On Japanese enterprise strategy between the hottes

  • Detail

Between attack and defense, Japanese enterprise strategy theory

tactic has two meanings of strategy and tactics in English. In a battle, using strategy to win, we are used to calling it proper tactics. This is more like a successful speculation in the industrial and commercial industry, not a problem suitable for discussion here. The issues discussed below generally belong to the long-term strategy of the organization in the competitive environment. It should be no problem to arbitrarily call it strategy. Compare the strategy of Japanese enterprises through the development concept of football, although there are cm; It is not rigorous, but if you can easily explain some management problems, it is not impossible

defensive football and Japan's enterprise group strategy

world football pays more and more attention to defense, and the team that solves the defense has a better chance of winning on the field, which is a well-known truth. Enterprises will not be swallowed up in the storm of competition, but also must always pay attention to the pressure of survival. In this case, it is not difficult to understand that Japanese enterprises form a wide range of strategic alliances. Financial institutions, insurance companies, manufacturing enterprises, trading companies and a large number of satellite companies have formed strategic alliances through mutual equity participation, mutual purchase of goods, resource information sharing and other ways. In terms of national culture, Europe and the United States talk about enterprise alliances, but there is little success, which shows that there are many difficulties and challenges in their merger, absorption and utilization, and the differences between eastern and Western nations. Rosabeth Moss Kanter specially wrote the article "collaborative advantage: the art of alliance" to tell the European and American business community how to successfully establish an alliance, but her visual J) experimental report: (standard program) corner still stays on how to eliminate differences between European and American enterprises and how to successfully move forward together. Japan is a typical East consistent country. There is a subconscious tendency among enterprises to bridge their differences rather than highlight them, which is not available to European and American enterprises. The Japanese Enterprise League is like Italian football that pays attention to defense. Every enterprise has a natural sense of defense, and the "defense cooperation" between them is seamless. The alliance spirit of enterprises will drive new alliances, but it will lose the more precious enterprising spirit. The interdependence between organizations will also breed bureaucracy, and the larger the enterprise, the harder it is to overcome inertia; At the same time, due to various constraints within the group, organizations are slow to respond to business opportunities. Therefore, the ability of independent companies to grasp market opportunities is stronger than the "subsidiaries" under the enterprise alliance

strategic intent and Japan "all OEMs and tier 1 suppliers are working hard to solve this problem. Gary Hamel and C.K. prahald, the former glory of the enterprise, put forward the term" strategic intent "to describe the ambition of an enterprise when resources are not available. It took less than a decade for Japanese football to become one of the few strong teams in Asia, which is inseparable from the clear strategic intention of the Japanese Football Association

in 1970, Komatsu, Canon, Honda and other companies were pitifully small compared with their European and American counterparts. By 1985, Komatsu's assets had reached $2.8 billion, Honda's production scale had been comparable to Chrysler, and Canon had become one of the world's most important optical instrument manufacturers. Gary Hamel said, "the threat of Western companies to potential competitors is analyzed according to their existing resources rather than potential resources. This has led to a systematic underestimation of Japanese competitors, who are growing rapidly. They obtain technology from licensed operations, understand the market from sales partners, and use plans involving all employees to improve quality and production capacity."

there are several obvious ways for Japanese enterprises to expand globally: establish product level advantages, find breakthroughs, modify employment terms, change the rules of the game, and compete through cooperation with competitors. The attack of Japanese enterprises is launched by covering up the ultimate intention and avoiding direct conflict, which is quite similar to the defensive counterattack

do Japanese enterprises have strategies

some Western managers despise Japan's competitive strategy, thinking that they are only competing on cost and quality, which has been strongly criticized by Gary Hamel and others. In the eyes of Michael Porter, the Japanese trick only ends here. He separated operational effectiveness from strategy and pointed out that in the 1980s, the difference in operational effectiveness was the core for Japanese companies to challenge western companies. Japanese companies have greatly surpassed their competitors in terms of operational effectiveness, so they can reduce costs and improve quality at the same time

business effectiveness is not equal to strategy. The former has no barrier to prevent imitation. Under the massive imitation of competitors, it can only move towards profit minimization. Only by forming strategies and maintaining strategic differences can we continue to defeat our competitors. In Porter's eyes, Japanese enterprises have no strategy. His strategy means choosing unique positioning, choosing Limited customers, and transforming existing management activities. The ultimate goal of the strategy is to constantly maintain differences with competitors, or let competitors imitate this strategy. No matter whether Porter's conclusion that Japan has no strategy is arbitrary or not, the decline of Japanese companies in the past decade seems to be undeniable. As the gap between business effectiveness continues to narrow, Japanese companies are increasingly trapped in self digging traps. At the same time, the characteristic of the Japanese nation is to bridge the differences rather than highlight the differences, which makes it difficult for them to make a choice for the new strategic transformation. (end)

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI