Charles Leadbeater: The era of open innovation

翻译人员: Gary Wang 校对人员: Yongming Luo

What I'm going to do, in the spirit of collaborative creativity,

现在我将要做的，在协作创新精神的影响下，

is simply repeat many of the points

只是简单地重复

that the three people before me have already made,

前面3位已经说过的许多观点。

but do them --

但是就这样去做吧 ――

this is called "creative collaboration;"

这就叫作创造性协作；

it's actually called "borrowing" --

实际上叫借用（拿来主义）。

but do it through a particular perspective,

但是从一个独特的角度来做，

and that is to ask about the role of users and consumers

也就是问问用户和消费者

in this emerging world of

在这个逐渐显现的

collaborative creativity

协作创新世界里面所扮演的角色，

that Jimmy and others have talked about.

这也是吉米和其他几位讲过的。

Let me just ask you, to start with,

作为开头，让我来问你们，

this simple question:

这个简单的问题：

who invented the mountain bike?

谁发明了山地车？

Because traditional economic theory would say,

传统的经济理论会说，

well, the mountain bike was probably invented by some big bike corporation

嗯，山地车很有可能是某个大型自行车公司发明的，

that had a big R&D lab

因为它有一个很大的研发中心

where they were thinking up new projects,

来琢磨出新项目，

and it came out of there. It didn't come from there.

于是山地车就产生了。但是山地车不是从那里创造出来的。

Another answer might be, well, it came from a sort of lone genius

另外一种回答可能是，嗯，山地车来自于一个孤独的天才。

working in his garage, who,

他在他的车库里面，

working away on different kinds of bikes, comes up

研究了很多种不同的自行车，

with a bike out of thin air.

然后就凭空想像出了这么一种新型的自行车。

It didn't come from there. The mountain bike

但是山地车也不是从那里创造出来的。山地车

came from users, came from young users,

来自于用户，来自于年轻的用户，

particularly a group in Northern California,

特别是在北加州的那一群。

who were frustrated with traditional racing bikes,

他们对传统的赛车很灰心丧气，

which were those sort of bikes that Eddy Merckx rode,

就那种埃迪•墨克斯（顶尖自行车赛手）

or your big brother, and they're very glamorous.

或者你们的大哥骑的赛车，那些赛车过于迷人了。

But also frustrated with the bikes that your dad rode,

同样他们也不满于你们的老爸骑的自行车，

which sort of had big handlebars like that, and they were too heavy.

它们有着很大的把手，并且太重了。

So, they got the frames from these big bikes,

于是他们就拿来那些大自行车的骨架，

put them together with the gears from the racing bikes,

赛车的挂档系统，

got the brakes from motorcycles,

摩托车的刹车，

and sort of mixed and matched various ingredients.

把这些部分拼在一起搭建起来。

And for the first, I don't know, three to five years of their life,

在起先的大概3到5年，

mountain bikes were known as "clunkers."

山地车被称为“咔咔车”（听起来像年久失修的旧机器）。

And they were just made in a community of bikers,

并且也只有

mainly in Northern California.

主要在北加州的一个自行车手团体中使用。

And then one of these companies that was importing parts

然后一个给咔咔车进货零配件的公司

for the clunkers decided to set up in business,

决定新开一个生意，

start selling them to other people,

开始向其他人销售，

and gradually another company emerged out of that, Marin,

慢慢地一个新的公司“马林（Marin）”就形成了。

and it probably was, I don't know,

大概过了

10, maybe even 15, years,

10年，甚至15年，

before the big bike companies

其他的大型自行车公司

realized there was a market.

才醒悟过来：这里原来有个市场。

Thirty years later,

30年后，

mountain bike sales

山地车的销售额，

and mountain bike equipment

和山地车设备，

account for 65 percent of bike sales in America.

占据了美洲自行车市场的65%。

That's 58 billion dollars.

也就是说，580亿美元。

This is a category entirely created by consumers

这是一个完全靠消费者创造的产业，

that would not have been created by the mainstream bike market

之所以它不会被主流自行车市场创造

because they couldn't see the need,

是因为他们不可能看到这个需求，

the opportunity;

这个机会，

they didn't have the incentive to innovate.

所以他们不具有创新的动机。

The one thing I think I disagree with

约柴的演讲中

about Yochai's presentation

有一点我不同意，

is when he said the Internet causes

他说互联网所产生的

this distributive capacity for innovation to come alive.

