????美國總統奧巴馬在國情咨文演講中把制造業工作崗位當作美國經濟發展藍圖中的重頭戲。他說：“我們首要的任務，是要把美國變成新的制造業工作崗位的吸鐵石?！蔽抑С謯W巴馬復興制造業的目標和熱情，但是要實現這個目標，我們首先要拋棄工業時代的舊思想。工業時代已經一去不返了，同時消失的還有美國1979年至2012年間在美國消亡的710萬個制造業崗位。我們必須建立能夠利用美國現有優勢的21世紀的制造業崗位。隨著我們加快利用科技促進產能，美國的制造業一定會再次增長，而且會催生為大規模定制化生產服務的新商業模式，釋放我們所有人的制造才能。

????首先，我們需要認識到，制造并不單純的是一個產業部門，而是一種能力，其中蘊含著許多創新機會。只是目前我們理所當然地把它看成一個產業部門。工業時代的“產業”就像一個個俱樂部，每個產業都有各自的準入標準和暗箱操作，只向那些同意按規則出牌的公司敞開。工業時代是由一個個界定清晰的產業構成的，我們很容易就能把每家公司歸類到一個個產業部門里?？此祁H有君子之風，就好像大家都在監督之下公平競爭，就像拳擊賽一樣，人人都要按規則出招。每個企業都會有一個標準產業代碼（SIC）（現為北美產業分類系統，簡稱NAICS），用來確定各自屬于哪個產業部門。

????但是這樣的日子已經結束了。各個產業的運行規則也不復如舊，工業時代也一去不返。谷歌（Google）到底是一家生產商還是服務商，或者兩者兼而有之？谷歌收購摩托羅拉移動（Motorola Mobility），在美國生產Nexus Q家庭媒體播放器，表明谷歌在非常認真地打造自己的生產能力。蘋果（Apple）算生產商還是服務商，又或兩者兼而有之呢？現在我們已經很難指出生產商和服務商之間的區別，而且二者之間的區別也很有限。如今生產商和服務商之間的界限正在漸漸模糊。以iPod為例，蘋果并不是第一個推出MP3播放器的廠家。但是蘋果把它的產品（iPod）和服務（iTunes）捆綁推出后，給我們帶來了一種新的價值定位，改變了我們體驗音樂的方式。蘋果看待競爭的角度與其他產品生產商不同，蘋果并不是搶占市場，而是在創造市場。

????工業時代的思維方式以及NAICS產業代碼使企業的思維模式陷入窠臼，它們的業務模式不是以產品為中心，就是以服務為中心。這是一種錯誤的選擇。生產一種產品，并不意味著一家公司只能在某個市場里競爭。把一家公司定位成生產商會限制業務模式的創新機會。如果我們希望重振美國的制造業，我們必須改變對制造業的思維模式。

????In his State of the Union Address, President Obama made a big deal about manufacturing jobs as a central part of his economic vision for the country. "Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs in manufacturing", he proclaimed. I support the president's aim and passion to revive manufacturing, but to accomplish it we first have to jettison industrial era thinking. The industrial era and the 7.1 million manufacturing jobs lost in the U.S. from 1979 to 2012 aren't coming back. We must create new 21st century manufacturing jobs that leverage what America is great at, creativity and innovation. Manufacturing will grow in the U.S. when we accelerate the use of technology to increase productivity, enable new business models designed for mass customization and unleash the manufacturers in all of us.

????To begin, we need to recognize that manufacturing isn't an industry sector, it's a capability with plenty of opportunity for innovation. We take industry sector definitions for granted. As if industries were clubs with exclusive admission criteria and secret handshakes only revealed to companies that agree to play by understood rules. The industrial era was defined by clearly delineated industries, making it easy to identify which sector every company was competing in. It was all so gentlemanly really, as if competition was governed, like boxing, by a code of generally accepted Marquess of Queensberry rules. Companies were all assigned a numerical Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code (now North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS) identifying which industry sector they fit in to.

????Those days are over. Industries don't work that way any more, the industrial era isn't coming back. Is Google (GOOG) a manufacturer or a service provider or both? Their acquisition of Motorola Mobility and U.S. production of the Nexus Q home media player suggest Google is serious about building manufacturing capability. Is Apple (AAPL) a manufacturer or a service provider or both? It's hard to tell the difference between a manufacturer and a service provider and the distinction is limiting. Today the lines are blurring. Think iPod. Apple didn't bring the first MP3 player to the market. It changed the way we experienced music by delivering on a value proposition that bundled product (iPod) and service (iTunes). Apple didn't view the competition as other product manufacturers Apple is a market maker not a share-taker.

????Industrial-era thinking and NAICS industry codes force companies into characterizing their business models as being either product- or service-focused. This is a false choice. Making a product doesn't define the market a company is creating or competing in. Describing a business as a manufacturer immediately constrains business model innovation opportunities. If we want to bring back manufacturing we have to start by changing our thinking about manufacturing.