IT Strategy资讯科技策略

Bullwhip effect 牛鞭效应 is an important concept in Supply Chain Management. 是一个重要的概念，在供应链管理。 This is the phenomenon when a slight change in demand gets amplified as you move away from the customers in the value chain. 这是现象时有轻微变化，在需求得到放大，因为你搬走，从客户在价值链中。 Let’s say the quantity of office supplies sold by the retail stores in a region has stagnated. 让我们说的数量，办公用品销售的零售商店在一个地区曾一度出现停滞状态。 But if the demand increases say for four months linearly, the retail stores see this as a trend and begin to anticipate increased future demand even though its just a temporary effect. 不过，如果需求增加说，为4个月，线性，零售商店看到这样一种趋势，并开始预期增加了未来的需求，即使它只是一个暂时的效果。 The retail stores will increase its order size from the distributors. 零售商店将增加其大小，以便从分销商。 Distributors, who see this trend, anticipate even larger order s from the retail shops and will place larger order with the suppliers. 分销商，他们看到这个趋势，预计更大规模1日从零售商店，并会发生较大的秩序与供应商。 This trend continues down the supply chain amplifying the effect. 这种趋势继续下去了供应链的放大效应。 Bullwhip effect is not new but the ‘Wisdom of the Crowd’ has the tendency to exasperate this issue even further. 牛鞭效应是不是新的，但'群众的智慧'的倾向，使怒在这个问题上更加缓慢。

As collaborative technology matures, and as the number of people ‘peer’ producing increases, common sense tells that the Bullwhip effect should reduce. 作为协同技术的成熟，并为多的人'同行'生产的增加，普通常识告诉牛鞭效应应减少。 More the number of people involved in the process, more ‘eyes’ to identify the potential and probable Bullwhip effect, right?  Thats the main selling point of crowd sourcing - “many heads are far better than one”. 越是多的人参与这个过程，更多的'眼睛' ，以确定潜在的和可能存在的牛鞭效应，对不对？ thats主要卖点的采购人群-"许多校长都远胜一" 。 But, few incidents over the past few years indicate that the Bullwhip effect gets lot worse if the number of people involved increases. 但是，很少发生在过去的几年里表明，牛鞭效应得到很大差距，如果涉及人数增加。

• The US Stock Bubble of 2001 : Bull market of late 1990s that led to the dot com bubble highlighted the ‘irrational exuberance’ by the investors. 美国股市泡沫的2001年：牛市的上世纪90年代末，导致在点com泡沫突出了'非理性繁荣' ，由投资者。 Large number of investors got involved in the stock market because of the democratization of investing brought about by several on-line trading firms. 大批投资者介入股市，因为该国的民主化的投资所带来的几对网上交易的公司。 Low trading fees led to frenzied trading. 低交易费用，导致疯狂地买卖。 Though Web 2.0 technologies were not available then, primitive technology to support the ‘Wisdom of the crowd’ existed in form of message boards and multiple online web based investment portals. 虽然web 2.0的技术，不具备那么，原始的技术，以支持'群众的智慧'存在形式的留言板和多种在线网站为基础的投资门户。 Several smart people like brokers in New York, venture capitalists and tech workers at Silicon Valley were involved in creating an euphoria for the tech stocks. 几个聪明的人都喜欢经纪商在纽约，风险资本家和技术工人在硅谷参与创制胜利冲昏了头脑，为科技股。 None of them saw the ‘bubble’ leading to crash of NASDAQ in late 2001. 但他们看到了'泡'导致坠毁的那斯达克在 2001年年底。
• Global Credit Crunch of 2007 : Again very smart investors (both large and small) are getting bitten by the Credit Crunch of 2007. 全球信贷紧缩的2007年：再次非常聪明的投资者（不论大小）越咬信贷紧缩的2007年。 In fact involvement of larger number of people in the real estate market has led to soaring of property value, which in turn led to the sub prime mess. 事实上，参与更多的人在房地产市场，导致飙升的财产价值，这反过来又导致了小组总理一塌糊涂。 Banks, Mortgage industr ies and other financial institutions who deal with risk every day got side tracked and surprise – surprise they did not anticipate the coming sub prime and liquidity crisis. 银行，按揭industr网页，和其他金融机构处理风险，每天得到的一面追踪和惊讶-惊讶，他们没有预料到未来亚总理和流动性危机。 From borrowers to lenders, everyone globally is seeing their investment s getting decimated. 由借款人向贷款人，每个人都在全球范围内，是看到他们的投资s日益破坏。