分布的能力使得创新更有活力。

It's when the Internet combines

只有在互联网

with these kinds of passionate pro-am consumers --

和这些有激情的有专业精神的业余消费者——

who are knowledgeable; they've got the incentive to innovate;

有知识，有创新的动机，

they've got the tools; they want to --

有工具，有渴望——相结合的时候，

that you get this kind of explosion

你才能看到这种爆发性的

of creative collaboration.

创造性协作。

And out of that, you get the need for the kind of things

从这中间，你也感到

that Jimmy was talking about, which is our new kinds of organization,

对于吉米所讲的一类东西的需求，也就是我们新的组织形式，

or a better way to put it:

换种更好的方式说：

how do we organize ourselves without organizations?

我们怎么样能够不用某种组织形式来组织我们自己？

That's now possible; you don't need an organization to be organized,

现在已经有可能，你不需要一个组织形式来形成秩序，

to achieve large and complex tasks,

来完成大型和复杂的任务，

like innovating new software programs.

比如开发新的软件程序。

So this is a huge challenge

所以这对我们认为的创造力的来源

to the way we think creativity comes about.

是一个巨大的挑战。

The traditional view, still enshrined

传统的观点，仍然主宰着

in much of the way that we think about creativity

我们思考创造力的模式

-- in organizations, in government --

——在组织结构中，在政府中－

is that creativity is about special people:

认为创新靠的是一群特别的人。

wear baseball caps the wrong way round,

反戴着棒球帽，

come to conferences like this, in special places,

像我这样来参加会议，在特殊的场所，

elite universities, R&D labs in the forests, water,

名牌大学，森林里面的研发实验室，水，

maybe special rooms in companies painted funny colors,

或者在公司里面粉刷成怪异的颜色的特殊房间，

you know, bean bags, maybe the odd table-football table.

你知道吧，豆包沙发，可能还有奇怪的桌子——足球桌。

Special people, special places, think up special ideas,

特别的人，特别的地方，想出特别的点子，

then you have a pipeline that takes the ideas

然后你还有一个渠道把这些点子实现

down to the waiting consumers, who are passive.

并输送给消费者，他们在那里被动地等着。

They can say "yes" or "no" to the invention.

他们对这个发明可能说“好”或者“不要”，

That's the idea of creativity.

那就是一般认为的创造性。

What's the policy recommendation out of that

从这种概念出发会产生什么样的政策建议，

if you're in government, or you're running a large company?

如果你在政府部门，或者在经营一个大公司？

More special people, more special places.

更多的特别的人，更特别的地方。

Build creative clusters in cities;

在城市中建立有创造力的群体，

create more R&D parks, so on and so forth.

更多研发园，等等。

Expand the pipeline down to the consumers.

扩展一直延伸到消费者的渠道。

Well this view, I think, is increasingly wrong.

其实，这种观点，我认为，已经越来越错误。

I think it's always been wrong,

我认为它一直就是错误的，

because I think always creativity has been highly collaborative,

因为我一直认为创造力是高度合作的，

and it's probably been largely interactive.

并且很可能大部分是互动的。

But it's increasingly wrong, and one of the reasons it's wrong

但是它越来越错了，其中一个错的原因

is that the ideas are flowing back up the pipeline.

是创意在渠道中的反方向回流。

The ideas are coming back from the consumers,

创意开始从消费者那一端产生并回流，

and they're often ahead of the producers.

并且它们经常超前于生产商。

Why is that?

为什么会这样？

Well, one issue

嗯，一个原因

is that radical innovation,

是突破性创新，

when you've got ideas that

当你的点子

affect a large number of technologies or people,

影响到一大批技术或者人时，

have a great deal of uncertainty attached to them.

产生的后果连带着极大的不确定性。

The payoffs to innovation are greatest

创新的不确定性越大，

where the uncertainty is highest.

回报越高。

And when you get a radical innovation,

并且当你有一项突破性创新，

it's often very uncertain how it can be applied.

对于它的应用往往是极其不确定的。

The whole history of telephony

整个电话技术的发展史

is a story of dealing with that uncertainty.

就是一个对付不确定性的故事。

The very first landline telephones,

发明第一条电话线的时候，

the inventors thought

发明人的原设想是

that they would be used for people to listen in

用来让人从外面听到

to live performances

伦敦西区剧院里面的

from West End theaters.

