张瑞敏再发狠话:未来硬件不要钱,软件要钱

文/金错刀
 
传统制造业里,我最佩服的是张瑞敏,一直在自我革命,自我进步,最关键的是,给传统的制造业不断带来正能量。
 
不少传统土豪跟我说:互联网把很多传统企业家的自信打掉了。
 
最近,张瑞敏则说:互联网时代,这是制造业最好的时代,互联网对于任何产品来说,将超过电的意义:电发明后,保存食物的柜子变成冰箱,后来大部分装备都变成电器;互联网之后,大部分装备都将变成网器。
 
对张瑞敏用互联网思维改造制造业的行动,我有三方面的点评:
 
1、个性化,张瑞敏对个性化的判断很正确。个性化应该是个永远的目标,它包括两个层面:第一个层面,模块式的个性化,去年(2012年)“光棍节”海尔卖的电视,你自己来选择,你想要什么颜色随便选。当时海尔电视收到了一万多个订单,电视并不是我们的优势产品。现在又开始定制空调;个性化的第二个层面是,一对一生产。
 
2、硬件不要钱,软件、服务赚钱。张瑞敏:我觉得到最后就是电视不要钱,通过买软件、卖服务收费。其实我们现在还不是这么思考问题的,我们现在不是思考做什么产品,我们现在是思考怎样与用户进行交互,传统经济下其实是没有用户的。
 
3、张瑞敏最大的挑战是缺产品经理。张瑞敏的很多想法非常切合互联网的本质,甚至是自我颠覆,传统企业的确是有产品,但没有用户。曾经跟海尔的一个前高管聊过,张瑞敏想变,但是海尔的高管、海尔的组织架构、海尔的生态链能快速变化、快速行动吗?是一个巨大的问号,也拷问所有要拥抱互联网的传统企业。
 
我们拷问传统企业,不仅看战略,看决心,更看行动。传统企业转型互联网,只有一个合适的路径,就是通过产品推平一切,你说呢?
 
  将海尔从一个地方小厂打造成一个营收过千亿(2012年整个集团收入约1600亿元)的家电巨头,张瑞敏堪称“中国制造第一人”。
 
  现在互联网时代,张瑞敏期许为“隐形巨人”,这是与阿里集团的马云、腾讯(483.2, 14.00, 2.98%, 实时行情)马化腾、百度(173.77, 6.49, 3.88%)李彦宏这些“显形”的网络巨子对比的提法。互联网、移动互联网的浪潮浩浩荡荡,席卷了所有产业。作为家电业龙头的海尔,也没能幸免。“这几年我关注得最多的就是互联网。”张瑞敏对《21世纪经济报道》记者说。
 
  12月9日,阿里集团宣布对海尔旗团旗下海尔电器(HK:01169)进行总额为28.22亿元港币的投资。有人认为海尔将放弃制造业,向服务业尤其是现代物流服务业转型。
 
  张瑞敏认为,这是外界的一种误读:海尔不是放弃制造业,而是换一种思维,用“互联网思维”做制造业。
 
  互联网思维而非互联网工具,这是张瑞敏与传统制造业大佬的最大不同之处。他甚至也迥异于其合作伙伴马云,马云强调“互联网工具”,认为传统行业触网的最佳模式是诸如淘宝、天猫合作,利用电商渠道以及网络营销即可。
 
  张瑞敏的这一提法与小米科技的雷军类似,只是两者赋予的内涵略有差别,雷军强调生态链打造,张瑞敏则强调制造业的管理。
 
  张瑞敏的“互联网思维”包含两个层面:一是并行生产,即消费者、品牌商、工厂、渠道、上游供应商利用互联网技术全流程参与;二是经营用户而非经营产品,传统制造业的模式是以产品为中心,未来制造业需要通过自己的产品找到用户,与用户互动,了解用户的需求,然后确定新品开发,周而复始。
 
  从家电制造企业到一家具有互联网思维的企业,海尔正在张瑞敏的领导下进行一场互联网时代的大迁徙。
 
  海尔集团旗下两家上市公司,青岛海尔(SH:600690)主营家电制造业,负责在新型制造业方面的探索;海尔电器(HK:01169),主业渠道,即日日顺物流,负责新型物流的探索。携手马云,张瑞敏意在探索“实网+虚网”的无缝O2O融合,打造O2O时代离用户最近的互联网入口。
 
  除了制造业的“互联网思维”,张瑞敏领导下的海尔还在尝试无灯工厂(无人工厂)、虚拟制造、3D打印等制造业的前尚技术。目前,海尔集团已经在沈阳等地试建无灯工厂,未来会投入洗衣机等产品的生产。
 
  互联网时代,制造业前景不被看好,张瑞敏却认为这是制造业最好的时代,互联网对于任何产品来说,将超过电的意义:电发明后,保存食物的柜子变成冰箱,后来大部分装备都变成电器;互联网之后,大部分装备都将变成网器。
 
  张瑞敏是读书最多的中国企业家之一,每年精读图书近百本。上一次采访,他向记者推荐了《FaceBook效应》,这一次则推荐了《当下的冲击》。
 
  自组织企业
 
  《21世纪》:在互联网的冲击下,企业会变成什么样子?
 
