By STEVE LOHR

LIFE, as they say, imitates art. And the way things work commercially today across much of the Web recalls that chapter in “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” where Tom cajoles his guileless friends into whitewashing Aunt Polly’s fence. They supply the labor, but he gets the reward.

On the Internet, users supply the raw material that helps generate billions of dollars a year in online advertising revenue. Search requests, individual profiles on social networks, Web browsing habits, posted pictures and many Internet messages are all mined to serve up targeted online ads.

All of this personal information turns out to be extremely valuable, collectively. So why should Google, Yahoo, Facebook and other ad businesses get all the rewards?

That is the question that animates Bynamite, a start-up company based in San Francisco. “There should be an economic opportunity on the consumer side,” said Ginsu Yoon, a co-founder of the company. “Nearly all the investment and technology is on the advertising side.”

Bynamite, to be sure, is another entry in the emerging market for online privacy products. The business interest in such products, of course, is being fed by worries about how much personal information marketers collect. Also playing a part are recent outcries after Facebook changed its privacy practices and Google introduced a social networking tool, Buzz, that initially shared information widely without users’ permission. Venture capital has been pouring into Web-based monitoring and privacy protection products like ReputationDefender and Abine, as well as services that help parents protect children’s privacy online, like SafetyWeb and SocialShield.

Bynamite brings a somewhat different perspective to the privacy market. “Our view is that it’s not about privacy protection but about giving users control over this valuable resource — their information,” Mr. Yoon said.

Both the protection and the value approaches to the privacy market could well pay off, says Randy Komisar, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the venture capital firm. “What’s intriguing about Bynamite,” he said, “is its emphasis on privacy as revolving around choice and ownership of data, and ultimately a notion of an exchange of value.” (Kleiner Perkins is an investor in ReputationDefender but not in Bynamite.)

Although Bynamite is a tiny start-up, it points toward larger issues about privacy transactions and pricing of personal data. “In reality, we constantly make transactions involving our personal information,” said Alessandro Acquisti, an associate professor of information technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

Every search on Google, Mr. Acquisti notes, is implicitly such a transaction, involving a person “selling” personal information and “buying” search results. But people do not think about, or are unaware of, the notion that typed search requests help determine the ads that Google displays and what its ad network knows about them.

Bynamite, Mr. Acquisti said, is “simply trying to make these kinds of transactions explicit, more transparent to the user.”

Last week, Bynamite introduced an early, or beta, version of its software, a downloadable plug-in for browsers. That software and its Web service monitor what ad networks and e-commerce sites collect and assume to know about a user. A user’s interests are then assembled on a Web page, grouped by categories like “news and current events,” “general health,” “travel,” “technology” and “shopping.” The categories are weighted by how often you visit different categories of sites or make purchases at some online merchants.

The information tracked by Bynamite is steadily updated, and, at least for me last week, a small pop-up alert at the bottom of my computer screen appeared every day, informing me of new information about me from ad networks. Mr. Yoon calls the product’s early version mainly a “mirror,” showing users how the commercial Internet sees them.

Users can change that mirror to represent their interests more accurately. For example, I don’t own a car, but my “automotive” folder soon had several entries, saying I was interested in Mercedes-Benz and other brands, presumably because middle-age men who visit the Web sites I do are typically attractive targets for car ads. I deleted the auto interests, suggesting to advertisers that I’m not necessarily a good prospect. Still, I saw a few car ads on sites I later visited.

Bynamite is by no means anti-advertising. It does not block ads. Its Web site recommends free tools, like AdBlock and NoScript, for people who want ads blocked.

In essence, the company has a libertarian, free-market ethos. If consumers have more power and control, it says, personal information should flow more efficiently to the benefit of both consumers and advertisers, who will be able to more accurately aim their ads.

Like most start-ups, Bynamite faces long odds. To succeed, it must be easy to use, and users must trust it as a reliable middleman handling their data. It has no business model yet, though it could offer product recommendations, based on interests, and collect fees on resulting sales from merchants. It hasn’t ruled out accepting ads itself. To start, its free plug-in software works only on Mozilla and Chrome browsers.

IF Bynamite gains momentum, Mr. Yoon predicts that individuals will be able to use their portfolios of interests as virtual currency. He calls the idea a “consumer’s preference wallet.”

Mr. Yoon and his co-founder, Ian Wilkes, are former business and engineering managers at Second Life, the online community where trading virtual currency for digital goods is common.

In a few years, Mr. Yoon says, a person’s profile of interests could be the basis for micropayments or discounts. A media company, for example, might charge a monthly subscription fee of $10 for news or entertainment programming, but offer it for $8 to those who exchanged their preference wallets.

The discount, in theory, would be justified because advertisers would pay more to market to people whose interests they knew precisely and thus were more likely to buy.

“I may be wrong about the product and our company,” Mr. Yoon said. “But I’m absolutely convinced that the direction is right, giving people a way to identify and use this store of value that is their personal information.”

原文地址：http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18unboxed.html

处心积虑地挑战强权是件让人激动的事，在商业领域亦是如此，如果挑战的是苹果公司，从某种角度来说简直是“大快人心”。而这次规则的制定者—美国版权局站在挑战者的一方。

7月26日，美国国会图书馆下属的美国版权局宣布了《数字千年法案》（DMCA，Digital Millennium Copyright Act）的新豁免条例：用户有权破解iPhone等智能手机，以更换运营商或者安装第三方软件。互联网权益组织电子前沿基金会（EFF）为让这项提案通 过，已经争取了19个月。

黑客们在欢呼EFF的胜利。这意味着“越狱”和“解锁”行为合法化。全球最知名的向iPhone用户免费提供解锁方案的黑客团队Dev- Team在博客中称此为“梦幻般的消息”。在黑客圈里，“越狱”代表开放用户权限，越过苹果自由安装和运行第三方程序，“解锁”则允许用户任意选择电信运 营商。

苹果对在APP平台发布的应用软件控制甚严，除了拒绝色情暴力内容，它也不允许开发者访问、修改系统级资源，希望自己改装系统的技术型用户对此 失望不已。上海的APP开发者宋硕很早就希望iPhone软件可以在后台运行，但直到苹果发布新操作系统iOS4，他才等来这项功能。

正如所有人预料，苹果强烈抗议《数字千年法案》新豁免条例的通过。公司发言人Natalie Kerris称苹果的目标永远是保证用户在他们的iPhone上拥有出色的体验，而越狱将严重降低这种体验标准。他们提交了一份长达45页的抗辩报告，列 举了越狱解锁的种种弊端。“绝大多数iPhone用户不会进行越狱破解，进行这种破解将丧失质保，并导致iPhone出现稳定性和可靠性问 题。”Natalie Kerris说。

根据今年6月苹果开发者大会发布的数据，苹果在线商店应用总数已经达到22.5万个，下载次数达到50亿次。以iPad为例，应用以大约每天 140个的速度在增加，增长率是当年iPhone/iPod touch同期的近三倍。相同的是苹果会对这些申请进行严格的审核。

