????從表面上看，惠普（HP）和IBM有許多共同之處。兩家公司都鼎鼎大名，都擁有大量塑造現(xiàn)代高新科技格局的寶貴財富。兩家公司都在同時與諸多大型企業(yè)和小公司合作，幫助他們解決技術(shù)問題。兩家公司還在爭奪云計算、海量數(shù)據(jù)等具有大好增長前景的新興市場。

????惠普和IBM都在最近更換了掌門：梅格?惠特曼于一年前接過惠普首席執(zhí)行官的權(quán)杖，而維吉尼亞?羅曼提在今年1月接手IBM。兩家公司的成功愿景相差無幾，不過，他們也都面臨著相似的挑戰(zhàn)：萎靡不振的全球經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢和不斷涌現(xiàn)的顛覆性新技術(shù)。

????盡管歷史底蘊(yùn)非常相似，但惠普和IBM的發(fā)展道路大不一樣。惠普現(xiàn)在仍處于為期多年的復(fù)蘇轉(zhuǎn)型中，而IBM卻在實施多年前就已制定好的長遠(yuǎn)規(guī)劃。兩家公司的發(fā)展道路在很大程度上都不是其現(xiàn)任首席執(zhí)行官制定的。為什么？首先，他們對硬件和軟件在未來IT發(fā)展中的定位不同；其次，他們的企業(yè)并購策略也不一樣。

????近十年來，IBM的管理層非常穩(wěn)定，而且一直著眼于長遠(yuǎn)目標(biāo)。在歷史上，IBM以大型機(jī)制造商而著稱；而現(xiàn)在，它是IT咨詢和軟件服務(wù)的標(biāo)志性廠商。2004年，IBM以17.5億美元將PC業(yè)務(wù)部出售給聯(lián)想（Lenovo），從而開始擺脫對硬件制造的依賴。

????和IBM一樣，惠普早在多年前就已經(jīng)意識到，作為科技巨頭，未來的發(fā)展不僅僅在于向企業(yè)出售大型機(jī)，更重要的是參與管理客戶日益復(fù)雜的硬件設(shè)備和種類繁多的技術(shù)。但與IBM不同，惠普堅信硬件在技術(shù)外包業(yè)務(wù)中仍將繼續(xù)扮演關(guān)鍵角色。2002年，惠普投入重金，以250億美元收購了康柏（Compaq）。

????收購康柏后，惠普持續(xù)增長，營收從2002年的570億美元增長至去年的1,270億美元。相比之下，IBM的增速相對較慢——從2002年的810億美元營收增加至去年的1,070億美元。

????過去十年，惠普通過激進(jìn)的收購策略，在營收增長上一舉超過了IBM。馬克?赫德在2006到2010年執(zhí)掌惠普的5年時間里，惠普投入巨資收購了多家大型科技企業(yè)。例如EDS（139億美元）、3Com（27億美元）、Palm（12億美元）和3Par（24億美元）。李艾科接替赫德后，惠普又耗資16億和110億美元，分別收購了ArcSight和Autonomy兩家軟件企業(yè)。

????相比之下，雖然IBM在出售PC業(yè)務(wù)后也進(jìn)行了多起收購，但只有一次金額超過20億美元，即2008年以50億美元收購商業(yè)軟件提供商Cognos。相反，IBM在此期間進(jìn)行了多起10億美元級別的收購：Internet Security Systems（16億美元）、數(shù)據(jù)分析公司Netezza（17億美元）、Sterling Commerce（14億美元）等。

????還有一個不同之處。在劉易斯?普拉特1999年辭去惠普首席執(zhí)行官后，惠普走馬觀花似地迎來了7位首席執(zhí)行官，其中包括兩位臨時的。而IBM自1971年小托馬斯?沃森退休后到現(xiàn)在，一共只有7位首席執(zhí)行官。