  张瑞敏:传统企业跟传统媒体一样,要改造成一个适应互联网的机制非常困难。互联网的冲击不止是电商、互联网营销等,它还将带来非常深层次的冲击。我觉得冲击到最后,整个社会都会变成自组织(自动生成组织)。
 
  《21世纪》:在自组织的形式下,CEO的任务是什么?还有存在的必要吗?
 
  张瑞敏:一是主观能动性。下级的任务不是上级下达的,是个人主动创造、能动争取的。能够争取的原因是给用户创造了价值,由CEO来判断“用户价值”。判断用户价值是我需要做的,当然现在我还没有做到。
 
  我们希望就是自组织是自己冒出来的。某个人发现一个机会,有几个人志同道合,大家一起来做。海尔是一个平台,一个自然环境的生态,土壤很肥沃,水草很丰美。CEO不保证一定冒出什么树来,但CEO要保证条件好。
 
  海尔以前搞自主经营体,现在搞利益共同体,就是某种意义上的自组织。但有不足,即不是自然生长,大多是有规划的。先实验,培养这种意义。最终达到四个字,即“生生不已”,可能有些树会死掉,但总会有些树会新冒出来。不管是死亡还是新生都要看市场,市场要是没了,那您就不应该存在。
 
  《21世纪》:你提到的管理无领导,就是这个意思?
 
  张瑞敏:正是在互联网的冲击下,我们提出了“管理无边界,企业无领导”。实现“管理无边界,企业无领导”的前提是,企业变成了自组织。
 
  我推荐你去看看《当下的冲击》。这本书针对的是埃尔文。托夫勒三十年前的《未来的冲击》。包括媒体、政府机构、商业公司,未来都会疲于奔命。比如马路上发生一个事儿,网上立马铺天盖地,机构媒体只能坚持应付,没有应付就活不下去。原因是每个人都是媒体、自媒体。媒体应该优化各种资源,成为平台;对企业只有自组织,没有别的出路。
 
  《21世纪》:这些年来,海尔最大的变化在哪里?
 
  张瑞敏:日新月异倒说不上,但是思维肯定和原来不一样,成了互联网思维。
 
  《21世纪》:互联网给这个世界带来的最大变化是什么?
 
  张瑞敏:我觉得德鲁克有句话说得很好,互联网最大的影响就是消除距离。如果是零距离的话,电商一定会战胜传统营销渠道,互联网媒体一定会战胜传统媒体,因为传统媒体做不到“零距离”这三个字,不存在谁好谁坏的问题。
 
  (产值)大小和重要性是两回事。德鲁克的比喻非常好:比如铁路,铁路本身不会创造多少产品,但是铁路的重要性显而易见,互联网也是这样,趋势不可逆转。
 
  《21世纪》:海尔怎么让这一百多个自主经营体形成向心力?
 
  张瑞敏:其实是个目标的问题,目标不一致,很怕出现各自为政的情况。但是如果目标,都是为用户创造价值,每个环节根据特长形成分工。作为个体,如果不能为用户、为其他环节创造价值,就会被整个生态链抛弃。
 
  《21世纪》:也就是说,即使都属于海尔,但某个自主经营体可以不在海尔内部采购,可以向其他企业采购?
 
  张瑞敏:如果现在大家都不向你采购,要不你就提高实力,要不就是解散。现在有的部门压力很大,就这么两条路,要不你就和别人竞争,如果再发展下去没有采购,就必须关门。关门的话你们这些人随便,没有人要你。
 
  未来工厂
 
  《21世纪》:制造在未来海尔的体系里是个什么角色?
 
  张瑞敏:关于制造,我们内部自己定的5个字:智能无人化。首先,无人化,无人化就不用依靠这么多人,自动化程度很高;第二,智能,智能是效率很高。智能也是个性化制造、设计产品很快,但是生产出来的东西不是千篇一律。
 
  在过去的经验里,自动化就是规模化,与个性化相悖,智能化能克服这一点。
 
  《21世纪》:怎么实现个性化?
 