APP开发者、《外滩画报》编辑王晓光推出过一款名为“寂寞”的APP游戏，简单说来就是剪刀石头布。在他借自美剧《生活大爆炸》的计划里，第 二个版本会添加两个手势，“蜥蜴”以及“Spock”。Spock是漫画《星际迷航》里船长的名字。但苹果最终拒绝了他的“寂寞二代”，理由是可能侵犯 《星际迷航》的版权。仅仅是借用了一个名字。

但是，一家名为Cydia的地下应用软件商店不会拒绝“寂寞二代”这类软件的发布。它早已成为苹果在线商店的竞争对手。其运营者弗里曼（Jay Freeman）表示，目前美国有90万iPhone拥有者使用Cydia系统（一份2009年2月的调查报告估算为40万）。还有名为Icy和 Installer的两家未经苹果官方授权的应用软件商（你也可以认为它们是商店）也颇受关注，它们都是基于iPhone平台，和苹果在线商店最大的区别 在于是否开放，商店里同样提供收费和免费两种模式的应用。

如果仅仅是为了自由提升智能机用户体验，美国版权局可能不会下此决心。EFF指出，版权局承认在手机上施行限制措施的主要目的是把用户绑定在现 有的网络，而不是为了保护版权。美国第二大移动运营商AT&T是引发解锁行为的直接原因。iPhone在不同国家和地区发售时，会有无锁和有锁两 个版本，区别正是是否绑定电信运营商，无锁版价格更高。2007年苹果推出iPhone时，AT&T通过与苹果分成模式获得了独家销售权，但它严 重低估了iPhone手机的受欢迎程度。苹果公司2009年卖了2510万部iPhone，占全球智能手机市场的14%。AT&T面对由此产生的 巨大流量手忙脚乱。AT&T运营总裁约翰·斯坦基（John Stankey）承认：“我们对使用量的估计出现了偏差。”

糟糕的网络催生了一批愤怒的顾客。在美国弗吉尼亚州Purcellville的基督教学校Patrick Henry College读大一的约翰·拉斯特（John Rust）经常因为手机不在服务区以及AT&T的网络质量问题而心烦意乱。“不受限制的意思就应该是不受限制。”他说，“买iPhone时，我与 AT&T签订了一份合同。他们不认同这个交易中他们应该承担的义务。简而言之，我想要得到我花钱买的东西。”

但是AT&T选择了一个颇受争议的解决方案，它对顾客可以使用的iPhone功能做了限制。公司在数据计划中禁用了网络直播和文件共享 功能，而其他一些运营商并不限制用户做这些事。此外，AT&T在iPhone的“共享上网”功能上也采取了强硬态度，该功能是指用户把计算机与智 能电话连接在一起，并借此上网。大部分运营商允许使用这种功能，并对此收取少量费用。AT&T也允许用户使用手机的这个功能，但iPhone例 外。

当初，AT&T每销售一台iPhone付给苹果约600美元的补助，而手机合约价仅为199美元，看似亏损的销售模式却让AT&T收获颇丰，目前AT&T拥有8700万用户，2010年一季度新增了190万名用户。

原有的平衡已然被打破。苹果公司、电信运营商、开发者、越狱者、其它应用商店……无论是利益相关方还是竞争对手，都会因此法案而产生微妙的变化。

苹果公司

控制权受到威胁，前景难料

现在看来，苹果公司的绝对权威不会遭到冒犯，但在未来，它的在线商店运营会增加很大难度。

苹果仍然会在技术支持文档中明确指出苹果保留拒绝为破解产品提供服务的权力。“如果你了解苹果，就知道它不会改变以前的做法，”中国APP开发团队139.ME的CEO朱连兴相信苹果“即便开放一部分源码也没有意义，因为中国人再花50年也写不出靠谱的平台”。

当然，由于新法案并没有要求移动设备制造商必须允许越狱、解锁行为的存在，苹果依然有权通过技术手段不让其用户越狱、解锁，并且，苹果有权拒绝 维修由于越狱、解锁造成故障的机器。一直以来，苹果通过控制自己的软 硬件，然后要求或鼓励用户，在自家平台通过自家硬件访问各种娱乐及应用，并使其最终为之付费。这一原则也被执行贯彻在了苹果的移动互联网领域，它和开发者 约定分成，开发者可以获得七成销售所得。在苹果刚刚发布的2010财年第三季度财报中，“在线商店/iPod服务/苹果品牌及第三方iPod附件”净销售 额约占总净销售额的8.25%，即使剔除新产品iPad的影响，也低于上年同期的9.83%。

但苹果仍有担忧。少数用户越狱的目的是绕过苹果，免费使用本应付费的应用，更多的人则有可能转到Cydia这样的平台去购买开发者的软件。假设 开发者们在其它在线商店获得更多的分成，开发条件又没有那么苛刻的话，这些技术达人们很可能会离开苹果商店。而其它商店也可以依靠其低成本、小规模运营的 优势调低APP的价格以吸引用户。

没了开发者又没了用户是苹果最不愿意看到的结果。

电信运营商

更多运营商有望获得运营权

没有一个用户愿意被一个固定的条款限制自己的消费习惯，这同样适用于iPhone和AT&T服务的使用者。从此，他们可以自由选择美国境内的其它运营商，但是必须顾忌由此产生的个人信用和法律问题。

即使没有一家美国运营商对新法案的通过发表言论，所有人都知道AT&T和苹果早有矛盾—苹果不愿意限制iPhone的互联网访问功 能，AT&T无法应对iPhone对其网络造成的巨大压力。AT&T上半年亦宣布和Palm，以及使用谷歌Android平台的摩托罗 拉、戴尔、HTC展开合作，它的网络里不再只有iPhone了。彭博社也传出了美国第一大移动运营商VerizonWireless将于明年1月销售新款 苹果手机的消息。

和苹果从硬件到平台完全封闭的架构不同，谷歌的Andriod开源平台正成为许多手机的选择。它可以修改底层源码，适合于定制机。与之相 比，iPhone在系统上的封闭在实际应用时就有些可笑—中国广东联通还不得不为其大客户南方报业集团专门派驻iPhone大使提供整体越狱技术支持。而 广东移动一名内部人士对《第一财经周刊》表示这个消息实质上对国内的运营商没有什么影响，但目前鉴于联通一家在国内运营，对移动来说，也许会算是个利好。 国内目前还没有见到相关的政策法规，但携号转网正在加紧试点，将来的趋势应该是运营商之间的人为屏障会被打破。

开发者

选择增多但有可能出现价格战

大部分中国开发者并没有意识到法案的修改会给自己的生活带来什么改变。提供苹果在线商店软件代工服务的开发者吴晓丹称之为“大事”，但也仅此而 已。作为开发者兼消费者，他却找不到更多的兴奋点—能有什么影响呢？国内用户的习惯就是越狱解锁常态化，越狱，几乎成了不少苹果用户体验的第一步。

“苹果在这场猫捉老鼠的游戏里很难赢，因为世界上只有一家苹果公司，而有成千上万的黑客。”黑客霍兹在去年接受《连线》采访时表示。苹果很乐意 通过“修理”开发者得到质量稳定、风格相对统一的产品，“它甚至连程序上线前有没有官方网站，客服服务是否完善这样的问题都要管。”

开发者朱连兴的软件也有经常通不过审查的时候。他的139.ME团队被称为中国最牛的iPhone开发者团队之一，但苹果也常常会以软件有bug、题材有问题等理由，让朱连兴照着苹果的规矩办事。

他坚称苹果有一个完美而靠谱的模式，重要原因之一是，他可以从里面分到钱。朱连兴团队在苹果平台和谷歌的Android平台的人力投入是10：1，他并不打算改变这个比例。

美国开发者则不然，软件开发者斯特莱克（Kim Streich）说：“人们不喜欢苹果，不是因为他们的机器，而是因为他们太傲慢。”被苹果在线商店拒绝后，斯特莱克在Cydia平台发布了一个使 iPhone可以成为3G信号中转站的应用，两周之内他就赚进1.9万美元。

新媒体

变化不大

苹果对新兴渠道要宽容得多，新法案的出台对新媒体也不会有太大影响，因为它并不是这个平台的主角。它为亚马逊（Amazon）开通了单独的iBook，用户下载iBook电子书的付款直接交给亚马逊，无需像在线商店的应用那样，给苹果30%的分成。

美国已经有相当一部分iPhone用户已通过移动互联网进行账单支付和金融交易，很难相信会有很多人愿意因为越狱冒文档损坏或其它安全隐患的风险。

同样，对于此法案，音乐视频内容提供商可能也high不到哪里去。苹果的控制权被动摇总是件好事，但实际影响却可能不会太大。不过，由于这次版 权法还承认了剪辑视频片段加以编辑的合法性，这将保护许多向 YouTube上传视频的用户，YouTube多少从中受惠。不过那又是另一档恩怨了。

破解者

解除被苹果送上法庭的威胁

黑客会继续他们的工作；想越狱或解锁的消费者也会继续通过各种渠道解锁和安装想要的应用程序，就像以前一样。科技博客GIZMODO评论说，版权局修改的法令可被视为加入越狱支持者阵营，但实际的影响可能不大。

其它手机应用商店

竞争加剧

开放手机联盟（Open Handset Alliance）是谷歌组建的一个联盟组织，迄今已在全球拥有超过71个合作伙伴。Andriod也拥有自己的在线商店，而且不审核开发者提交的应用— 这也因此让有些用户对应用的安全颇有抱怨。为了和苹果在线商店竞争，不同品牌智能手机也拥有自己的在线商店，比如诺基亚Ovi应用商店、微软Mobile 应用商店以及RIM黑莓应用商店。但是他们面临的最大问题是，由于每个品牌都拥有多款机型，开发者很难有时间和精力逐一开发适配软件—苹果根本没有这个问 题。

山寨手机制造商

依然无法获得核心技术

以为山寨机提供方案闻名的手机芯片提供商联发科技公司（MTK）7月12日宣布加入谷歌的开放手机联盟。MTK的智能手机有可能借此机会建立自己的网上商城。

当然，这并不意味着山寨厂商会由此沾上好运。在深圳做了10年手机的山寨厂商老板郭凡一采用MTK的方案，加上酷似苹果的外观设计，以每部 400元至600元的价格让山寨机打包出厂。这种机器可以适用于各种电信运营商，但没有应用商店功能，根本原因就是MTK一直缺少内核。而山寨厂商只是一 个组装者，没有控制任何核心技术。

传统媒体

与苹果的议价能力增加

即使并不甘心控制权掌握在苹果手中，传统媒体对苹果的兴趣还是远远超过苹果对它们的兴趣。4月，乔布斯登上了《时代》周刊的封面，第一期 iPad版《时代》进入苹果在线商店。康泰纳仕旗下的《GQ》是第一本登上苹果在线商店的传统杂志。传统的纸质报纸杂志销量下跌，生存艰难，iPad被认 作是传统媒体的新希望。苹果顺便也驳回了传统媒体的新点子。

6月，时代集团旗下《体育画报》的iPad应用最终未能通过苹果的审查。双方纠结的实际上还是利润。在时代的计划里，苹果在线商店只是下载和订 阅渠道，读者最终直接向时代集团付费打包订阅。苹果拒绝了这款应用，要求时代集团只能以iTunes为中介，按单期出售。传统媒体们迄今无法靠通过苹果在 线商店预先收款获得稳定的现金流。唯一能让传统媒体们宽慰几分的是：无论如何，还有Android或者其他智能手机在线商店，或者干脆是那些可在苹果平台 运行的第三方软件商店，这让它们和苹果谈条件的余地变得更大—不管苹果买不买账，至少它们有了这个筹码。

中国用户

基本没有变化

中国用户分为两部分：一部分是联通的签约客户，另外一部分则是水货用户。对于联通的用户因为已经预存了相当数额的话费，越狱之后换到其它运营商 就显得得不偿失。而水货用户则一直享受着越狱的便利。郭跃是广东一家股票信息网站的站长，刚刚换了一部3.12版本的3GS iPhone手机，这部来自朋友的二手机在他看来非常合算—价格便宜，完美破解，比朋友带的行货好得多。“大家不都在安装破解软件吗？卖场里一直有人刷机 赚钱。”郭跃并不认为软件只能通过苹果在线商店下载，对美国的新法规也不太在乎。在专卖店或者手机卖场里，卖家觉得越狱这种服务可以为他们增加售后利润。

事实上，并非所有企业都需要联合创始人，但是很多成功的公司却都是在多位创始人富有成效的合作中建立的。那么这些创业者是如何找到自己的合作伙伴的呢？他们之中的很多是多年的朋友，同学或是亲属。也有一些原本不认识，甚至还有些在开始的时候互相并不友善。

有一点是共同的，那就是，绝大多数组合中，创业者都承认个人能力的局限性，对伙伴的价值表示尊重。他们之中的绝妙组合甚至4此创建最成功的公司。

以下是具体榜单：

NO.1 谷歌联合创始人：拉里·佩奇和塞尔盖·布林

公司成立时间：1998

合作是如何建立的？他们两人是在攻读斯坦福大学博士学位时认识的，但并没有立刻成为朋友。在一次博士生校园游览 活动中，布林充当了佩奇的向导，但整个过程中，他们都在争吵。不过，两人在争吵中却发现他们研究的是同一课题，而他们的论文“解析大规模超文本网络搜索引 擎”，成为日后谷歌公司成立的基础。