现场表演。

When the mobile telephone companies invented SMS,

手机公司发明短信技术的时候，

they had no idea what it was for;

根本不知道能用它来干什么，

it was only when that technology got into the hands

一直等到这个技术到了

of teenage users

年轻用户手上的时候，

that they invented the use.

他们才发明了它的用处。

So the more radical the innovation,

所以说越是突破性的创新，

the more the uncertainty,

越具有不确定性，

the more you need innovation in use

你就越需要使用中的创新

to work out what a technology is for.

来发现下一个技术能用来干什么。

All of our patents, our entire approach

所有我们的专利，我们的整个

to patents and invention, is based on the idea

获得专利和创造发明的方式都是基于

that the inventor knows what the invention is for;

发明者知道这个发明是干什么，

we can say what it's for.

我们能定义它的用处，这个概念上的。

More and more, the inventors of things

逐渐地，很多东西的发明者

will not be able to say that in advance.

在事先将不能这么说了。

It will be worked out in use,

它将在使用过程中，

in collaboration with users.

在与用户的协作中被发掘出来。

We like to think that invention is

我们习惯地认为发明

a sort of moment of creation:

是一种好像是短时间内产生的创造。

there is a moment of birth when someone comes up with an idea.

某人想出一个点子就像是诞生婴儿的那一刻一样。

The truth is that most creativity

事实上大部分的创造

is cumulative and collaborative;

是逐渐积累协作产生的，

like Wikipedia, it develops over a long period of time.

比如维基百科，它发展了很长一段时间。

The second reason why users are more and more important

为什么用户越来越重要的第二个原因是，

is that they are the source of big, disruptive innovations.

他们是巨大的突破性创新的源头。

If you want to find the big new ideas,

如果你想找到大的新的点子，

it's often difficult to find them in mainstream markets,

往往从主流市场

in big organizations.

或大机构中很难找到。

And just look inside large organizations

只要往大组织机构中看看，

and you'll see why that is so.

你就能发现为什么会这样。

So, you're in a big corporation.

设想一下，你在一个大公司，

You're obviously keen to go up the corporate ladder.

你当然非常想沿着公司的等级阶梯向上爬。

Do you go into your board and say,

你会走进董事会这样说吗，

"Look, I've got a fantastic idea

你们看，我有一个非常好的点子，

for an embryonic product

在边际市场做这样一个早期产品，

in a marginal market,

面向

with consumers we've never dealt with before,

我们从来没有应付过的消费者，

and I'm not sure it's going to have a big payoff, but it could be really, really big in the future?"

我不确定会不会有大的回报，但是也许有可能在未来的回报非常非常大？

No, what you do, is you go in and you say,

不会的。你会做的是，你走进去，你说，

"I've got a fantastic idea for an incremental innovation

我有一个非常好的点子，对我们的现有产品进行一个渐进性的创新改良，

to an existing product we sell through existing channels

从现有渠道

to existing users, and I can guarantee

卖给现有用户，并且我能保证

you get this much return out of it over the next three years."

你们能在3年内获得这么这么多的回报。

Big corporations have an in-built tendency

大公司有一个内在的倾向

to reinforce past success.

要去强化过去的成功。

They've got so much sunk in it

它们陷入其中不可自拔，

that it's very difficult for them to spot

以至于很难发现

emerging new markets. Emerging new markets, then,

逐渐显现的新兴市场。那么新兴市场

are the breeding grounds for passionate users.

就成了有激情的用户的成长温床。

Best example:

举一个最好的例子：

who in the music industry,

在30年前的音乐产业中，

30 years ago, would have said,

有谁会说：

"Yes, let's invent a musical form

“好，让我们发明一种音乐形式，

which is all about dispossessed black men

专门反映那些

in ghettos expressing their frustration

生活在贫民窟的无家可归的黑人

with the world through a form of music

对这个世界的无奈和困惑，

that many people find initially quite difficult to listen to.

通过一种很多人一开始都很难听得下去的音乐形式。

That sounds like a winner; we'll go with it."

这听起来好像能火，我们行动吧。”

(Laughter).

（大家笑）

So what happens? Rap music is created by the users.

而事实是怎样的？说唱音乐是用户自己创造的。

They do it on their own tapes, with their own recording equipment;

他们用自己的录音设备，录在自己的磁带上，

they distribute it themselves.