  张瑞敏:个性化应该是个永远的目标,它包括两个层面:第一个层面,模块式的个性化,去年(2012年)“光棍节”海尔卖的电视,你自己来选择,你想要什么颜色随便选。当时海尔电视收到了一万多个订单,电视并不是我们的优势产品。现在又开始定制空调;
 
  个性化的第二个层面是,一对一生产。模块式的个性化是初级阶段,一对一的个性化是高级阶段。初级阶段现在就可以实现了,高级阶段还需要等待各种技术成熟之后才能实现,比如3D打印。
 
  《21世纪》:你个人对3D打印持何看法?相信十年以后能普及吗?
 
  张瑞敏:这个很难说,至少我觉得应该是向这个方向发展的。海尔从某种意义上推出过中国最早的一台3D打印机,我们最早叫激光冲印机。当时主要用于打印模件,没问题的时候再去开模。
 
  1999年,江泽民总书记到海尔视察时,看了后觉得很新奇,他也没见过。这是个什么东西?用激光冲印机冲印一台冰箱,和真件一模一样的。
 
  3D打印现在受到很多制约,有人发言说永远不可能。我觉得它是可以发展的,但有两个问题:一是前端材料可不可以随心所欲,比如是不是放上一些粉末就能打印出来一个玻璃杯?打印瓷器完了打印金属件,材料问题怎么解决?
 
  二是如何和消费者的需求结合在一起。材料即使可以满足需求,但是价格太高了也不行。我觉得在小孩子的塑料玩具上可以先尝试,小孩儿玩具塑料很多,年轻的家长都是80、90后,自己设计出来,会很有成就感。先发展起来之后,再进入其他领域。
 
  《21世纪》:一百多年前福特发明流水线,开启了规模化生产,是一种进步,未来搞3D打印,回归个性化生产,是不是一种倒退?
 
  张瑞敏:我感觉这就像哲学上的否定之否定:一开始就是小作坊,然后变成流水线,这是第一次否定;但现在这个3D打印,是否定之否定,它和原来那个小作坊又是不一样了。好比你开小商店,后来变成大连锁,再变成千家万户的电商,但和之前的小商店完全不一样。我觉得它是一种进步。
 
  全流程革命
 
  《21世纪》:你对大数据怎么看?
 
  张瑞敏:大数据其实现在炒得很热,但是我们内部觉得它很简单:如果你能把它变成有价值的就叫大数据,如果你不能把它变成有价值的就是大数字了。
 
  《21世纪》:日日顺物流的数据采集做得很好,这算一个成功的大数据案例吗?
 
  张瑞敏:海尔送装服务车即是一个销售终端与服务终端,也是用户需求获取的终端。以前说用户入口,未来线上线下融合以后,抢的是用户入口。用户入口在互联网上可能是搜索、浏览器,数据是不精确的;O2O时代,海尔送装车可能就是用户入口,数据是精准的。
 
  国内的电商很有问题。互联网有三个功能,即平台、交互、支付;国内的电商可能更偏向于通过网络打价格战,是没有赢家,这不是互联网的真正价值。互联网的价值应该是交互,了解用户需求,创造更好的用户价值。
 
  《21世纪》:如何实现价值的交互?
 
  张瑞敏:用管理大师加利·哈默(《管理大未来》的作者)的话说,就用户全流程体,从产品设计开始,到生产制造、销售、服务,用户全流程参与。完成一个循环后,再一起参与新产品的设计、生产制造、销售、服务。
 
  亚马逊(398.08, -6.31, -1.56%)的案例就很好地说明了全流程参与:比如一个家长来买玩具,马上分析你为什么要玩这个玩具,买的是小飞机还是小军舰?喜欢军事玩具还是其它?亚马逊也会从小时候开始记录消费者的喜好,从两三岁开始,然后推荐产品。
 
  另外就是亚马逊的电子书。电子书出来之后,不止是价格比纸质书便宜,而且电子书没有结尾,每个人可以写结尾,这才是真正不一样的地方。
 
  亚马逊只是在销售环节让用户参与,未来的制造业是用户、生产者、产品供应商都可以参与每个环节。全流程、全产业链、全生命周期会给制造业一个更好的未来。
 
  现在的电商还停留在沃尔玛(78.47, 0.08, 0.10%)“天天低价”的层次,我觉得这不是互联网交互的本质。中国互联网不能老是停留在价格上,应向价值交互发展。
 
  《21世纪》:全流程参与下的生态链有何不同?
 
