亚色在线观看_亚洲人成a片高清在线观看不卡_亚洲中文无码亚洲人成频_免费在线黄片,69精品视频九九精品视频,美女大黄三级,人人干人人g,全新av网站每日更新播放,亚洲三及片,wwww无码视频,亚洲中文字幕无码一区在线

《財富》雜志不久前宣布，作為世界上最有價值的上市公司,，蘋果連續(xù)第十年成為全球最受贊賞的企業(yè),。這并不意外，即使看起來確實非常不公平——就像一個小孩既是中學里最有錢,、最聰明的,，又是長的最好看的。這就給我們帶來了一個重要而又顯而易見的問題：我們能從蘋果身上學到哪些東西呢,？“聘請史蒂夫·喬布斯當CEO”是個挺好的主意,，但不實用。盡管如此,，蘋果的成功在很大程度上都源自三項極不尋常的管理政策,，這些政策可供其它公司借鑒。

-蘋果只有一張損益表。想想看,，去年收入2160億美元,，在《財富》500強中排名第三的巨無霸只有一個凈利潤數(shù)據。大家立即就能發(fā)現(xiàn)這項政策怎樣讓決策變得簡單,，怎樣把力量集中起來,，又是怎樣減少權力爭奪的（盡管沒什么東西能消除這種行為）。在任何大公司,，編制多張損益表都很有誘惑力,。有抱負的經理人喜歡這樣做，激勵他們變得更簡單,，資源配置也會更加輕松,，至少表面上如此。但蘋果在很久以前就斷定這樣做弊大于利,。由此產生的結果難以辯駁,，而與之相關的另一項罕見特性是……

-蘋果的產品線仍然出奇地短。人們早就發(fā)現(xiàn),，蘋果所有產品的所有模型可以擺滿一張會議桌,。雖然這張桌子不斷變大,，但一家以產品為基礎的公司能通過如此之少的產品實現(xiàn)這樣的規(guī)模依然令人驚嘆,。為什么大多數(shù)公司都不是如此的專注呢？我猜這是因為估算產品線擴張帶來的收益要比估算將大量時間和精力投入少數(shù)幾種產品帶來的收益更容易,。和進行主觀判斷相比,，大多數(shù)經理人都覺得基于數(shù)字來做決定更讓人放心。這可能是個典型的錯誤,。就像沃倫·巴菲特說的那樣：“近似的正確好過精確的錯誤,。”雖然增長需要新產品,，但CEO蒂姆·庫克基本上保持著讓自己近似正確的勇氣,。

-蘋果以不尋常的方式開發(fā)產品。喬布斯把這個過程稱為“整合”,。這個想法很簡單,，那就是把消費者體驗中各種元素的構建者召集在一起，包括硬件,、軟件,、界面、網絡甚至包裝,，然后指定一個人負責整合,，由他來監(jiān)督所有的開發(fā)工作,，以便讓他們組合出一份完整的體驗。聽起來一目了然,，但大多數(shù)公司都不這樣做,。它們通常召集的是成本經理、收入經理和損益經理,，而不是體驗的創(chuàng)造者,。決策往往按順序做出，而不是同時進行,。其結果總是不夠理想,。正如直言不諱的喬布斯所說：“整合是我得以創(chuàng)造完美產品的唯一途徑?！?/p>

效仿這些做法也許并不容易,，特別是在老牌大企業(yè)中。但存在這種可能,。它并不需要遠見卓識的創(chuàng)始人動用他妙不可言的天賦。你的公司也許永遠也不會成為世界上最受贊賞的企業(yè)（但誰知道呢,？）,，不過它可以從蘋果那里學到怎樣朝著這個方向邁進。（財富中文網）

作者：Geoff Colvin

譯者：Charlie

審稿：詹妮

Apple, the world’s most valuable publicly traded company, is also the World’s Most Admired Company for the tenth consecutive year, as Fortune announced yesterday. This is not exactly a surprise, even if it does seem unfair—like one kid being the richest, smartest, and best-looking in high school. But it raises an important, obvious question: What useful lessons can the rest of us learn from Apple? “Hire Steve Jobs as CEO” is a valid lesson but not useful. Nonetheless, much of Apple’s success derives from three highly unusual management policies that are available to any company:

-Apple has only one P&L. Think of it—$216 billion of revenue last year, No. 3 on the Fortune 500, yet just one bottom line in the whole vast enterprise. You can immediately see how this policy simplifies decision-making, focuses effort, and diminishes turf battles (though nothing can eliminate them). In any big organization the temptations to establish multiple P&Ls are powerful. Ambitious managers like it, incentivizing those managers is easier, and resource allocation can also be easier, or at least it can appear to be. But Apple decided long ago that the benefits aren’t worth the costs. The results are hard to argue with. A related, rare trait is that…

-Apple still has a remarkably small product line. It has long been observed that every model of every product Apple makes would fit on a conference room table. While the table is getting bigger, it’s still astounding that a product-based company can achieve such scale with so few items. Why aren’t most companies so tightly focused? I suspect it’s because estimating the benefits of broadening the product line is easier than estimating the benefits of concentrating enormous time and energy on a few products. Most managers are more comfortable making a decision based on numbers than making a judgment call. This can be a classic error. As Warren Buffett says, “It’s better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.” While growth requires new products, CEO Tim Cook has largely maintained the courage to be approximately right.

-Apple develops products in an unusual way. Jobs called the process “integration.” The idea is simple: Bring together the people who create the various elements of the customer experience – hardware, software, interfaces, online experience, even packaging—and assign one person, the integrator, to oversee development of them all so they combine into one knockout complete experience. Sounds obvious, but most companies don’t do it that way. They typically bring together cost managers, revenue managers, and P&L managers, not experience creators. Decisions are often made sequentially, not simultaneously. The result is always sub-optimal. As Jobs said, with characteristic immodesty, “Integration is the only way I could create perfect products.”

Emulating these practices may not be easy, especially in big, old organizations. But it’s possible. It doesn’t demand the ineffable genius of a visionary founder. Your outfit may never become the World’s Most Admired (though who knows?), but it can learn from Apple how to move in that direction.