合作成功的原因？两人有相似的技术背景，幼年都喜欢电脑，父母都是大学教授。对数据采集的热情把他们联系在了一起，而这也成为他们对其公司的共同构想。

NO.2 苹果联合创始人：史蒂夫·乔布斯和史蒂夫·沃兹涅克

公司成立时间：1976

合作是如何建立的？他们两人是在1970年暑期打工时认识的，沃兹当时忙于开发一种电脑，乔布斯看到了销售该电脑的潜力。2006年在接受《西雅图时报》采访时，沃兹表示：“我只是做一些擅长的事情，开发可以改变世界的东西，乔布斯想得更多，他经常说‘我们能销售这个东西’。

合作成功的原因？作为解析学大师，沃兹承认他从未想过卖他创造的电脑。他的技术与乔布斯的商业远见结合起来，使两人成为最终的商业合伙人。

No.3 Twitter创始人：伊万·威廉姆斯和比兹·斯通

公司成立时间：2006

合作是如何建立的？当年在谷歌收购Blogger时，他们两人都在该公司，而在谷歌的时候，威廉姆斯又雇佣了斯 通。斯通对AllThingsD表示：“我们开始是竞争对手，但后来成为最好的朋友。我们非常尊敬对方，当伊万离开谷歌去Odeo.com时，我问他为什 么要离开我。于是我也跟着他去了。

合作成功的原因？他们都在博客领域工作了10年，对这种平台很了解。威廉姆斯看到了斯通的潜力，让他负责微博的开发。相互尊重和共同的理想使两人走到一起，并取得商业上的成功。

NO.4 微软联合创始人：比尔·盖茨和保罗·艾伦

公司成立时间：1975

合作是如何建立的？他们两人的友谊从湖滨私利中学开始，两人都喜欢电脑，中学时就是黑客搭档。

合作成功的原因？虽然将朋友关系与商业混合起来很危险，但在他们之间并未出现这种危险，可能是因为他们有着对电脑和企业的共同热情吧。

No.5 惠普联合创始人：比尔·修利特和大卫·帕克特

公司成立时间：1939

合作是如何建立的？两人是斯坦福大学工程系的同学，毕业后两人花了2周时间共同去野营，正是在这期间，他们成为了密友。在教授弗里德·特曼的鼓励下，他们不久就创办了惠普。

合作成功的原因？两人有着共同的能力和管理风格，也是最好的朋友，而且有互补性。

No.6 Ben & Jerry‘s联合创始人：本·科恩和杰里·格林费尔德

公司成立时间：1978

合作是如何建立的？与盖茨和艾伦一样，他们也是从小就要好。在高中时是同班，然后迅速成为不可分离的好朋友。由于都喜欢食物，他们在1977年参加了冰激凌制作班，在掌握了技术后，两人投资12000美元开了第一个店。

合作成功的原因？两人都对食物感兴趣，不仅是想得到利润。

No.7 eBay联合创始人：皮埃尔·奥米戴尔和杰弗里·斯格尔

公司成立时间：1995

合作是如何建立的？两人是偶然相识的，当时奥米戴尔正开发eBay代码，而斯格尔开始并不看好这个拍卖网站。奥米戴尔对《时代国际》表示：“最初他告诉我这是一个愚蠢的主意”，但后来却同意一起干。

合作成功的原因？两人都认为民主可加强业务和合作关系。他们谈论的是社区而非客户。

NO.8 英特尔联合创始人：戈登·摩尔和鲍伯·诺伊斯

公司成立时间：1968

合作是如何建立的？这两人都是叛逆者，都是离开肖克利半导体实验室，开始自己公司的“8人帮”的成员。不久两人创办了英特尔。

合作成功的原因？诺伊斯是微芯片的联合发明人，也是英特尔的导师和灵魂。

NO.9 保洁联合创始人：威廉·普罗克特和詹姆斯·甘伯

公司成立时间：1837

合作是如何建立的？很多姻亲都无法互相忍受，但是对两人来说，婚姻是他们合作的纽带，他们的妻子是姐妹，但两人之前从未谋面，成为亲戚后开始创办公司。

合作成功的原因？家庭和商业价值把两人联系起来。

NO.10 雅虎联合创始人：杨致远和大卫·费罗

合作是如何建立的？与谷歌创始人一样，两人都是在读斯坦福大学博士学位时认识。最初两人是研究电脑芯片设计，但不知什么原因，两人跳班去上网。最终他们开始保留喜欢的网站，并按照主题来组织，最后成为现在的雅虎。

合作成功的原因？对网络的共同热情使两人走到一起。他们每天花20小时上网找乐，最后都被学校开除，因为他们收集的网站列表弄坏了学校的系统。

一，抢用户的钱包

二：有敌我，没自我

三：大些再大些？

四：品牌幻觉

五：饱食者死

哈佛商业评论8月刊中有一篇Stephen Covey（《seven habits》的作者）的采访。

他被称为“人类潜能的导师”。

他的理论具有普世价值。

他说：我关注人的身体、头脑、感情、灵魂。就身体而言，人人都希望获得经济富足和效率；情感上，我们都需要他人的尊重和哎；我们的头脑需要持续的成长和发展；灵魂上，我们都需要作出贡献，具有完整性。