As seen above, the amplification is strongly correlated with the number of people involved. 如上文所示，放大的是强烈的相关性与多的人参与。 As more people get plugged directly or indirectly in the global economy, we will see some wild gyrations. 随着越来越多的人先堵塞直接或间接地在全球经济中，我们将看到一些野生起落。 Wisdom of the crowd acts in a harmful way doesn’t it. 群众的智慧行为，在一种有害的方式并不它。 Why is that? 为什么？ Why, when the number of people involved increases, our collective ability to detect anomalies and ‘bubbles’ diminishes? 因此，当涉及人数增加，我们的集体有能力侦测异常与'泡'递减？ The answer lies in what Warren Buffett calls ‘Institutional Imperative’ (see my blog 答案就在于什么华伦巴菲特呼吁'体制势在必行' （见我的博客 Traditional Manager and the curse of Institutional Imperative 传统管理者与诅咒的体制势在必行 ). ） 。 Buffett describes the ‘Institutional Imperative’ as that need for people to act and do like their peers no matter how irrational it may seem. 巴菲特描述了'体制势在必行' ，因为这需要人们采取行动，并喜欢他们的朋辈，无论怎样不合理看起来它可能。

This institutional imperative ‘mixed with’ the wisdom of the crowd is the sure recipe for creating an enhanced Bullwhip effect. 这种体制势在必行'混'了群众的智慧，是肯定会创造一个强化牛鞭效应。 We will see more volatility in the market as the number of people involved increases. 我们将会看到更多的波动，以市场为涉及人数增加。 The hype of crowd sourcing and ‘peer’ production needs to be dealt with carefully. 天花乱坠的人群采购和'同行'生产需要必须小心处理。 Though there are some great applications that can take advantage of user created content, I think there is also an elevated risk of going in a wrong path for a long time without being corrected because of the ‘wisdom’ of the crowd. 虽然也有一些大的应用软件可以充分利用用户创建内容，我觉得还有一个架空的危险走了错误的道路，在相当长的时间内被纠正，因为'智慧'的人群。

Popularity: 2% [受欢迎程度： 2 ％ [ ? ？ ] ]

With the rise of social networking and collaboration technology there is growing interest in ‘Crowd Sourcing’. Wikipedia is a classic example where we have witnessed a dramatic shift of power from the experts to the ‘crowd’. According to numerous studies, the percentage of errors on the Wikipedia site is far lower than that of other Encyclopedia sites written by experts. We see the trend where ‘crowd’ generated solution that is not only pertinent but lot cheaper than the expert generated solution. Is expert advice irrelevant in this new collaborative age? Will it be a passé to get an expert advice? Are million heads better than one? 与崛起的社会网络和协作技术有越来越多的兴趣'人群采购' 。维基是一个典型的例子，我们已目睹了戏剧性的转变，权力由专家向'人群' 。根据许多研究中，所占的百分比误差对维基站点是远远低于其他的百科全书网站撰写的专家，我们看到的趋势，其中， '人群'所产生的解决方案，不仅是中肯的，但很多更便宜的，比专家所产生的解决方案，是专家的意见无关，在这个新的协作年龄？会不会是一场passé得到了专家的意见吗万头好过吗？

Not necessarily, here are couple of examples which shows that experts still have a powerful impact. 未必，在这里是两个例子显示，专家仍然拥有强大的影响力。