  张瑞敏:关于未来生态链的模式,现在还没有特别好的提法,我的提法是要变成“并联平台”,并联平台上的各方利益最大化。用马基雅维理的话说:如果你做一件事不能让各方都享有利益,那么就不会成功。
 
  从前的串联平台不是这样的,串联各个环节只关心自己利益的最大化:比如从上游选最便宜的供应链商,卖给下游更高的价钱。利益最大化一定要有一个来源,来源是什么呢?你一定要给用户创造价值。
 
  未来家庭
 
  《21世纪》:你对智能电视怎么看?大家都觉得这是未来颠覆传统的电视。
 
  张瑞敏:我觉得到最后就是电视不要钱,通过买软件、卖服务收费。
 
  《21世纪》:海尔很早就推出了家庭互联的标准e佳家,现在你对家庭互联网如何看待?
 
  张瑞敏:我们觉得过去的方向有问题,应该在用户中间调研一下,用户最关心是什么?其实我们也做了,中国用户最关心的很多很多,第一是安全;比如说家庭的安全,很多年轻的家长担心,大人不在小孩会利用联网设备干什么,包括现在社会治安问题,联网后都会成为很大的问题。
 
  海尔在家庭互联网方面有很多实验,但从用户的角度来看还是不方便。很重要的一点是,我们始终没有放弃。
 
  《21世纪》:除了安全外,还有什么问题?
 
  张瑞敏:就是现在最基本的怎么去遥控它,我拿一个手机就能控制家里的开关,其实我们也做了,做了用户好像也不怎么满意。所以我个人觉得可以从遥控到自控,就是家里的设备可以根据周围的环境自己来决定。
 
  以前是人机对话,现在需要环境和机器对话,这还有很长一段路要走。
 
  现在的状况有点类似德鲁克说的“需求在没有创造出来是不存在的”,安全、环境与机器的服务都需要被创造出来之后,再经市场的检验才知道。
 
  《21世纪》:海尔的角色除了做硬件、服务之外,还有其他的拓展空间吗?
 
  张瑞敏:其实我们现在还不是这么思考问题的,我们现在不是思考做什么产品,我们现在是思考怎样与用户进行交互,传统经济下其实是没有用户的。
 
  《21世纪》:过去只有产品,以产品为中心?
 

  张瑞敏:那时候只有顾客,我生产出来的产品打广告、促销、最后有人购买就结束了,付款就是销售的结束。现在付款就是销售的开始,用户对你来讲就是永远的。往大里说就是,信息在你这里,你可以借用数据分析,这很不一样。 

Digital Marketing Growing in Importance

["16 Definitive Digital Media Trends to Help You Plan 2013 ," 13 February 2013] 

The list includes:
1. Online video platforms and social TV matures to new heights
2. Google+ gets an Android boost
3. LinkedIn, no longer just for B2B marketing
4. The visual web moves beyond Instagram, Pinterest, and Tumblr
5. Social commerce speeds full steam ahead from referrals to direct purchase
6. Context trumps content (well, maybe)
7. Mobile advertising grows up
8. Blogs explode again, yes, again
9. Augmented reality gets really real
10. Gamification, gamification, gamification
11. Native advertising gains ground
12. Multichannel publishing finds its groove
13. The end of online anonymity (?)
14. Social measurement will be standardized
15. Insights-based strategies rule
16. Finally, it’s time to sound the death knell for the silo

Big and Small Data

Dr. Rufus Pollock, Founder and co-Director of the Open Knowledge Foundation, insists that the real revolution that will take place in the Big Data era will involve "small data." ["Forget Big Data, Small Data is the Real Revolution," Open Knowledge Foundation Blog, 22 April 2013] Pollock asserts, "The real opportunity is not big data, but small data. Not centralized 'big iron', but decentralized data wrangling. Not 'one ring to rule them all' but 'small pieces loosely joined." He explains:

"The real revolution ... is the mass democratisation of the means of access, storage and processing of data. This story isn't about large organisations running parallel software on tens of thousand of servers, but about more people than ever being able to collaborate effectively around a distributed ecosystem of information, an ecosystem of small data. Just as we now find it ludicrous to talk of 'big software' – as if size in itself were a measure of value – we should, and will one day, find it equally odd to talk of 'big data'. Size in itself doesn't matter – what matters is having the data, of whatever size, that helps us solve a problem or address the question we have."

Although I agree with Pollock that what really matters "is having the data ... that helps solve a problem or address a question," for many of those problems and questions, size does matter. Outliers in small data sets can significantly skew results. Pollock himself admits that even though "for many problems and questions, small data in itself is enough," there are times when you need to "scale up." He believes, however, that "when we want to scale up the way to do that is through componentized small data: by creating and integrating small data 'packages' not building big data monoliths, by partitioning problems in a way that works across people and organizations, not through creating massive centralized silos."