真正了解人的这四部分，才能理解自己真正的天性和才能，才是找到自己的“心声”。

而领导力的定义就是激励他人找到心声，激发他人的潜能。

一旦你找到自己的心声，就要扩展你的影响，增加你的贡献，就应当激励他人去寻找他们的心声。

“激励”一词的拉丁文古义就是：把生命吹入他人的身体。

管理自我：

创造力与创新管理

商务写作

处理沟通困难

职业生涯管理

有效沟通

压力管理

演讲技巧

时间管理

管理他人：

反馈精要

领导团队

解雇员工

设定目标

会议管理

培养员工

绩效面谈

授权

招聘

裁员

新经理人转型

教练式辅导

留住关键员工

高效团队管理

多元化管理

管理协作：

管理上级

虚拟团队

项目管理

危机管理

谈判

领导与激励

以顾客为中心

衡量业务绩效

流程优化

管理业务：

预算编制

变革管理

财务精要

撰写立项报告

战略实施

策划商业计划书

营销精要

战略思维

决策

实施创新

产品经理不是沟通、领导力等抽象的字眼，应该落实到每天、每周。

一、像观察自己的BABY成长一样，观察用户的行为、发掘用户需求

1、每天至少看一次论坛，发现用户有提问或者投诉，要还原场景来考虑用户的行为，再做出优化或者创新的判断

2、能够准确说出自己的用户画像，他们的年龄层、性别比例、主体需求、行为偏好

3、掌握适合自己产品的有效的CE方法，包括观察法、问卷调查、焦点访谈，每季度亲身经历一次

4、维护至少一个用户QQ群，或者加几个用户为QQ好友，每周至少聊一次

5、要找到用户行为背后的规律，每一次效果好/差的活动、每一次用户的投诉，不要只看到表面的问题，都要要求自己主动找寻其背后的规律，主动出击找到目标用户群

二、始终保持学习的心态

1、每周坚持至少读一本书，如《长尾理论》、《引爆流行》、《用户体验设计禁忌》等，并且在每本书找到其中3点运用到工作中

2、勤于写文档，也是锻炼逻辑思维能力，包括产品需求文档和PPT，每次都要比上一次有所提高，根据项目的需要写产品需求文档，每月至少写一个PPT

3、每次项目结束、运营活动结束都要做总结，列出well和less well，一定要有至少一条结论出来，下一次进行验证，再综合上一次的结论再提练，每一次都有进步

4、每天花15分钟看有关行业的新闻，要敏感对待行业变化，看完新闻要求自己可以发表1、2点自己的看法

5、需要掌握非自己负责的领域的基础知识，包括：项目管理知识、后台的基础知识、梦网的基本知识、页面设计的基础知识、手机终端的基础知识（BU都会开课）

三、对数据保持敏感

1、至少为产品建立新开通流动模型、ARPU值模型、生命周期模型，能够准确说出自己产品目前最大的问题

2、每天看产品数据，细到每个渠道，给自己设定一个比例，超过这个比例的波动，一定要追究原因，把握每个渠道的特点

3、对于自己产品的关键数据要了然于心，尽量扫除盲点，随时都能对答如流，发现有答不上来的数据，立刻补课

4、了解大平台的数据并作出比较，掌握在同行、同平台下自己产品所处的位置和发展的目标

5、了解自己产品的收入、成本和费用

四、每天都要体验产品

1、承认自己的产品一定存在问题，带着提升用户体验的方式去体验自己的产品，每次体验要求自己发现一个问题或者得出一个结论

2、一周体验一次非自己负责的公司其他产品，发现问题积极找到相关产品经理沟通，每次体验要求自己找到一点自己可以借鉴的地方

3、体验竞争对手的产品，至少找到自己关注的三大竞争对手，体验自己产品的同时，体验竞争对手的产品，并作出差异化比较的结论

4、每次活动上线之前，在测试环境，让周围不负责这个产品的同事，从头到尾用一遍，你站在旁边观察，发现问题

5、有可能就向身边的朋友推荐产品，现场做采访和CE，在互动的时候更加了解自己的产品

五、今天你沟通分享了吗

1、每周、每月必须要对自己的工作进行总结，并且分享给相关人

2、每天都要进行面对面沟通，和项目组成员沟通，和其它产品经理沟通，和领导沟通等，从沟通中获得收获，如果当天没有和一个人进行面对面的沟通，当天的工作没有结束

3、把项目总结、收获、活动的经验、教训，不是写完就算完，一定要尽可能地分享给他人（TAPD\RTX论坛\邮件）

4、每月至少参加一次跨部门的会议，并且在会议上发表自己的观点；P2以上能够主持会议并写会议纪要

5、积极参与讨论、产品体验、小组活动，不吝惜或者胆怯发表自己的观点好的产品经理通常能做到，但真做到了也不一定是好的产品经理。因为具体到这个程度就容易出问题，工具会演变，需要的是探索工具的心思。方法是死的，关键是使用方法的头脑。

原文：http://www.alibuybuy.com/14665.html

Tech－enabled business，这个词最近很红。

到底什么才tech-enabled business（粗粗翻译的意思是IT支持下的商业模式）？什么才是最被看好的呢？

麦肯锡季刊的这篇文章给出了Top 10，原文点这里：

• Trend 1: Distributed cocreation moves into the mainstream
• Trend 2: Making the network the organization
• Trend 3: Collaboration at scale
• Trend 4: The growing ‘Internet of Things’
• Trend 5: Experimentation and big data
• Trend 6: Wiring for a sustainable world
• Trend 7: Imagining anything as a service
• Trend 8: The age of the multisided business model
• Trend 9: Innovating from the bottom of the pyramid
• Trend 10: Producing public good on the grid

每个理念的分析之后还给出了相关书籍阅读的参考！希望大家一起找到下一个金矿。

T

1. Distributed cocreation moves into the mainstream

分布式协作的先驱就是wikipedia和开源软件的开发者们了。而现在这样的互动模式渐渐成为business practice的主流了。

公司们以此来降低服务用户的成本和扩大范围。比如host一个客户服务的社区，有经验的客户还可以直接给新手们些建议。据估计，用户社区在处理一个问题的成本比传统的call centre低10％。

公司们还以此来做口碑营销（ word-of-mouth marketing）。比如宝洁的 P&G’s Vocalpoint network of influential mothers。

Facebook甚至利用社区的力量来完成产品开发，最近30万名用户被招募来将facebook翻译成70种语言——翻译成法语竟然只花了1天时间。.

Further reading:
Jacques Bughin, Michael Chui, and Brad Johnson, “The next step in open innovation,” mckinseyquarterly.com, June 2008.

Michael Chui, Andy Miller, and Roger P. Roberts, “Six ways to make Web 2.0 work,” mckinseyquarterly.com, February 2009.

Josh Bernoff and Charlene Li, Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies, first edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2008.

Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, reprint edition, New York, NY: Penguin, 2009.

2. Making the network the organization

让组织成为一张开放的网，在组织内部能够打破地域、部门、业务的边界；在组织外部，让非雇员也为组织做出贡献——这一现象被称为“tapping into a world of talent.”——比如利用互联网技术使得公司的研发部门可以access全世界的专家。

组织的结构正在剧烈的变化、升级。

Dow Chemical就自己建立了一个talent的network，将以前的雇员，比如退休人员都囊括进来。

Amazon.com的Mechanical Turk就是一个在线的labor market；Innocentive 和Zooppa则利用企业外部的资源来为企业提供内容服务。

从长远来看，网络式的组织将不再关注工人们的归属问题，而关注一项任务的协力执行。

Further reading:
Thomas W. Malone, The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organization, Your Management Style, and Your Life, illustrated edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2004.

Lowell L. Bryan and Claudia I. Joyce, Mobilizing Minds: Creating Wealth from Talent in the 21st-Century Organization, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2007.

Albert-Laszlo Barabasi, Linked: How Everything is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life, New York, NY: Plume, 2009.

3. Collaboration at scale

Across many economies, the number of people who undertake knowledge work has grown much more quickly than the number of production or transactions workers. Knowledge workers typically are paid more than others, so increasing their productivity is critical. As a result, there is broad interest in collaboration technologies that promise to improve these workers’ efficiency and effectiveness. While the body of knowledge around the best use of such technologies is still developing, a number of companies have conducted experiments, as we see in the rapid growth rates of video and Web conferencing, expected to top 20 percent annually during the next few years.

At one high-tech enterprise, the sales force became a crucible for testing collaboration tools. The company’s sales model relied on extensive travel, which had led to high costs, burned-out employees, and difficulty in scaling operations. The leadership therefore decided to deploy collaboration tools (including video conferencing and shared electronic workspaces, which allow people in different locations to work with the same document simultaneously), and it reinforced the changes with a sharp reduction in travel budgets. The savings on travel were four times the company’s technology investment. Customer contacts per salesperson rose by 45 percent, while 80 percent of the sales staff reported higher productivity and a better lifestyle.