1. Malcolm Gladwell in the book ‘ 马尔科姆gladwell在书中' Blink 眨眼 ’ talks about the Herman Miller, Inc. which hired an expert designer to design a new office chair. The designer came up with a radically unique design that was extremely ergonomic as well as comfortable, but the reception for this chair by the ‘crowd’ was downright chilly. None of the test customers wanted to sit on it. How that chair became the best selling, a must have $900 chair is another story, but the point is: this radically different looking chair could not have been designed by the crowd. '谈赫尔曼米勒公司，其中聘请了专家设计师设计一个新的办公室主持会议。设计师想出来一个根本性的独特设计，是非常符合人体工学，以及舒适，但酒会主持这个由'人群'是彻头彻尾的寒冷，没有测试客户想坐在它怎么说，主席，成为最畅销的，必须有900元主持会议是另一回事，但有一点是：这根本不同的期待主持不能被设计是由人群。
2. Heath Brothers in their book ‘ 希思兄弟，在他们的著作' Made to Stick 作出棒 ’ talk about a study where a group of people were asked to solve the car parking problem. Their solutions were OK but failed to suggest some of the ideas that were radically different. Their ideas were mostly improvement to existing ideas. When the ‘car parking’ experts were asked to solve the problem, their solutions were far smarter than those generated by the crowd. '谈论学习的地方有一群人被要求，以解决停车场问题，他们的解决方案都是ok ，但未能提出一些想法被彻底不同，他们的想法大多是改善现有的想法，当'停车场'专家们被要求解决问题，他们的解决办法远不是聪明比所产生的人群。

Both the above mentioned books talk about many researches, tests and surveys that point to the fact that non-experts or ‘crowd’ in general fail to think radically different. To think ‘out side of the box’ we need experts. Bottom line is if the idea is evolutionary , then crowd sourcing is just fine. If the idea is revolutionary then expert sourcing is a must. 无论上述书籍谈论很多研究，试验和调查，指出这样一个事实，即非专家或'人群' ，一般不认为从根本上的不同。以为'出方的盒子' ，我们需要专家。底线是如果这个想法是一个循序渐进的，那么人群采购是就万事大吉。如果这个想法是一项革命性的，然后专家采购是一项要务。

So, experts are still needed. But, what collaborative technology has done is break the myth of who the expert is. In today’s world expertise no longer belong to an ‘exclusive’ domain of people who hang around the universities or ‘think tanks’ . Expertise cannot be gained only by attending/teaching at certain prestigious colleges, publishing paper in certain journals or making the circuits at typical media circles. Collaborative technology is reducing the economic barrier to find experts in unique and unexpected places. 因此，专家们仍然需要，但如何协同技术所做的就是打破神话的人，专家，在今天的世界上的专业知识已不再属于一个'专属'域名的人，坑周围的大学或'智囊团' 。专业知识，不能只在出席/教学，在某些负盛名的高校，出版的文件，在某些期刊或使电路在典型的舆论界。协同技术，是降低经济壁垒找专家，在独特的意想不到的地方。

Experts who live in the ‘ivory tower’ will be surprised to find innovative solutions will be presented at a much faster rate from the people who are in the trenches. They not only possess hands on knowledge on solving the problem, but the technology has provided them a platform to broadcast their views globally. Just check out 专家，他们生活在'象牙塔'会惊奇地发现，有创意的解决办法将在快得多的速度从人，在战壕中，他们不仅手中拥有的知识解决问题，但该技术提供了他们一个平台上播出他们的意见在全球范围内，就检查出 Expert Village 专家村 , you will begin to see who the ‘experts’ are. ，你将开始看到谁是'专家' 。

Popularity: 49% [受欢迎程度： 49 ％ [ ? ？ ] ]

“ " A Different Kind of Culture War 一种不同的文化战争 ” by " Edward Cone 爱德华锥 is an article that states that the outcome of US Presidential Election in 2008 could come down to the way each campaign uses technology. 一篇文章说，国家的结果，美国总统选举在2008年可能下降到了这样每个活动利用技术。

Both sides have access to same technology, but like business entities cultural differences between each party will indicate how they will  be able to  leverage technology.  In my view their IT Strategy should be in alignment with their core beliefs.   No doubt they should keep a close watch on how the opponents are using technology, but it will be a mistake if they try to copy each other’s IT strategy.   Democratic Philosophy is more collaborative “Let us all share the wealth”.  Republican Philosophy is more competitive “Let us create a  C ompetitive  E nvironment by rewarding the  B est”.  Forgive my simplistic view of each party’s philosophy but from an economic standpoint this makes sense - Socialism v/s Free Market.  双方都获得相同的技术，但如业务实体之间的文化差异，每个党将说明如何将可以利用的技术，在我看来他们的资讯科技策略应配合他们的核心信念。毫无疑问，他们应该密切看如何对手正在使用的技术，但它将会是一个错误，如果他们试图复制对方的资讯科技策略。民主哲学是更合作的"让我们大家共同的财富" 。共和党的哲学是更具竞争力， "让我们共同努力打造居ompetitive e nvironment奖励的b组织者" 。原谅我简单地认为，每一方的哲学，而是从经济观点来看，这是有道理的-社会主义的v /硫市场。

