????上月底，《紐約時報》（The New York Times）刊載了一篇文章，讓我覺得既有趣又驚訝。該文章稱史蒂夫?喬布斯是313項專利的發明人，而且還是其中逾10%專利的主發明人。這些基本上全是設計專利，從MP3播放器到電源適配器，甚至是蘋果商店的樓梯無所不包。對于一個從未接受過正式的設計或技術培訓的人來說，這已經是件相當意思的事了，更何況他還是一家大公司的首席執行官（他發明的專利數量之多令所有高管同行們相形見絀）。

????有些人懷疑喬布斯是否真的對這些專利有貢獻，我會告訴他們不用懷疑。根據我的經驗，喬布斯的確參與了專利的發明。如果一個人對專利沒有做出合法貢獻，蘋果公司（Apple）不會笨到把他的名字放在上面，像喬布斯這樣聲名顯赫的人，就更加不可能了。原因很簡單，造假不但會導致專利作廢，而且東窗事發后，蘋果公司及其品牌都將面臨巨大的損失。蘋果是多面的，但與愚蠢絕緣。

????既然喬布斯對這些專利的貢獻是合法的，我們從中可以得到哪些啟示？（要找到有意義的答案，最好別忘了帕科?昂德希爾說過的話，他說：“明顯的東西并不總是顯而易見。”）有兩點最為突出：在這313項專利中，只有略多于10%的專利主發明人是喬布斯，在全部專利中只占少數，但并不寒磣！而設計師喬納森?埃維是這313項專利中64%專利的共同發明人。

????這就好比事物的兩面性。第一，喬布斯沒有把設計完全交給更專業的喬納森，而是充分參與其中，與喬納森合作發明了200多項專利。第二，盡管喬布斯大量參與設計，但設計團隊的負責人卻是高管喬納森。這再次印證了在這方面表現出色的多數公司帶給我們的啟示：公司必須要有專門負責設計的高管，而且他們必須最大限度地參與設計。

????然而，雖然聘請一個設計方面的高管是可以效仿的，或許也確實有必要，但盲目模仿喬布斯參與設計的方式卻很值得懷疑。要保持競爭力，模仿他人的獨特之處很難獲得同樣的成功。喬布斯是個特例，本文中對他的描述反映的是他獨特的個性和罕見的激情。他做的事情與他天性有關，但對你我而言就不一定了。

????做自己天生不擅長的事情，試圖復制他人的成功，最終都將是徒勞無獲的，不論效仿的對象是史蒂夫?喬布斯還是其他人。每個人都必須忠實于自己的天性和能力，就算事實證明自己天性浮淺和／或虛偽，也要坦然面對。盡管如此，忠實于自己的天性并不意味著我們就有理由忽略某些我們天生不擅長的事情，如果它們是事業成功的關鍵。高管需要了解自己的弱項和強項，確保公司的重要陣地得到有效覆蓋。

????文章話里話外都有值得我們學習的經驗。文章沒有明確指出的一點是，由于喬布斯過于專注設計，因此不得不忽略了公司的其他事務。但仔細分析蘋果公司后發現，“被忽略”的部門與設計團隊的表現同樣一直很不錯（我在其他地方寫過）。如果真要學習蘋果公司和喬布斯，也不要學他怎樣設計（除非你真的是這塊料）。相反，需要學習的是他在和喬納森及其設計團隊一起工作的同時，如何對其他部門進行放權管理。然后才是學習如何管理自己不在行的事情，比如說設計。

????最后，雖說喬布斯發明了這些專利，但他并不是一名設計師。過去不是，現在也不是。而且我相信他可能也不會以此自居。他說過蘋果的成功之道在于管理消費者的體驗。我覺得這話說得很有道理。所以盡管我覺得喬布斯不是設計師，但我堅信他是我見過和認識的最偉大的管理者。正是因為這一點，我一直都很尊敬他。

????自上世紀70年代末以來，比爾?巴克斯頓一直致力于互動系統的創造、研究、應用和報道，尤其是從人文角度。他歷任施樂帕克研究中心（Xerox PARC）、Alias|Wavefront和硅谷圖形公司（Silicon Graphics）的研究員，目前供職于微軟研究院（Microsoft Research）。

????Late last month, The New York Times published an article that both interested and surprised me. Steve Jobs is cited as an inventor on 313 patents and is the first listed inventor on over 10% of them. Almost all are design patents, running the gamut from MP3 players to power adaptors to the stairs in the Apple Store. Pretty interesting for someone with no formal design or technical training, much less the CEO of a major corporation. (His patent count eclipses that of any of his CEO counterparts.)

????To the skeptics asking if Steve really contributed, I say of course. Based on my own experience, I find Steve's participation entirely credible. Apple (AAPL) would be stupid to put anyone's name on a patent, much less a high profile name like Steve's, if that person hadn't made a legitimate contribution. Doing so would not only invalidate the patent, it would expose the company and its brand to serious damage when revealed. Apple is many things; stupid is not one of them.

????Taking Steve's contribution to the patents as legitimate, what lessons might there be in the revelation? (In trying to come to some useful answer, it is probably worth keeping Paco Underhill's observation in mind: The obvious is not always apparent.) Two points stand out: Steve was lead inventor on just over 10% of the 313 cited patents on which he is named -- a significant minority, but not too shabby! Designer Jonathan Ive was named as co-inventor on 64% of those 313.

????These make a two-sided coin. First, rather than leave design in Jonathan Ive's competent hands, Steve still got sufficiently engaged that he and Jonathan collaborated on over 200 patents. Second, despite his intense involvement with the design organization, Steve still had a senior executive, Jonathan, in charge of design. What this reinforces is a lesson that is taught by most companies that excel in this area: you must have a senior design executive, and they must engage at the highest level.

????However, while having a senior design executive is something that can and likely should be emulated, blindly trying to emulate the nature of Steve's involvement is rather more questionable. Copying the exceptions is seldom an appropriate path to follow if one wants to be competitive. Steve was exceptional, and what is described in this article is a reflection of his character and his particular passions. He did what was natural to him. But that does not make it natural for you or me.

????Adopting a nature alien to one's own in an effort to copy someone else's success -- be it Steve Jobs' or anyone else's -- is a mug's game. One has to be true to one's own nature and aptitudes, or be prepared to face the inevitability of being exposed as superficial and/or insincere. That being said, being true to one's own nature does not justify the neglect of key aspects of one's business lying outside of it. Executives need to know their own weaknesses as well as their strengths in order to make sure that all of the requisite ground is covered.

????We can learn from both what is and is not said. What this article does not point out is that in allocating so much attention to design, Steve had to neglect other aspects of the business. And yet, a careful analysis of Apple shows that those "neglected" parts were consistently performing just as well as the design group (I write about this elsewhere.). If one does want to learn from Apple, and emulate Steve, don't emulate what he did with design (unless it is truly in your nature). Rather, study how he managed the delegation of those other aspects of the business while he was working with Jonathan and the design team. Then emulate that in managing the things that fall outside of your own personal comfort zone -- such as design, for example.

????Finally, these patents notwithstanding, Steve Jobs was not, and is not, a designer. Nor, I suspect, would he ever describe himself as such. He spoke about Apple's success in terms of curating the customer's experience. I think that is a great way to put it. And so, while I don't consider him a designer, I do believe that he is certainly one of the greatest curators that I have ever met, or know of. And for that, he has always had my respect.

????Since the late 70's Bill Buxton has been creating, studying, using and writing about interactive systems, especially from the human perspective. He has been a researcher at Xerox PARC, Alias|Wavefront, Silicon Graphics, and currently Microsoft Research.