In another instance, the US intelligence community made wikis, documents, and blogs available to analysts across agencies (with appropriate security controls, of course). The result was a greater exchange of information within and among agencies and faster access to expertise in the intelligence community. Engineering company Bechtel established a centralized, open-collaboration database of design and engineering information to support global projects. Engineers starting new ones found that the database, which contained up to 25 percent of the material they needed, lowered launch costs and sped up times to completion.

Despite such successes, many companies err in the belief that technology by itself will foster increased collaboration. For technology to be effective, organizations first need a better understanding of how knowledge work actually takes place. A good starting point is to map the informal pathways through which information travels, how employees interact, and where wasteful bottlenecks lie.

In the longer term, collaboration will be a vital component of what has been termed “organizational capital.”⁵ The next leap forward in the productivity of knowledge workers will come from interactive technologies combined with complementary investments in process innovations and training. Strategic choices, such as whether to extend collaboration networks to customers and suppliers, will be important.

Further reading:
Andrew McAfee, Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges, first edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2009.

Erik Brynjolfsson and Adam Saunders, Wired for Innovation: How Information Technology is Reshaping the Economy, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2009.

James Manyika, Kara Sprague, and Lareina Yee, “Using technology to improve workforce collaboration,” What Matters, October 27, 2009.

Wolf Richter, David Bray, and William Dutton, “Cultivating the value of networked individuals,” in Jonathan Foster, Collaborative Information Behavior: User Engagement and Communication Sharing, Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

4. The growing ‘Internet of Things’

The adoption of RFID (radio-frequency identification) and related technologies was the basis of a trend we first recognized as “expanding the frontiers of automation.” But these methods are rudimentary compared with what emerges when assets themselves become elements of an information system, with the ability to capture, compute, communicate, and collaborate around information—something that has come to be known as the “Internet of Things.” Embedded with sensors, actuators, and communications capabilities, such objects will soon be able to absorb and transmit information on a massive scale and, in some cases, to adapt and react to changes in the environment automatically. These “smart” assets can make processes more efficient, give products new capabilities, and spark novel business models. ⁶

Auto insurers in Europe and the United States are testing these waters with offers to install sensors in customers’ vehicles. The result is new pricing models that base charges for risk on driving behavior rather than on a driver’s demographic characteristics. Luxury-auto manufacturers are equipping vehicles with networked sensors that can automatically take evasive action when accidents are about to happen. In medicine, sensors embedded in or worn by patients continuously report changes in health conditions to physicians, who can adjust treatments when necessary. Sensors in manufacturing lines for products as diverse as computer chips and pulp and paper take detailed readings on process conditions and automatically make adjustments to reduce waste, downtime, and costly human interventions.

As standards for safety and interoperability begin to emerge, some core technologies for the Internet of Things are becoming more widely available. The range of possible applications and their business impact have yet to be fully explored, however. Applications that improve process and energy efficiency (see trend number six, “Wiring for a sustainable world,” later in this article) may be good starting points for trials, since the number of successful installations in these areas is growing. For more complex applications, however, laboratory experiments, small-scale pilots, and partnerships with early technology adopters may be more fruitful, less risky approaches.

Further reading:
Michael Chui, Markus Löffler, and Roger Roberts, “The Internet of Things,” mckinseyquarterly.com, March 2010.

Hal R. Varian, Computer Mediated Transactions, Ely Lecture to the American Economics Association, Atlanta, GA, January 3, 2010.

Bernhard Boser, Joe Kahn, and Kris Pister, “Smart dust: Wireless networks of millimeter-scale sensor nodes,” Electronics Research Laboratory Research Summary, 1999.

Peter Lucas, “The trillion-node network,” Maya Design, March 1999.

5. Experimentation and big data

Could the enterprise become a full-time laboratory? What if you could analyze every transaction, capture insights from every customer interaction, and didn’t have to wait for months to get data from the field? What if . . . ? Data are flooding in at rates never seen before—doubling every 18 months—as a result of greater access to customer data from public, proprietary, and purchased sources, as well as new information gathered from Web communities and newly deployed smart assets. These trends are broadly known as “big data.” Technology for capturing and analyzing information is widely available at ever-lower price points. But many companies are taking data use to new levels, using IT to support rigorous, constant business experimentation that guides decisions and to test new products, business models, and innovations in customer experience. In some cases, the new approaches help companies make decisions in real time. This trend has the potential to drive a radical transformation in research, innovation, and marketing.

Web-based companies, such as Amazon.com, eBay, and Google, have been early leaders, testing factors that drive performance—from where to place buttons on a Web page to the sequence of content displayed—to determine what will increase sales and user engagement. Financial institutions are active experimenters as well. Capital One, which was early to the game, continues to refine its methods for segmenting credit card customers and for tailoring products to individual risk profiles. According to Nigel Morris, one of Capital One’s cofounders, the company’s multifunctional teams of financial analysts, IT specialists, and marketers conduct more than 65,000 tests each year, experimenting with combinations of market segments and new products.

Companies selling physical products are also using big data for rigorous experimentation. The ability to marshal customer data has kept Tesco, for example, in the ranks of leading UK grocers. This brick-and-mortar retailer gathers transaction data on its ten million customers through a loyalty card program. It then uses the information to analyze new business opportunities—for example, how to create the most effective promotions for specific customer segments—and to inform decisions on pricing, promotions, and shelf allocation. The online grocer Fresh Direct shrinks reaction times even further: it adjusts prices and promotions daily or even more frequently, based on data feeds from online transactions, visits by consumers to its Web site, and customer service interactions. Other companies too are mining data from social networks in real time. Ford Motor, PepsiCo, and Southwest Airlines, for instance, analyze consumer postings about them on social-media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to gauge the immediate impact of their marketing campaigns and to understand how consumer sentiment about their brands is changing.

Using experimentation and big data as essential components of management decision making requires new capabilities, as well as organizational and cultural change. Most companies are far from accessing all the available data. Some haven’t even mastered the technologies needed to capture and analyze the valuable information they can access. More commonly, they don’t have the right talent and processes to design experiments and extract business value from big data, which require changes in the way many executives now make decisions: trusting instincts and experience over experimentation and rigorous analysis. To get managers at all echelons to accept the value of experimentation, senior leaders must buy into a “test and learn” mind-set and then serve as role models for their teams.

Further reading:
Stefan Thomke, “Enlightened experimentation: The new imperative for innovation,” Harvard Business Review, February 2001, Volume 79, Number 2, pp. 66–75.

Stephen Baker, The Numerati, reprint edition, New York, NY: Mariner Books, 2009.

Thomas H. Davenport, Jeanne G. Harris, and Robert Morison, Analytics at Work: Smarter Decisions, Better Results, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2010.

David Bollier, The Promise and Peril of Big Data, The Aspen Institute, 2010.

Janaki Akella, Timo Kubach, Markus Löffler, and Uwe Schmid, “Data-driven management: Bringing more science into management,” McKinsey Technology Initiative white paper.