The Democratic Party which is socialistic   will be more comfortable with the Social aspect of Web 2.0 technology.  They will be able to leverage Social Networking to gain access to new voters.  Democratic Party will also be successful with micro communication and viral marketing which matches well with their “Collaborative” philosophy and Republican Party may have difficulty replicating it. 民主党党是社会主义，将更为舒适与社会方面的web 2.0技术，他们将可以利用社会网络，以获取新登记选民。民主党也将获得成功与微观的沟通和病毒性营销配合良好他们的"协作"的理念和共和两党可能难以复制。  

Republican Party  which  is free market oriented will be able to successfully use Business Intelligence tools to ‘sub segment’ the voters. 共和党党是自由市场导向将能够成功地使用商务智能工具来'分部分'选民。  They can successfully use technology to identify and woo the right voter (no pun intended).  This ability to ferret out the right voter is in synergy with their “Competitive” philosophy.  Democratic Party might appear hypocrite if they try to copy this and ‘reward’ some voter over the rest. 他们能够成功地使用技术，以确定和争取权利的选民（没有双关的用意） 。这种能力，以深挖出正确的选民是协同他们的"竞争力"的哲学。民主党可能会出现伪君子，如果他们试图复制这个和'奖励有的选民多休息。

It  will be  interesting to watch and see if  both the parties will follow a sound IT strategy.    它将会有趣的观赏，看看如果双方当事人将遵循健全的资讯科技策略。

Popularity: 74% [受欢迎程度： 74 ％ [ ? ？ ] ]

Why is G lobalization of L abor all of sudden important now? The barrier for job migration has dramatically lowered lately making it easy to move the jobs where the labor is. When we talked about globalization, a decade back, it meant 2 things - 为什么是g lobalization左旋abor所有突发现在重要吗？壁垒，为求职移民已经大幅度降低了近期使它容易谨职位而劳动是，当我们谈到全球化，十多年过去，这意味着第二件事-

1. Movement of goods: A typical export/import business. 货物流动：一个典型的出口/进口业务。 Goods from one country shipped to another country. 货物从一国运往另一国。
2. Movement of capital: Investment in companies and infrastructure around the globe. 资本流动：投资公司和基础设施遍布全球。

Movement of Labor was not on the globalization agenda, because of the obvious reasons - high barrier for immigration. 流动的劳动力，是不是就全球化议程，由于明显的原因-高阻隔移民。 Although forced labor movement like slave labor and indentured labor has been going on for centuries - voluntary labor movement was a rarity. 虽然被迫工人运动像奴隶劳动和劳动契约已持续数百年-自愿工人运动是一个稀罕。 Most of the developed countries were self sufficient as far as labor pool was concerned and did not want to deal with social change brought by mass immigration. 多数发达国家均自给自足就劳动密集型池，并没有要处理的社会变革所带来的大规模移民。 With the visa regime, many countries have set up high bar for easy immigration. Over the past decade 3 things have happened that has enabled globalization of labor. 与签证制度，许多国家都成立了高杆，方便入境。在过去的十年中三件事有凑巧，已使全球化的劳动力。