Big data initiatives generally involve integrating data not creating "massive centralized silos." Nevertheless, Pollock is not alone in the belief that small data will play a role in the big data era. Bruno Aziza, Vice President of Marketing at SiSense, believes that one of the surprises that has emerged is that "Big Data isn’t about “Big”. [Forbes, 22 April 2013] By that he means that the term "big" is subjective. What is considered big today might be considered normal a few years from now. In other words, like Pollock, he believes that size is irrelevant as a descriptor of data sets. Aziza also agrees with Pollock that most problems don't require petabytes of data to solve. "Sometimes," he writes, "what can be perceived as 'Small Data' can go a long way." That's true as long as it's the right data. Regardless of the size of the data set, what really matters according to Aziza is the analytics applied to it.

The big data era began, he claims, as the result of a revolution in storage capability. He calculates that a terabyte of disk storage would have cost upwards of $14 million (adjusted) in 1980 but can be bought today for $30. When it comes to analytics, however, he asserts that what has occurred has been more evolutionary than revolutionary. Eric Schwartzman, founder and CEO of Comply Socially, underscores the importance of analytics. He writes:

"An avalanche of information is not necessarily a good thing. More often than not, it's a path to obfuscation rather than enlightenment, where speculation inflicts irrevocable harm and sensationalism travels farther and faster than tolerance. If you're a business, the takeaway is that sharing without analytics is essentially useless, that engagement is not as valuable as insight, and that seeing things in context is more important than being popular." ["Without Analytics, Big Data is Just Noise," Brian Solis blog, 24 April 2013]

Jake Sorofman, a research director at Gartner, believes that big data is still a big deal, because "big data [is] the intelligence behind microtargeting." He also agrees with Pollock and Aziza, however, that relevant smaller data sets will remain important in the big data era because "the precision of your aim doesn't matter if the customer experience falls short." He believes these relevant smaller data sets will be created from larger data sets to create "Big Content" and claims that they will be created through content curation. ["Forget Big Data—Here Comes Big Content," Gartner, 12 April 2013] He believes that curated content is especially important in the marketing sector because "content is the grist for the social marketing mill." He continues, "The rhythm and tempo of social marketing puts extraordinary pressure on marketing organizations that are more accustomed to publishing horizons measured in weeks and months than those measured in minutes and hours." As a result, "The expectation for content quality and authenticity has changed dramatically."
Steve Olenski agrees that in the marketing arena less is often more when it comes to the data involved. ["When It Comes To Big Data Is Less More?," Forbes, 22 April 2013] His take on why "less is more" is a bit different than the pundits discussed above. Olenski focuses on the fact that some of the sensitive data that is collected isn't necessary to achieve desired goals. He writes:

"Two esteemed professors at an Ivy League school say that while those in the marketing world continue to struggle with how to handle all the data they are accumulating, they may in fact be wasting their time and more than likely need to go on what they refer to as a 'data diet.' ... According to the aforementioned professors, all the talk about Big Data and privacy may be, as they put it, 'a tempest in a teapot.'"

Since many analysts believe that privacy issues are going to create a big storm rather than a tempest in a teapot, Olenski reached out to Eric Bradlow and Peter Fader, Professors of Marketing and Co-Directors of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative. Olenski indicates that the two professors "have studied the problem of data-privacy from an empirical perspective." He continues:

"Their research shows that brands and companies who are on a 'data diet' don't necessarily lose that much customer insights because limited customer data in conjunction with aggregate information (less privacy sensitive) can still provide precise insights. And when it comes to personal data, Fader says bluntly that 'most sensitive data is worthless and firms are often making mistakes to try to use it (or even collect it).' And adds that 'when you build a really good model, there isn't a whole lot to be gained by bringing in personal data."

That should be good news for marketers and consumers alike. Olenski reports that Bradlow and Fader believe "brands should keep the data they need to stay competitive and ditch everything else." That's the essence of a data diet. Bradlow told Olenski, "I think there is a fear and paranoia among companies that … if they don't keep every little piece of information on a customer, they can't function. Companies continue to squirrel away data for a rainy day. We're not saying throw data away meaninglessly, but use what you need for forecasting and get rid of the rest."
I'm not so sure that it's "fear and paranoia" that motivates companies to collect data as much as the unknown. Since we are at the beginning of the big data era, we really don't know what data is going to useful in the years ahead as analytics and the questions they address change. We are just beginning to appreciate exactly how valuable analyzed data can become. So at least for the next few years, discovering which data is most relevant and then concentrating on analyzing it should be a priority for most businesses. As companies get more comfortable in the world of big data, we are likely to read more about curated data sets and big data diets.