自己发行。

30 years later,

30年后，

rap music is the dominant musical form of popular culture --

说唱音乐成了流行文化的主导音乐形式――

would never have come from the big companies.

这是永远不可能从大公司产生的。

Had to start -- this is the third point --

必须来自于 ――这是第三点――

with these pro-ams.

有专业精神的业余人士。

This is the phrase that I've used in

这个词组我曾经在

some stuff which I've done

给伦敦的一个

with a think tank in London called Demos,

叫作德莫斯的智囊公司做的一些东西里面用过，

where we've been looking at these people who are amateurs --

在那里我们曾经研究过这类人，他们是业余的――

i.e., they do it for the love of it --

也就是说，他们是因为热爱某件事情――

but they want to do it to very high standards.

但是他们想把它做到非常高的标准。

And across a whole range of fields --

而且涉及到一系列的领域――

from software, astronomy,

从软件，天文，

natural sciences,

自然科学，

vast areas of leisure and culture

到广阔的休闲和文化领域

like kite-surfing, so on and so forth --

比如风筝冲浪，等等――

you find people who want to do things because they love it,

你们会发现这些人是因为热爱而想做那些事情，

but they want to do these things to very high standards.

但是他们想把这些事情做到极其高的水准。

They work at their leisure, if you like.

他们在休闲中工作，你可以这么说。

They take their leisure very seriously:

他们非常严肃地对待他们的闲暇时间：

they acquire skills; they invest time;

他们获取技能，他们投资时间，

they use technology that's getting cheaper -- it's not just the Internet:

他们使用越来越便宜的技术：不光是互联网，

cameras, design technology,

照相机，设计技术，

leisure technology, surfboards, so on and so forth.

休闲技术，冲浪板，等等。

Largely through globalization,

主要由于全球化，

a lot of this equipment has got a lot cheaper.

许多的这些设备已经便宜了很多。

More knowledgeable consumers, more educated,

消费者越有知识，受过的教育越多，

more able to connect with one another,

就越能够与其他人联合，

more able to do things together.

更能够一起做事情。

Consumption, in that sense, is an expression

消费，在这种意义上说，

of their productive potential.

是他们的生产潜力的表达。

Why, we found, people were interested in this,

为什么，我们发现，人们会对这个有兴趣，

is that at work they don't feel very expressed.

是因为在工作中他们感到没有充分发挥。

They don't feel as if they're doing something that really matters to them,

他们觉得他们所工作的事情好像不是他们真正在乎的，

so they pick up these kinds of activities.

所以他们拾掇起这类活动。

This has huge organizational implications

这对于

for very large areas of life.

生活中一大片领域都有组织结构上的冲击。

Take astronomy as an example,

拿天文学来作例子，

which Yochai has already mentioned.

约柴已经提过的。

Twenty years ago, 30 years ago,

20年前，30年前，

only big professional astronomers

只有高深的专业天文学家

with very big telescopes could see far into space.

才有很长大的天文望远镜来看到宇宙的远处。

And there's a big telescope in Northern England called Jodrell Bank,

在北英格兰的约德瑞•班克有一个很长大的天文望远镜，

and when I was a kid, it was amazing,

当我还是个小孩的时候，觉得非常神奇，

because the moon shots would take off, and this thing would move on rails.

因为它可以对月亮进行近距离拍摄，并且这个东西还能在轨道上移动。

并且它非常地大――绝对是一个庞然大物。

Now, six

现在，6个

amateur astronomers, working with the Internet,

业余天文爱好者，通过互联网，

with Dobsonian digital telescopes --

和多布森式数字天文望远镜

which are pretty much open source --

（基本上是开源的），

with some light sensors

再用一些过去10年开发出来的光学传感器，

developed over the last 10 years, the Internet --

以及互联网――

they can do what Jodrell Bank could only do 30 years ago.

他们就能做30年前只有约德瑞•班克才能做的事情。

So here in astronomy, you have this vast explosion

所以现在天文学界，你就有了

of new productive resources.

新的生产力资源的巨大爆发。

The users can be producers.

用户也可以成为生产者。

What does this mean, then, for our

这种现象，那么，对于我们的

organizational landscape?

组织结构的前景意味着什么？

Well, just imagine a world,

呃，让我们来暂时想象这样一个世界，

for the moment, divided into two camps.