1. Demographic Shift : Majority of developed countries lately have lower birth rates causing labor shortage. 人口变化 ：大多数发达国家对近来低生育水平，造成劳动力短缺的问题。 This has forced the companies in these countries to look for labor in other countries. 这迫使该公司在这些国家寻求劳动，在其他国家。
2. New Market : Chinese and Indian economy has been growing at more than 9%, lifting large number of people out of poverty. 新的市场 ：中国和印度经济一直持续增长，在九％以上，起重大量的人摆脱贫困。 The companies in developed countries are now exposed to this new largely underserved market. 该公司在发达国家，现在接触到这个新的大致水平低下的市场。 They have stepped up effort to seek local knowledge to sell their products in these countries. 已加紧努力，寻求当地知识，以出售自己的产品在这些国家。 Hence, there is a strong need to hire labor close to this new market. 因此，有一种强烈的需要雇用劳动力接近这个新市场。
3. Technological advances : Due to dot com bubble in late 1990s, several companies over invested in communication technology bringing down the cost of communication. 技术进步 ：由于点com泡沫在上世纪90年代末，有几家公司比投资在通讯技术，降低成本的沟通。 Internet, E mail, Web 2.0 etc. opened up new avenues for collaboration where the need to co-locate employees became less important. 互联网，电子邮件，网页2.0等开辟了新途径，让合作的地方要通力合作，找到员工成了那么重要了。

These three main trends have lowered the barrier for labor movement. The result is not that the labor can now move easily to where the jobs are but jobs can move where the labor is ! Today, G lobalization not just means movement of goods and movement of capital. 这三个主要趋势已经降低了门槛工人运动。效果并不认为工党现在可以很容易在那里职位，但职位，可以当劳动是！今天地下lobalization不只是指货物和人员流动的运动资本。 Globalization also means movement of labor or movement of work towards the country that can supply cheap labor. This is a titanic shift for everyone - politicians, employees, business owners, management and HR. 全球化也意味着运动，劳动或运动的工作，对国家，可供应的廉价劳动力，这是一个泰坦尼克号的转变，为所有人-政治家，雇员，企业主，管理及人力资源。 No one clearly understands how to deal with these dynamic changes. I will soon blog on what the trends are in the Globalization of Labor, so that we can adapt to these changes and thrive in this new environment. 没有人清楚地认识到，如何处理这些动态变化，我会尽快博客什么趋势是，在全球化的劳动力，使我们能够适应这些变化和发展，在这个新环境。

Also, read my other blog 同样也可以阅读我的其他博客 Globalization of Labor. 全球化的劳动力。

Popularity: 84% [受欢迎程度： 84 ％ [ ? ？ ] ]

Great article by Herman Mehling in SearchCIO.com, titled 伟大的文章， 赫尔曼mehling在searchcio.com名为 IT/BUSINESS STRATEGIES: Wikis in the enterprise face security, compliance challenges 资讯科技/商业策略： wikis的，在企业面临安全，遵守挑战 . 。 He writes how Wikis have failed to win widespread acceptance in the corporate world. Web 2.0 technologies like Wikis are so radically different that traditional organizations are not structured to take advantage of these emerging technologies. In my view there are 3 main reasons why Web 2.0 will have difficulty penetrating traditional corporate world. 他写道，如何wikis的都未能赢得广泛的接受，在整体的世界。 web 2.0的技术，如wikis的是如此根本不同的，传统的组织结构不能够利用这些新技术，在我认为有3个原因： web 2.0的，将有困难的穿透传统的企业世界。

Flow of Ideas 思想流通

In a traditional organizations, ideas flow in unidirectional fashion. It’s the management that decides on a business strategy and motivates their employees to implement or work towards that strategy. Information flow is also controlled by the management. 在一个传统的组织，思想流是单向的时装，它的管理层决定对经营战略和激励员工，以落实或工作，为实现这一战略，信息流，也就是控制管理。 Conventional corporate wisdom says that employees do not need to understand all the complexities behind running the business. 传统企业的智慧表示，员工并不需要了解各种复杂后面跑业务。 It’s revealed on a ‘need to know’ basis. 它的发现对'必须知道'的基础上。

In Web 2.0 world, ideas do not follow any rigid preset direction . The information freely flows and that in turn generates relevant and big ideas. Any individual with a great idea can galvanize and create an ecosystem as well as momentum around that idea. 在web 2.0的世界，想法并不遵循任何严格预设方向。资讯自由流动，而这又衍生出相关的大思路，任何个人与一个伟大的想法，可以激发和创造一个生态系统，以及势头左右这一想法。