“Economist special report: The data deluge,” the Economist, February 25, 2010.

6. Wiring for a sustainable world

Even as regulatory frameworks continue to evolve, environmental stewardship and sustainability clearly are C-level agenda topics. What’s more, sustainability is fast becoming an important corporate-performance metric—one that stakeholders, outside influencers, and even financial markets have begun to track. Information technology plays a dual role in this debate: it is both a significant source of environmental emissions and a key enabler of many strategies to mitigate environmental damage. At present, information technology’s share of the world’s environmental footprint is growing because of the ever-increasing demand for IT capacity and services. Electricity produced to power the world’s data centers generates greenhouse gases on the scale of countries such as Argentina or the Netherlands, and these emissions could increase fourfold by 2020. McKinsey research has shown, however, that the use of IT in areas such as smart power grids, efficient buildings, and better logistics planning could eliminate five times the carbon emissions that the IT industry produces.

Companies are now taking the first steps to reduce the environmental impact of their IT. For instance, businesses are adopting “green data center” technologies to reduce sharply the energy demand of the ever-multiplying numbers of servers needed to cope with data generated by trends such as distributed cocreation and the Internet of Things (described earlier in this article). Such technologies include virtualization software (which enables the more efficient allocation of software across servers) to decrease the number of servers needed for operations, the cooling of data centers with ambient air to cut energy consumption, and inexpensive, renewable hydroelectric power (which of course requires locating data centers in places where it is available). Meanwhile, IT manufacturers are organizing programs to collect and recycle hazardous electronics, diverting them from the waste stream.

IT’s bigger role, however, lies in its ability to reduce environmental stress from broader corporate and economic activities. In a significant push, for example, utilities around the world are deploying smart meters that can help customers shift electricity usage away from peak periods and thereby reduce the amount of power generated by inefficient and costly peak-load facilities. Smart grids can also improve the efficiency of the transmission and distribution of energy and, when coupled with energy storage facilities, could store electricity generated by renewable-energy technologies, such as solar and wind. Likewise, smart buildings embedded with IT that monitors and optimizes energy use could be one of the most important ways of reducing energy consumption in developed economies. And powerful analytic software that improves logistics and routing for planes, trains, and trucks is already reducing the transportation industry’s environmental footprint.

Within the enterprise, both leaders and key functional players must understand sustainability’s growing importance to broader goals. Management systems that build the constant improvement of resource use into an organization’s processes and strategies will raise its standing with external stakeholders while also helping the bottom line.

Further reading:
Smart 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age, The Climate Group, 2009.

Giulio Boccaletti, Markus Löffler, and Jeremy M. Oppenheim, “How IT can cut carbon emissions,” mckinseyquarterly.com, October 2008.

William Forrest, James M. Kaplan, and Noah Kindler, “Data centers: How to cut carbon emissions and costs,” mckinseyquarterly.com, November 2008.

7. Imagining anything as a service

Technology now enables companies to monitor, measure, customize, and bill for asset use at a much more fine-grained level than ever before. Asset owners can therefore create services around what have traditionally been sold as products. Business-to-business (B2B) customers like these service offerings because they allow companies to purchase units of a service and to account for them as a variable cost rather than undertake large capital investments. Consumers also like this “paying only for what you use” model, which helps them avoid large expenditures, as well as the hassles of buying and maintaining a product.

In the IT industry, the growth of “cloud computing” (accessing computer resources provided through networks rather than running software or storing data on a local computer) exemplifies this shift. Consumer acceptance of Web-based cloud services for everything from e-mail to video is of course becoming universal, and companies are following suit. Software as a service (SaaS), which enables organizations to access services such as customer relationship management, is growing at a 17 percent annual rate. The biotechnology company Genentech, for example, uses Google Apps for e-mail and to create documents and spreadsheets, bypassing capital investments in servers and software licenses. This development has created a wave of computing capabilities delivered as a service, including infrastructure, platform, applications, and content. And vendors are competing, with innovation and new business models, to match the needs of different customers.

Beyond the IT industry, many urban consumers are drawn to the idea of buying transportation services by the hour rather than purchasing autos. City CarShare and ZipCar were first movers in this market, but established car rental companies, spurred by annual growth rates of 25 percent, are also entering it. Similarly, jet engine manufacturers have made physical assets a platform for delivering units of thrust billed as a service.

A number of companies are employing technology to market salable services from business capabilities they first developed for their own purposes. That’s a trend we previously described as “unbundled production.” More deals are unfolding as companies move to disaggregate and make money from corporate value chains. British Airways and GE, for instance, have spun off their successful business-process-outsourcing businesses, based in India, as separate corporations.

Business leaders should be alert to opportunities for transforming product offerings into services, because their competitors will undoubtedly be exploring these avenues. In this disruptive view of assets, physical and intellectual capital combine to create platforms for a new array of service offerings. But innovating in services, where the end user is an integral part of the system, requires a mind-set fundamentally different from the one involved in designing products.

Further reading:
Nicholas Carr, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google, reprint edition, New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.

IBM and University of Cambridge, “Succeeding through service innovation: A service perspective for education, research, business and government,” Cambridge Service Science, Management, and Engineering Symposium, Cambridge, July 14–15, 2007.

Peter Mell and Tim Grance, “The NIST definition of cloud computing,” Version 15, October 7, 2009.

8. The age of the multisided business model

Multisided business models create value through interactions among multiple players rather than traditional one-on-one transactions or information exchanges. In the media industry, advertising is a classic example of how these models work. Newspapers, magazines, and television stations offer content to their audiences while generating a significant portion of their revenues from third parties: advertisers. Other revenue, often through subscriptions, comes directly from consumers. More recently, this advertising-supported model has proliferated on the Internet, underwriting Web content sites, as well as services such as search and e-mail (see trend number seven, “Imagining anything as a service,” earlier in this article). It is now spreading to new markets, such as enterprise software: Spiceworks offers IT-management applications to 950,000 users at no cost, while it collects advertising from B2B companies that want access to IT professionals.

Technology is propagating new, equally powerful forms of multisided business models. In some information businesses, for example, data gathered from one set of users generate revenue when the business charges a separate set of customers for information services based on that data. Take Sermo, an online community of physicians who join (free of charge) to pose questions to other members, participate in discussion groups, and read medical articles. Third parties such as pharmaceutical companies, health care organizations, financial institutions, and government bodies pay for access to the anonymous interactions and polls of Sermo’s members.

As more people migrate to online activities, network effects can magnify the value of multisided business models. The “freemium” model is a case in point: a group of customers gets free services supported by those who pay a premium for special use. Flickr (online storage of photos), Pandora (online music), and Skype (online communication) not only use this kind of cross-subsidization but also demonstrate the leveraging effect of networks—the greater the number of free users, the more valuable the service becomes for all customers. Pandora harnesses the massive amounts of data from its free users to refine its music recommendations. All Flickr users benefit from a larger photo-posting community, all Skype members from an expanded universe of people with whom to connect.