它被分成两个阵营。

Over here, you've got the old, traditional corporate model:

这一边，你有这个旧的传统的公司模式。

special people, special places;

特别的人，特别的地方，

patent it, push it down the pipeline

申请到专利，通过已有渠道推送到

to largely waiting, passive consumers.

基本上是等待着的被动的消费者。

Over here, let's imagine we've got

这一边，让我们想象我们有

Wikipedia, Linux, and beyond -- open source.

维基百科，Linux, 和更多的――开放的资源。

This is open; this is closed.

这边是开放的，这边是封闭的，

This is new; this is traditional.

这边是新的，这边是传统的。

Well, the first thing you can say, I think with certainty,

嗯，第一个你可以说的是，我认为肯定是

is what Yochai has said already --

约柴已经谈到的――

is there is a great big struggle

这两种组织形式之间

between those two organizational forms.

有着非常大的冲突。

These people over there will do everything they can

那边的那批人会尽其所能

to stop these kinds of organizations succeeding,

来阻挡这种组织的成功，

because they're threatened by them.

因为他们受到对方的威胁。

And so the debates about

于是就产生了对于

copyright, digital rights, so on and so forth --

版权，数字版权，等等的争辩――

these are all about trying to stifle, in my view,

所有这些都是在企图扼杀，在我看来，

these kinds of organizations.

这种类型的组织。

What we're seeing is a complete corruption

我们现在正看到的是一个完全腐败的

of the idea of patents and copyright.

专利和版权的概念。

Meant to be a way to incentivize invention,

本该是一种刺激发明创造的机制，

meant to be a way to orchestrate the dissemination of knowledge,

本该是一种协调知识传播的机制，

they are increasingly being used by large companies

但是它们越来越被大公司

to create thickets of patents

用来制造专利壁垒

to prevent innovation taking place.

来阻止发明创造。

Let me just give you two examples.

让我给你们讲两个例子。

The first is: imagine yourself going to a venture capitalist

第一个，想象你自己走到一个风险投资商面前，

and saying, "I've got a fantastic idea.

说：“我有一个非常好的点子。

I've invented this brilliant new program

我发明了这个超级棒的新程序，

that is much, much better than Microsoft Outlook."

比微软的Outlook 好得多了去了。

Which venture capitalist in their right mind is going to give you any money to set up a venture

有哪一个脑袋还正常的风险投资商会给你钱来设立一个公司

competing with Microsoft, with Microsoft Outlook? No one.

来与微软，与微软的Outlook 竞争？没有人。

That is why the competition with Microsoft is bound to come --

这就是为什么和微软的竞争肯定会来自于，

will only come --

也只能是来自于，

from an open-source kind of project.

开放源代码类型的项目。

So, there is a huge competitive argument

因此，现在就有一个很有争辩力的观点，

about sustaining the capacity

要支持

for open-source and consumer-driven innovation,

开放资源和消费者驱动的创新，

because it's one of the greatest

因为它是反垄断的最有

competitive levers against monopoly.

竞争力的杠杆之一。

There'll be huge professional arguments as well.

当然也有很权威的来自于各专业的观点。

Because the professionals, over here

因为这些专业人士，在这边的

in these closed organizations --

这些封闭的组织之中――

they might be academics; they might be programmers;

他们可能是学者，他们可能是程序员，

they might be doctors; they might be journalists --

他们可能是医生，他们可能是记者

my former profession --

（我以前的职业）――

say, "No, no -- you can't trust these people over here."

他们说，“不行不行。你不能信任这边的这些人。”

When I started in journalism --

当我开始进入记者行业的时候

Financial Times, 20 years ago --

（金融时报，20年前），

it was very, very exciting

看到别人

to see someone reading the newspaper.

看报纸是让我非常兴奋的。

And you'd kind of look over their shoulder on the Tube

于是你在地铁里面就有点像监视别人一样，

to see if they were reading your article.

去看看他们是不是在阅读你写的文章。

Usually they were reading the share prices,

通常他们是在看股票价格，

and the bit of the paper with your article on

而你的文章所在的那一页报纸

was on the floor, or something like that,

被铺在地上，或者类似的地方，

and you know, "For heaven's sake, what are they doing!

于是你很自然就会想：“天哪，他们在干什么！

They're not reading my brilliant article!"

他们居然不是在阅读我写的漂亮文章！”

And we allowed users, readers,

并且我们提供了

two places where they could contribute to the paper:

两个地方给用户和读者来发表东西在报纸上。

the letters page, where they could write a letter in,

读者来信版块，在那里他们可以写一封信进来，

and we would condescend to them, cut it in half,

我们就委屈一下，把它砍一半，

and print it three days later.

