Philip Evans: How data will transform business

譯者: Chunda Zeng 審譯者: Chen He

I'm going to talk a little bit about strategy

我想談一下策略

and its relationship with technology.

以及它和科技的關聯

We tend to think of business strategy

我們普遍認為商業策略

as being a rather abstract body

只是經濟思維中的

of essentially economic thought,

一個抽象的概念

perhaps rather timeless.

可能是歷久彌新的

I'm going to argue that, in fact,

我想要反駁這個論點

business strategy has always been premised

實際上商業策略總是以

on assumptions about technology,

科技的假設為前提

that those assumptions are changing,

而那些假設時常變動

and, in fact, changing quite dramatically,

事實上是相當劇烈地變動

and that therefore what that will drive us to

而這些假設將我們導向一個

is a different concept of what we mean

和原來的商業策略不同的方向

by business strategy.

請容許我

Let me start, if I may,

with a little bit of history.

以一小段歷史開始說明

The idea of strategy in business

在商業上，策略這個概念

owes its origins to two intellectual giants:

源自於兩位絕頂的巨擘

Bruce Henderson, the founder of BCG,

波士頓諮詢公司的創辦人布魯斯．亨德森

and Michael Porter, professor at the Harvard Business School.

以及哈佛商學院的教授麥可·波特

Henderson's central idea was what you might call

亨德森的中心理論

你可以稱之為大規模專注對付弱勢

the Napoleonic idea of concentrating mass

against weakness, of overwhelming the enemy.

並壓制了敵人的拿破崙戰略

What Henderson recognized was that,

亨德森所認為的是

in the business world,

在商業領域

there are many phenomena which are characterized

有許多被經濟學者

by what economists would call increasing returns --

視為報酬遞增的現象

scale, experience.

如規模或經驗

The more you do of something,

你付出越多

disproportionately the better you get.

你就會得到越好的報酬

And therefore he found a logic for investing

因此，他發現一個邏輯

來投資這樣壓倒性的數量

in such kinds of overwhelming mass

in order to achieve competitive advantage.

以達成競爭上的優勢

And that was the first introduction

而那是第一次有人

of essentially a military concept of strategy

將軍事上的戰略

into the business world.

應用到商場

Porter agreed with that premise,

波特同意這樣的假設

並且將此其合格化

but he qualified it.

He pointed out, correctly, that that's all very well,

他提出，正確地說，該假設很好

but businesses actually have multiple steps to them.

但是商業應用上還有更多的步驟

They have different components,

他們有不同的組成要素

and each of those components might be driven

而每一項要素

by a different kind of strategy.

可能由不同的策略所引導

A company or a business might actually be advantaged

一家公司可能在某些活動上佔優勢

in some activities but disadvantaged in others.

但在其他活動卻是弱勢

He formed the concept of the value chain,

他提出價值鏈這個概念

essentially the sequence of steps with which

指出一連串的步驟

a, shall we say, raw material, becomes a component,

我們可以舉例，從一個原材料變成零組件

becomes assembled into a finished product,

裝配成最終產品

and then is distributed, for example,

直到配送

and he argued that advantage accrued

波特主張每個零組件

to each of those components,

所產生的利益

and that the advantage of the whole

和完整產品的利益

was in some sense the sum or the average

可以是總和

of that of its parts.

或是所有料件的平均

And this idea of the value chain was predicated

而這個價值鏈的想法

on the recognition that

被認為是承認了

what holds a business together is transaction costs,

構成商業的是交易成本

that in essence you need to coordinate,

在本質上，你必須去協調

organizations are more efficient at coordination

通常來說，組織比市場更能有效地調整

than markets, very often,

and therefore the nature and role and boundaries

因而這種合作的本質、角色和分界

of the cooperation are defined by transaction costs.

正是被交易成本所定義

It was on those two ideas,

這兩種想法

Henderson's idea of increasing returns

亨德森對報酬遞增的規模和經驗

to scale and experience,

and Porter's idea of the value chain,

以及波特的價值鏈的想法

encompassing heterogenous elements,

包含異質的要素

that the whole edifice of business strategy

其後豎立起整個商業策略的體系

was subsequently erected.

