义在欧洲和在美国一样常见，欧洲相信自己正在落后，美国则担心被超越。人们担心，中国大量的工科毕业生威胁到西方的经济繁荣，这种担心不仅言过其实，而且甚至可能与事实相反。 新经济泡沫的核心谬误是，新技术的好处大多将由率先使用它的公司获得。但是经济历史经验一再表明，竞争会确保技术的好处大多由用户获得。在一项公认具有投机性的计算中，美国经济学家比尔•诺德豪斯(Bill Nordhaus)提出，消费者获得了超过97%的创新价值。 对企业正确的东西也适用于国家。美国的信息技术处于世界领先地位，但信息技术产品在各地的获得却几乎没有延误，而且价格便宜：微软的利润尽管绝对数目庞大，却不到美国和欧洲国民收入的0.1%。 这是为什么经济学家保罗•罗默(Paul Romer)能够说：“1985年，我为电脑中每百万存储晶体管支付了1000美元。2005年，我只花了不到10美元，而我没有为此做过什么。”但拜德不是很肯定罗默没有为此做过什么，我也不敢肯定。 使美国与众不同的，不仅仅是它的创新技术专家，还有它的创新制造商、零售商和消费者。发明创造是在这样的环境下进行的：对构思做出响应、随时准备好迎接变化、总是愿意尝试新事物。可能发明事物的人希望成为欢迎新奇事物的文化的一部分，这种文化能使创新者得到最大的回报。这就是为什么美国和英国有如此多中国和印度企业家的原因，尽管有越来越多的普通工作外包至中国和印度。 烦人的美国学生随时准备挑战教师的每一个论断，而源自其它文化的学生则相信，他们的目标是转述已经发布的每一个权威声明——两者形成了鲜明对比。这些能言善辩的商学院学生给MBA老师的生活带来了不快。但他们也使美国的商业变得伟大。 即使在技术行业，商业和经济上的成功，也不仅依赖于技术质量，而且依赖于技术与客户需求的匹配。所以说，中国和印度日渐增长的技术能力为美国和欧洲企业创造了更多商机，而不是威胁。 译者/君悦 |