然后3天之后印刷出来。

Or the op-ed page, where if they knew the editor --

或者个人评论版块，如果他们认识编辑

had been to school with him, slept with his wife --

（什么一起上过学啦，睡了他的老婆啦），

they could write an article for the op-ed page.

他们就可以在个人评论版块发表文章。

Those were the two places.

就那两个地方。

Shock, horror: now, the readers want to be writers and publishers.

震惊，恐怖：现在读者自己想成为作家和出版商。

That's not their role; they're supposed to read what we write.

那不是他们的角色，他们本来是应该只看我们所写的东西的。

But they don't want to be journalists. The journalists think

但是他们并不想成为记者。记者们以为

that the bloggers want to be journalists;

那些博客写手想成为记者，

they don't want to be journalists; they just want to have a voice.

其实他们不想，他们只想发出自己的声音。

They want to, as Jimmy said, they want to have a dialogue, a conversation.

他们想，就像吉米所说，他们想有对话，有讨论交流。

They want to be part of that flow of information.

他们想成为信息流动中的一部分。

What's happening there is that the whole domain

那里所发生的情况是

of creativity is expanding.

整个创造力领域在扩张。

So, there's going to be a tremendous struggle.

于是也将产生极其严重的冲突。

But, also, there's going to be tremendous movement

但是，同时，也会有

from the open to the closed.

从开放走向封闭的强烈趋势。

What you'll see, I think, is two things that are critical,

你们将会看到，我认为，两个关键的东西，

and these, I think, are two challenges

而它们，我认为，

for the open movement.

将是开放资源运动要面对的两个挑战。

The first is:

第一个是：

can we really survive on volunteers?

我们能依靠志愿者而生存下去吗？

If this is so critical,

如果这是如此生死攸关，

do we not need it funded, organized, supported

难道我们不需要它有资金来源，有组织形式，

in much more structured ways?

由一个更加结构化的方式来支持？

I think the idea of creating the Red Cross

我认为那个建立一个

for information and knowledge is a fantastic idea,

信息和知识的红十字会的点子是一个非常好的点子，

but can we really organize that, just on volunteers?

但是我们真的能组织起来吗，只凭志愿者？

What kind of changes do we need in public policy

我们需要在公共政策

and funding to make that possible?

和资金赞助中做什么样的改变来使这成为可能？

What's the role of the BBC,

比如说，英国广播电视台BBC的角色是什么，

for instance, in that world?

在那个世界里面？

What should be the role of public policy?

公共政策的角色应该是什么？

And finally, what I think you will see

最后，我认为你们能看到的

is the intelligent, closed organizations

是聪明的封闭的组织

moving increasingly in the open direction.

开始逐渐走向开放。

So it's not going to be a contest between two camps,

所以，这将不是两个阵营之间的对垒，

but, in between them, you'll find all sorts of interesting places

而是在它们之间，你会发现

that people will occupy.

人们占据着各种各样的有趣的地盘。

New organizational models coming about,

新的组织结构模式将产生，

mixing closed and open in tricky ways.

以奇特的方式混合着封闭和开放的特点。

It won't be so clear-cut; it won't be Microsoft versus Linux --

它不会那么清晰和明确，不会像微软对抗Linux――

there'll be all sorts of things in between.

那中间将有各种各样的东西。

And those organizational models, it turns out,

并且那些组织模式，将被证明，

are incredibly powerful,

会极其的强大有力，

and the people who can understand them

而那些能理解它们的人

will be very, very successful.

将非常非常成功。

Let me just give you one final example

让我再给你们讲最后一个例子

of what that means.

来说明那是什么意思。

I was in Shanghai,

我曾经在上海，

in an office block

在一个5年前

built on what was a rice paddy five years ago --

在水稻田上面建的写字楼里面——

one of the 2,500 skyscrapers

过去10年上海建起来的

they've built in Shanghai in the last 10 years.

2500栋大厦之一。

And I was having dinner with this guy called Timothy Chan.

我在和这个叫作陈天桥的人一起吃晚饭。

Timothy Chan set up an Internet business

陈天桥

in 2000.

在2000年开了一家互联网公司。

Didn't go into the Internet, kept his money,

但没有进入互联网，保留了他的资金，

decided to go into computer games.