Now what I'm going to argue is

現在，我所主張的是

that those premises are, in fact, being invalidated.

事實上這些假設前提，是不成立的

First of all, let's think about transaction costs.

首先，讓我們思考一下交易成本

There are really two components to transaction costs.

交易成本含有兩種要素

One is about processing information, and the other is about communication.

其一是資訊處理，另一種是溝通

These are the economics of processing and communicating

這是發展已久的資訊處理

as they have evolved over a long period of time.

以及溝通的經濟圖形

As we all know from so many contexts,

如同我們從許多文本所知

they have been radically transformed

自從波特和亨德森首次將他們的理論

since the days when Porter and Henderson

進行系統性的整理

first formulated their theories.

資訊處理和溝通已被完全地轉變

In particular, since the mid-'90s,

尤其是，在90年代中期

communications costs have actually been falling

溝通成本已經大幅下降

even faster than transaction costs,

降低的速度甚至快於交易成本

which is why communication, the Internet,

那也就是為什麼網路溝通

has exploded in such a dramatic fashion.

爆發而大盛其道

Now, those falling transaction costs

現在，那些降低的交易成本

have profound consequences,

有了意義深遠的影響

because if transaction costs are the glue

假如交易成本是將價值鏈串聯的要件

that hold value chains together, and they are falling,

當交易成本下降

there is less to economize on.

可節省空間就越少

There is less need for vertically integrated organization,

組織做垂直整合的必要性也越小

and value chains at least can break up.

而價值鏈能夠打破

They needn't necessarily, but they can.

他們並非必要，但可以

In particular, it then becomes possible for

尤其在商業上

a competitor in one business

一個競爭者可能

to use their position in one step of the value chain

利用他們在價值鏈上的位置

in order to penetrate or attack

為了滲透或是攻擊競爭對手

or disintermediate the competitor in another.

或略過其通路

That is not just an abstract proposition.

這不只是一個理論上的主張

There are many very specific stories

而是有許多確切的故事真實地發生

of how that actually happened.

如一個典型代表，百科全書

A poster child example was the encyclopedia business.

The encyclopedia business

in the days of leatherbound books

在過去裝訂書籍的年代

was basically a distribution business.

那基本上是一種經銷業

Most of the cost was the commission to the salesmen.

大部分的成本是銷售員的佣金

The CD-ROM and then the Internet came along,

CD-ROM和網路來臨之後

new technologies made the distribution of knowledge

新的科技大幅地削弱

many orders of magnitude cheaper,

原有的經銷知識

and the encyclopedia industry collapsed.

百科全書產業因而瓦解

It's now, of course, a very familiar story.

當然，這是一個熟知的故事

This, in fact, more generally was the story

事實上，在網路經濟的第一個世代

of the first generation of the Internet economy.

這樣的故事更加普遍

It was about falling transaction costs

降低的交易成本

breaking up value chains

打破了價值鏈

and therefore allowing disintermediation,

因此造成「去中介化」

or what we call deconstruction.

或是我們所稱通路的「解構」

One of the questions I was occasionally asked was,

其中一個我偶爾會問的問題是

well, what's going to replace the encyclopedia

當大英（百科全書）的商業模式不再有效

when Britannica no longer has a business model?

什麼將取代百科全書？

And it was a while before the answer became manifest.

這個答案花了點時間才變得明顯

Now, of course, we know what it is: it's the Wikipedia.

現在，當然我們知道是 - 維基百科

Now what's special about the Wikipedia is not its distribution.

維基百科特別的不是它的配銷

What's special about the Wikipedia is the way it's produced.

而是它是如何產生的

The Wikipedia, of course, is an encyclopedia

當然，維基百科是由

created by its users.

它的使用者所建立的

And this, in fact, defines what you might call

事實上，這定義了你可能稱之為

the second decade of the Internet economy,

網路經濟的第二個十年

the decade in which the Internet as a noun

在這個十年，「網路」從一個名詞

became the Internet as a verb.

變成一個動詞

It became a set of conversations,

它變成一組對話

the era in which user-generated content and social networks

在這個時代，使用者生成內容和社群網路

became the dominant phenomenon.