????首席執(zhí)行官的更替速度影響重大：在IBM實施輝煌的五年計劃時，惠普首席執(zhí)行官從硬件高管菲奧莉娜、赫德轉(zhuǎn)到軟件高管李艾科，再到現(xiàn)在的電子商務(wù)高手惠特曼。頻繁的人事變動——或者說缺乏穩(wěn)定的高管，對兩家公司的策略產(chǎn)生了巨大影響。

????換句話說，從惠普過去10年的并購案例來看，這家科技巨頭已形成在硬件和軟件兩方面齊頭并進(jìn)的戰(zhàn)略，它顯然將未來同時押寶在兩大業(yè)務(wù)上。相比之下，IBM則更看好軟件，認(rèn)為它比單純的物理硬件更為重要。

????On the face of it, Hewlett-Packard and IBM have a lot in common. Both are storied brands with rich legacies that shaped high-tech. Both are working with companies large and small to help manage their technology. Both are angling for a piece of the markets -- like cloud computing and big data -- that promise years of growth.

????And both have new chief executive officers: Meg Whitman moved into HP's (HPQ) CEO office a year ago; Virginia Rometty took the reins at IBM (IBM) in January. Both companies share a similar vision for success. And both face similar challenges to get there, like a sluggish global economy and the rise of disruptive new technologies.

????Despite this bedrock sameness, HP and IBM are pushing forward on different paths. HP is in the midst of a multi-year turnaround, while IBM is building on a long-term plan outlined years ago. Neither company's path was charted in large part by its current leader. Why? First, their views on the role of hardware versus software in the future of IT; and second, their approach to mergers and acquisitions.

????IBM's last decade has been marked by steady leadership pursuing a long-term course. To move forward from its recent history as a maker of big computers, the company famously pushed into IT-consulting services and software, taking a step away from hardware in 2004 by selling the PC division to Lenovo for $1.75 billion.

????Like IBM, HP saw years ago that the future of big tech was not in selling big computers to companies, but in taking on the increasingly complex tasks of managing them and all the antecedent technologies. But unlike IBM, HP maintained that hardware would continue to play a key role in its tech outsourcing business -- a bet the company made when it spent $25 billion for Compaq in 2002.

????After Compaq, HP continued to grow. It went from a company that made $57 billion in revenue in 2002 to one that made $127 billion last year. By contrast, IBM grew relatively slowly -- from $81 billion in revenue in 2002 to $107 billion last year.

????Over the past decade, HP has trumped IBM in revenue growth through its aggressive acquisitions. Under Mark Hurd's tenure, between 2006 and 2010, HP spent big on tech brand names like EDS ($13.9 billion), 3Com ($2.7 billion), Palm ($1.2 billion) and 3Par ($2.4 billion). Under Hurd's ill-starred successor Léo Apotheker, HP spent $1.6 billion on ArcSight and $11 billion on Autonomy, two software companies.

????IBM, by contrast, has made many mergers and acquisitions since spinning off its PC division, but only once in that tine has it spent more than $2 billion -- for business software maker Cognos for $5 billion in 2008. Instead, it's made a handful of billion dollar deals in that time span: Internet Security Systems ($1.6 billion), data analytics firm Netezza ($1.7 billion), Sterling Commerce ($1.4 billion), and others.

????But there is another aspect to the story. Ever since Lewis Platt stepped down as HP's CEO in 1999, the company has gone through seven different leaders, including two interim CEOs. That's as many CEOs as IBM has seen since Thomas Watson, Jr., retired from IBM in 1971.

????The pace of CEO turnover can be crucial: While IBM has had the luxury of laying out five-year plans, HP has shifted from hardware execs Fiorina and Hurd to software exec Apotheker to e-commerce veteran Whitman. And those transitions -- or lack thereof -- have had a big impact on the two companies' strategies.

????In other words, HP's M&A moves in the past decade chronicle the strategy of a tech giant pushing into hardware and software alike, a clear bet on a future that would rely on both. IBM, by contrast, saw its future more in the zeros and ones of software than the physical machinery of hardware.