Power Structure 权力结构

In the traditional organization, the power structure is vertical and top down . The manager can influence how and what the employees can work on. Hierarchy is mainly predisposed . Top executives are supposed to be smarter than middle management. Middle management is supposed to be smarter than individual contributors. This hierarchal power structure gives management a sense of direction as to where to take their organization. 在传统的组织，权力结构是纵向和自上而下 。管理人可以影响如何以及什么雇员可以工作。层级，主要是易感 。高管理应得到更聪明，比中层管理人员。中层管理人员应该是更聪明比个人撰稿者，这层次的权力结构，使管理意识的方向，至于在哪里，采取自己的组织。

In Web 2.0 world the power structure is horizontal . The person with the greatest idea can influence how and what to work on. Community of resources agreeing with that person, will come together to organize themselves to execute the idea. Also, there is no concept of hierarchy in the Web 2.0 world. In fact, this lack of hierarchy makes it all that powerful. 在web 2.0的世界权力结构，是横向的 。人士以最大的想法，可以影响如何以及什么工作，对社区资源的同意，该人将走到一起，组织起来，去执行这一想法。此外，也没有概念等级在web 2.0的世界。事实上， 这种缺乏层次 ，使所有的强大。

Employee Incentives 员工激励

In the traditional organization, the employee who is smarter or better gets promoted. That generates an environment of competition between the employees. This pyramid structure in the organization leads to vicious politics. Power and Control are the only ways the employer can reward an employee. 在传统组织，雇员，他们是聪明或更好的获得晋升。产生一个环境之间的竞争，雇员，这个金字塔结构中的组织，导致恶性政治权力和控制，是唯一的方法，使雇主可以奖励雇员。

Web 2.0 technology triggers people to collaborate rather than compete. The best ideas come as multiple people come together to co-operate and add value. Instant international recognition is what motivates individuals in Web 2.0 culture. web 2.0的技术触发人的协作 ，而不是竞争。最好的想法来作为多的人走到一起合作，并增加产品价值。即时获得国际承认的是什么动机，在个人网站2.0文化。

These three diametrically opposite forces between traditional organizations and Web 2.0 technology is the main reason, why a traditional organizations will struggle to use it successfully. Today’s organizations have to radically restructure to fully leverage Web 2.0 technologies. 这三个截然相反的力量之间的传统组织和web 2.0技术是主要原因，所以，传统的组织进行斗争，以用它成功，今天的组织必须从根本上进行调整，以充分利用web 2.0的技术。

Popularity: 86% [受欢迎程度： 86 ％ [ ? ？ ] ]

Information Week article “ 信息每周文章" Younger Workers Demanding Web 2.0 Tech on the Job 年轻的工人，要求web 2.0的技术对就业 ” talks about how Web 2.0 has become important part of social life for the new generation workers. "谈及如何网络2.0已成为重要组成部分，社会生活，为新一代的工人。

Our company has its own internal blogging and its interesting to see that the young hires and interns start blogging almost instantaneously. 我们公司有自己内部的博客及其有趣地看到，年轻舍内和实习生开始，博客几乎瞬间。 In some cases, I see them blog on their first day at work as soon as they get their own laptop. 在某些情况下，我看不出他们的博客上，他们第一天上班，因为他们一旦得到他们自己的笔记本电脑。 In fact, one hire started writing how boring the orientation training was - during new employee orientation! 事实上，一开始租用写作如何沉闷的方向训练-在新雇员取向！

It’s an interesting balancing act for organizations to provide infrastructure for blogging, social networking etc. and at the same time make sure that employees use it to improve productivity. How do you calculate the ROI of Web 2.0 at work? Will organizations be able to monitor privacy and security of information? How do you treat Intellectual Property (IP) of the organizations? These are some of the issues the company’s executives need to start addressing soon. 这是一个有趣的平衡，为组织提供基础设施，为博客，社会网络等，并在同一时间，确保员工可以利用它，以提高生产力。你如何计算投资回报率的web 2.0的工作，是否会组织能监察隐私和信息安全？你怎么看待知识产权（ ip ）的组织呢？这些都是一些问题，该公司的高层管理者们要开始处理很快。

Popularity: 59% [受欢迎程度： 59 ％ [ ? ？ ] ]