變成主流現象

Now what that really meant

他們所真正代表的是

in terms of the Porter-Henderson framework

就波特和亨德森的架構來說

was the collapse of certain kinds of economies of scale.

代表着某種規模經濟的瓦解

It turned out that tens of thousands

它轉變成數以千計自主的個人

of autonomous individuals writing an encyclopedia

來撰寫百科全書

could do just as good a job,

就能將這份工作做好

and certainly a much cheaper job,

而且比在一個階級組織結構內的專家們

than professionals in a hierarchical organization.

更便宜的方式

So basically what was happening was that one layer

所以基本上所發生的是

of this value chain was becoming fragmented,

價值鏈的一層變得破碎

as individuals could take over

也就是個人能夠取代

where organizations were no longer needed.

一些不再需要組織的工作

但從這張圖上可以明顯地看出這裡有一個問題

But there's another question that obviously this graph poses,

which is, okay, we've gone through two decades --

我們已經渡過兩個十年

does anything distinguish the third?

但有任何方式可以區別第三個十年嗎？

And what I'm going to argue is that indeed

而我將主張的是

something does distinguish the third,

確實，某些事情區別了它

and it maps exactly on to the kind of

而且和我們所談論的

Porter-Henderson logic that we've been talking about.

波特和亨德森的邏輯不謀而合

And that is, about data.

而那就是，資料

If we go back to around 2000,

如果我們回到2000年

a lot of people were talking about the information revolution,

很多人當時正在談論資訊革命

and it was indeed true that the world's stock of data

而確實整個世界的資料量正在成長

was growing, indeed growing quite fast.

而且是相當快速地成長

but it was still at that point overwhelmingly analog.

但在當時仍然是類比資料為主

We go forward to 2007,

當我們走到2007年

not only had the world's stock of data exploded,

不只是世界的資料量大增

but there'd been this massive substitution

而且類比資料大規模地

of digital for analog.

被數位資料所取代

And more important even than that,

更重要的是

if you look more carefully at this graph,

如果你更仔細地看這張圖

what you will observe is that about a half

你會發現

of that digital data

將近一半的數位資料

is information that has an I.P. address.

屬於可對應到I.P.位址的資訊

It's on a server or it's on a P.C.

儲存在伺服器或是個人電腦上

But having an I.P. address means that it

然而，可對應到I.P.位址代表

can be connected to any other data

這個資料也能夠被連結到

that has an I.P. address.

另一個擁有I.P.位址的資料

It means it becomes possible

這代表著

to put together half of the world's knowledge

未來將可能結合世界一半的知識

in order to see patterns,

以歸納出模式

an entirely new thing.

以及新的事物

If we run the numbers forward to today,

如果我們把時間軸移動到今天

it probably looks something like this.

那麼圖形看起來會像這樣

We're not really sure.

但我們並不完全確定

If we run the numbers forward to 2020,

如果我們把時間軸移動到2020年

we of course have an exact number, courtesy of IDC.

承蒙IDC的資料，我們會得到一個確切的數字

It's curious that the future is so much more predictable than the present.

很不可思議地，未來的情況比現在更容易預測

And what it implies is a hundredfold multiplication

而這張圖意味著

透過I.P.位址的串連

in the stock of information that is connected

資訊的數量將以百倍增加

via an I.P. address.

Now, if the number of connections that we can make

現在，如果這些連結的數量

is proportional to the number of pairs of data points,

和單一資料點成正比

a hundredfold multiplication in the quantity of data

那麼增加百倍的資料量

is a ten-thousandfold multiplication

代表我們在該資料可以看到

in the number of patterns

模式將以萬倍的方式增加

that we can see in that data,

this just in the last 10 or 11 years.

而這僅發生在過去10或11年間

This, I would submit, is a sea change,

我認為這是一個巨變

a profound change in the economics

在我們生活的世界中

of the world that we live in.