决定进入电脑游戏行业。

He runs a company called Shanda,

他运营着一家叫作盛大的公司，

which is the largest computer games company in China.

现在是中国最大的电脑游戏公司。

Nine thousand servers all over China,

在全中国上下共有9000台服务器，

has 250 million subscribers.

2.5亿注册用户。

At any one time, there are four million people playing one of his games.

任何一个时候，都有4百万人在玩一个他的游戏。

How many people does he employ

那他雇佣了多少人

to service that population?

来为这么多人服务？

500 people.

500个人。

Well, how can he service

呃，他怎么能只用500员工

250 million people from 500 employees?

为2.5亿人服务？

Because basically, he doesn't service them.

因为基本上，他并不为他们服务。

He gives them a platform;

他给他们提供一个平台，

he gives them some rules; he gives them the tools

制定一些规矩，提供工具，

and then he kind of orchestrates the conversation;

然后他就有点像是指挥对话，

he orchestrates the action.

协调他们的行动。

But actually, a lot of the content

但是实际上，很多的内容

is created by the users themselves.

是用户自己创作的。

And it creates a kind of stickiness

因此它就在社会团体和公司之间

between the community and the company

建立了一种

which is really, really powerful.

真正非常强大的粘性。

The best measure of that: so you go into one of his games,

一个最好的衡量办法：你进到一个他的游戏，

you create a character

你创建一个人物

that you develop in the course of the game.

然后在游戏过程中发展它。

If, for some reason, your credit card bounces,

如果，因为某种原因，比如你的信用卡拒付，

or there's some other problem,

或者其他什么原因，

you lose your character.

你丢失了你的人物。

You've got two options.

你有两个选择：

One option: you can create a new character,

一个选择是：你可以创建一个新的人物，

right from scratch, but with none of the history of your player.

从头再来，但是没有任何你前面那个人物的历史。

That costs about 100 dollars.

这要花费大概100美元。

Or you can get on a plane, fly to Shanghai,

或者你可以坐上飞机，飞到上海，

queue up outside Shanda's offices --

在盛大的办公室外面排队——

cost probably 600, 700 dollars --

大概花费600或700美元——

and reclaim your character, get your history back.

然后就可以重新找回你丢失的人物，要回你的历史。

Every morning, there are 600 people queuing

每天早上，都有600人

outside their offices

在他们的办公室外面排队

to reclaim these characters. (Laughter)

要找回他们的人物。

So this is about companies built on communities,

所以这就是以社团为基础的公司，

that provide communities with tools,

给社团提供他们能够共享的工具，

resources, platforms in which they can share.

资源，和平台。

He's not open source,

他不是开放资源，

but it's very, very powerful.

但是它非常非常强大。

So here is one of the challenges, I think,

因此这是一个，我认为，

for people like me, who

对于像我这样的

do a lot of work with government.

给政府部门做很多事情的人要面对的挑战之一。

If you're a games company,

如果你是一个游戏公司，

and you've got a million players in your game,

并且你有1百万玩家在玩你的游戏，

you only need one percent of them

你只需要其中1%的人

to be co-developers, contributing ideas,

是协同开发人员，贡献点子，

and you've got a development workforce

那么你就有一个

of 10,000 people.

1万人的开发队伍。

Imagine you could take all the children

想像一下你有英国所有在受教育的小孩，

in education in Britain, and one percent of them

其中1%是

were co-developers of education.

教育的协同开发者。

What would that do to the resources available

这对于教育系统能使用的资源

to the education system?

会有什么样的影响？

Or if you got one percent of the patients in the NHS

或者如果你有国民医疗系统NHS中1%的病人

to, in some sense, be co-producers of health.

成为某种意义上的健康的协同制造者。

The reason why --

为什么会这样的原因——

despite all the efforts to cut it down,

尽管遇到所有这些力量要削弱它，

to constrain it, to hold it back --

限制它，阻止它——

why these open models will still start emerging

为什么这些开放模式还能

with tremendous force,

以极其惊人的力量继续不断显现，

is that they multiply our productive resources.

是因为它们能成倍地利用我们的生产力资源。

And one of the reasons they do that

它们能办到这一点的其中一个原因是

is that they turn users into producers,

它们把用户变成了生产者，

consumers into designers.

把消费者变成了设计者。

Thank you very much.

非常感谢。