Other companies find that when their core business is part of a network, valuable data (sometimes called “exhaust data”) are generated as a by-product. MasterCard, for instance, has built an advisory unit based on data the company gathers from its core credit card business: it analyzes consumer purchasing patterns and sells aggregated findings to merchants and others that want a better reading on buying trends. CHEP, a logistics-services provider, captures data on a significant portion of the transportation volume of the fastest-moving consumer goods and is now building a transportation-management business to take advantage of this visibility.

Not all companies, of course, could benefit from multisided models. But for those that can, a good starting point for testing them is to take inventory of all the data in a company’s businesses (including data flowing from customer interactions) and then ask, “Who might find this information valuable?” Another provocative thought: “What would happen if we provided our product or service free of charge?” or—more important, perhaps—“What if a competitor did so?” The responses should provide indications of the opportunities for disruption, as well as of vulnerabilities.

Further reading:
Chris Anderson, Free: How Today’s Smartest Businesses Profit by Giving Something for Nothing, New York, NY: Hyperion, 2009.

Annabelle Gawer ed., Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010.

David S. Evans, Andrei Hagiu, and Richard Schmalensee, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2006.

9. Innovating from the bottom of the pyramid

The adoption of technology is a global phenomenon, and the intensity of its usage is particularly impressive in emerging markets. Our research has shown that disruptive business models arise when technology combines with extreme market conditions, such as customer demand for very low price points, poor infrastructure, hard-to-access suppliers, and low cost curves for talent. With an economic recovery beginning to take hold in some parts of the world, high rates of growth have resumed in many developing nations, and we’re seeing companies built around the new models emerging as global players. Many multinationals, meanwhile, are only starting to think about developing markets as wellsprings of technology-enabled innovation rather than as traditional manufacturing hubs.

In parts of rural Africa, for instance, traditional retail-banking models have difficulty taking root. Consumers have low incomes and often lack the standard documentation (such as ID cards or even addresses) required to open bank accounts. But Safaricom, a telecom provider, offers banking services to eight million Africans through its M-PESA mobile-phone service (M stands for “mobile,” pesa is Swahili for “money”). Safaricom allows a network of shops and gas stations that sell telecommunications airtime to load virtual cash onto cell phones as well.

In China, another technology-based model brings order to the vast, highly dispersed strata of smaller manufacturing facilities. Many small businesses around the world have difficulty finding Chinese manufacturers to meet specific needs. Some of these manufacturers are located in remote areas, and their capabilities can vary widely. Alibaba, China’s leading B2B exchange, with more than 30 million members, helps members share data on their manufacturing services with potential customers and handles online payments and other transactions. Its network, in effect, offers Chinese manufacturing capacity as a service, enabling small businesses anywhere in the world to identify suppliers quickly and scale up rapidly to meet demand.

Hundreds of companies are now appearing on the global scene from emerging markets, with offerings ranging from a low-cost bespoke tutoring service to the remote monitoring of sophisticated air-conditioning systems around the world. For most global incumbents, these represent a new type of competitor: they are not only challenging the dominant players’ growth plans in developing markets but also exporting their extreme models to developed ones. To respond, global players must plug into the local networks of entrepreneurs, fast-growing businesses, suppliers, investors, and influencers spawning such disruptions. Some global companies, such as GE, are locating research centers in these cauldrons of creativity to spur their own innovations there. Others, such as Philips and SAP, are now investing in local companies to nurture new, innovative products for export that complement their core businesses.

Further reading:
Jeffrey R. Immelt, Vijay Govindarajan, and Chris Trimble, “How GE is disrupting itself,” Harvard Business Review, October 2009, Volume 87, Number 10, pp. 56–65.

“Special report on innovation in emerging markets: The world turned upside down,” the Economist, April 15, 2010.

C. K. Prahalad, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits, fifth edition, Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Publishing, July 2009.

10. Producing public good on the grid

The role of governments in shaping global economic policy will expand in coming years.⁷ Technology will be an important factor in this evolution by facilitating the creation of new types of public goods while helping to manage them more effectively. This last trend is broad in scope and draws upon many of the other trends described above.

Take the challenges of rising urbanization. About half of the world’s people now live in urban areas, and that share is projected to rise to 70 percent by 2050. Creative public policies that incorporate new technologies could help ease the economic and social strains of population density. “Wired” cities might be one approach. London, Singapore, and Stockholm have used smart assets to manage traffic congestion in their urban cores, and many cities throughout the world are deploying these technologies to improve the reliability and predictability of mass-transit systems. Sensors in buses and trains provide transportation planners with real-time status reports to optimize routing and give riders tools to adjust their commuting plans.

Similarly, networked smart water grids will be critical to address the need for clean water. Embedded sensors can not only ensure that the water flowing through systems is uncontaminated and safe to drink but also sense leaks. And effective metering and billing for water ensures that the appropriate incentives are in place for efficient usage.⁸

Technology can also improve the delivery and effectiveness of many public services. Law-enforcement agencies are using smart assets—video cameras and data analytics—to create maps that define high-crime zones and direct additional police resources to them. Cloud computing and collaboration technologies can improve educational services, giving young and adult students alike access to low-cost content, online instructors, and communities of fellow learners. Through the Web, governments are improving access to many other services, such as tax filing, vehicle registration, benefits administration, and employment services. Public policy also stands to become more transparent and effective thanks to a number of new open-data initiatives. At the UK Web site FixMyStreet.com, for example, citizens report, view, and discuss local problems, such as graffiti and the illegal dumping of waste, and interact with local officials who provide updates on actions to solve them.

Exploiting technology’s full potential in the public sphere means reimagining the way public goods are created, delivered, and managed. Setting out a bold vision for what a wired, smart community could accomplish is a starting point for setting strategy. Putting that vision in place requires forward-thinking yet prudent leadership that sets milestones, adopts flexible test-and-learn methods, and measures success. Inertia hobbles many public organizations, so leaders must craft incentives tailored to public projects and embrace novel, unfamiliar collaborations among governments, technology providers, other businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and citizens.

Further reading:
Jason Baumgarten and Michael Chui, “E-government 2.0,” mckinseyquarterly.com, July 2009.

Bas Boorsma and Wolfgang Wagner, “Connected urban development: Innovation for sustainability,” NATOA Journal, Winter 2007, Volume 15, Number 4, pp. 5–9.

O’Reilly Radar Government 2.0 (radar.oreilly.com)

Connected Urban Development (connectedurbandevelopment.org)

Building a smarter planet (asmarterplanet.com)

The pace of technology and business change will only accelerate, and the impact of the trends above will broaden and deepen. For some organizations, they will unlock significant competitive advantages; for others, dealing with the disruption they bring will be a major challenge. Our broad message is that organizations should incorporate an understanding of the trends into their strategic thinking to help identify new market opportunities, invent new ways of doing business, and compete with an ever-growing number of innovative rivals.