一項經濟上全然的改變

The first human genome,

詹姆斯·沃森，人類第一對基因組

that of James Watson,

was mapped as the culmination of the Human Genome Project in the year 2000,

在2000年人類基因組計劃全盛期被成功配對

and it took about 200 million dollars

而這花費了2億美元

and about 10 years of work to map

以及將近10年的時間

just one person's genomic makeup.

而這只是一個人的基因組

Since then, the costs of mapping the genome have come down.

自此之後，配對基因組的成本已經下跌

In fact, they've come down in recent years

事實上，近幾年的成本劇烈地下跌

very dramatically indeed,

to the point where the cost is now below 1,000 dollars,

成本至今已經低於1000美元

and it's confidently predicted that by the year 2015

而且預估確信在2015年之前

it will be below 100 dollars --

將會低於100美元

a five or six order of magnitude drop

一個五或六數量級的下跌

in the cost of genomic mapping

在基因組配對的成本上

in just a 15-year period,

只花了15年的時間

an extraordinary phenomenon.

這是個相當驚人的現象

Now, in the days when mapping a genome

在過去配對一組基因組需花費百萬

cost millions, or even tens of thousands,

或甚至是上億元

it was basically a research enterprise.

它基本上是一種研究機構

Scientists would gather some representative people,

科學家集結一些代表性人物

and they would see patterns, and they would try

他們發現模式

and make generalizations about human nature and disease

嘗試歸結人類身體本質和疾病

from the abstract patterns they find

從抽象的模式中，或從篩選出來的個體中

from these particular selected individuals.

But when the genome can be mapped for 100 bucks,

但是當基因組能靠100美元

99 dollars while you wait,

或是99美元就能進行配對

then what happens is, it becomes retail.

那麼將發生的是，它變成零售業

It becomes above all clinical.

它是超乎臨床經驗的

You go the doctor with a cold,

當你因為感冒而去看醫生

and if he or she hasn't done it already,

在他還沒做任何診斷之前

the first thing they do is map your genome,

第一件事就是配對你的基因組

at which point what they're now doing

相較於現在的醫生所做

is not starting from some abstract knowledge of genomic medicine

新的療程並非從抽象的基因醫學知識

and trying to work out how it applies to you,

在你身上嘗試是否有效

but they're starting from your particular genome.

而是你自身特殊的基因組開始診斷

Now think of the power of that.

現在讓我們想想這個力量

Think of where that takes us

想想它將帶我們往哪個方向

when we can combine genomic data

當我們可以結合基因組資料、

with clinical data

臨床資料、

with data about drug interactions

藥物反應的相關資料

with the kind of ambient data that devices

以及透過手機或醫療晶片等設備取得的資料

like our phone and medical sensors

will increasingly be collecting.

將被大量地蒐集

Think what happens when we collect all of that data

想想看如果我們蒐集了這些資料

and we can put it together

將他們結合在一起

in order to find patterns we wouldn't see before.

來找到我們過去從未見過的模式

This, I would suggest, perhaps it will take a while,

或許還需要一些時間，但這就是我所認為的

but this will drive a revolution in medicine.

醫學上的革命

Fabulous, lots of people talk about this.

很棒對吧！很多人都在談論這個

But there's one thing that doesn't get much attention.

但有件事不太引人注意

How is that model of colossal sharing

這些資料庫彼此之間大量地分享

across all of those kinds of databases

這樣的模式

compatible with the business models

將如何和現在的組織

of institutions and organizations and corporations

或公司內的商業模式相容呢？

that are involved in this business today?

If your business is based on proprietary data,

如果你的生意是基於私有的資料

if your competitive advantage is defined by your data,

如果你的競爭優勢是由你的資料所定義

how on Earth is that company or is that society

公司或社會如何去達到隱含在科技的價值？

in fact going to achieve the value

that's implicit in the technology? They can't.

他們不能

So essentially what's happening here,

所以實質上正在發生的是

and genomics is merely one example of this,

而基因組學只是其中一個例子

is that technology is driving

科技正在促使制度的界線

the natural scaling of the activity

超越我們過去思考的

beyond the institutional boundaries within which

we have been used to thinking about it,

and in particular beyond the institutional boundaries

尤其是超越制度的界線

in terms of which business strategy

即商業策略如同一學科般被論證

as a discipline is formulated.

The basic story here is that what used to be

這個故事是

過去垂直整合的

vertically integrated, oligopolistic competition

和相似競爭者的寡占競爭逐漸發展

among essentially similar kinds of competitors

is evolving, by one means or another,

無論如何

from a vertical structure to a horizontal one.

從垂直的結構變成水平的

Why is that happening?

為什麼這會發生？

It's happening because transaction costs are plummeting

之所以發生是因為交易成本暴跌

and because scale is polarizing.

且規模兩極化

The plummeting of transaction costs

交易成本的暴跌

weakens the glue that holds value chains together,

弱化了價值鏈的連結

and allows them to separate.

使得價值鏈分離

The polarization of scale economies

規模經濟的兩極化

towards the very small -- small is beautiful --

傾向極小化

allows for scalable communities

使得靈活的團體

to substitute for conventional corporate production.

得以取代傳統的企業生產

The scaling in the opposite direction,

在尺規的另一端

towards things like big data,

例如巨量資料

drive the structure of business

促使商業結構

towards the creation of new kinds of institutions

傾向發展新形態且能夠達到規模的機構

that can achieve that scale.

But either way, the typically vertical structure

但無論如何，典型的垂直結構

gets driven to becoming more horizontal.

將變得更水平

The logic isn't just about big data.

這個邏輯不只適用於巨量資料

If we were to look, for example, at the telecommunications industry,

如果我們以電信業為例

you can tell the same story about fiber optics.

光纖有相同的故事

If we look at the pharmaceutical industry,

如果我們觀察製藥工程

or, for that matter, university research,

或是大學研究

you can say exactly the same story

甚至是關於「大科學」

about so-called "big science."

你仍然可以講相同的故事

And in the opposite direction,

而在相對的方向

if we look, say, at the energy sector,

如果我們舉能源部門為例

where all the talk is about how households

大部份的談論都是關於

will be efficient producers of green energy

家庭如何成為有效地生產綠能

and efficient conservers of energy,

以及有效地節約能源

that is, in fact, the reverse phenomenon.

事實上，這相反的現象

That is the fragmentation of scale

是規模的分裂

because the very small can substitute

因為極小規模的形態能夠取代傳統的企業規模

for the traditional corporate scale.

Either way, what we are driven to

無論如何，我們被驅使走向

is this horizontalization of the structure of industries,

產業結構的扁平化

and that implies fundamental changes

而這意味著基礎的改變

in how we think about strategy.

和我們如何思考策略

It means, for example, that we need to think

這意味著我們在思考策略時

about strategy as the curation

必須像策展般以水平的結構來思考

of these kinds of horizontal structure,

where things like business definition

商業定義

and even industry definition

甚至是產業定義

are actually the outcomes of strategy,

其實是策略的結果

not something that the strategy presupposes.

而不是策略的假設前提

It means, for example, we need to work out

這代表我們必須發想出

how to accommodate collaboration

如何同時適應合作與競爭

and competition simultaneously.

Think about the genome.

想想看基因組

We need to accommodate the very large

我們必須同時適應極大和極小

and the very small simultaneously.

And we need industry structures

而且我們需要產業結構

that will accommodate very, very different motivations,

適應非常不同的刺激

from the amateur motivations of people in communities

從業餘的、來自社群的刺激

to maybe the social motivations

到政府建立基礎建設的社會刺激

of infrastructure built by governments,

or, for that matter, cooperative institutions

或者，合作而不競爭的企業組織

built by companies that are otherwise competing,

because that is the only way that they can get to scale.

因為這是他們達到規模的唯一途徑

These kinds of transformations

這樣的轉化

render the traditional premises of business strategy obsolete.

廢棄了傳統的商業策略假設

They drive us into a completely new world.

驅使我們進入嶄新的世界

They require us, whether we are

他們促使我們

in the public sector or the private sector,

無論在公領域或私領域

to think very fundamentally differently

從根本上地顛覆對商業結構的思考

about the structure of business,

and, at last, it makes strategy interesting again.

至少，這讓策略重新變得有趣

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（鼓掌）