精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

首頁 500強 活動 榜單 商業 科技 領導力 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

從連續失敗到參與創建百家企業:一位創業者的教訓與啟示

JAN SEDLACEK
2024-07-14

成功第一個關鍵因素是在對市場狀況達成共識的基礎上,對母公司的未來規劃出清晰的愿景。

文本設置
小號
默認
大號
Plus(0條)

Stryber創始人兼管理合伙人揚·塞德拉切克。圖片來源:COURTESY OF STRYBER

我在職業生涯中曾多次失敗。當然,我努力從每次失敗中吸取教訓,但就像電子游戲一樣:隨著不斷進步,吸取的教訓也越來越難付諸實踐。后來,我在協助建立100多家新企業的過程中加以應用,避免其他領導者和公司落入同樣的陷阱。接下來我將分享一些經驗教訓。

20世紀90年代中期,我在瑞士上高中時創辦了第一家公司,業務是為小企業創建網站。之后,我加入了當時瑞士領先的網絡中介公司,嘗試了一些了不起的工作,比如為銀行創建第一個在線房地產平臺——我認為這是我人生第一個大項目。結果是徹底失敗。沒人想用房地產平臺。從中我學到了寶貴教訓:打造產品要從解決客戶實際問題出發,而不是從企業想提供的業務出發。

從圣加侖大學(University of St)畢業后,我加入了位于蘇黎世的戰略咨詢公司羅蘭貝格(Roland Berger),也是重要的學習經歷。然而,工作中構思的很多方案并沒真正執行,讓我這個年輕的顧問有點困惑。削減成本的命令很簡單也能取得成效,然而實際上我們只是建議應該解雇多少人。另一方面,我覺得有些奇怪的是,大多數增長戰略都沒什么效果。

商業模式轉型的神話

所以,我決定親自加入戰場,進入一家大公司當經理。我想學習如何把事情做好。碰巧我加入的當時瑞士最大也最負盛名的旅游公司Kuoni,是之前在咨詢公司的客戶,我們曾向其提供轉型建議。

我和管理層都很清楚,隨著在線旅行社出現以及酒店和航空公司直接預訂份額增加,旅游業面臨翻天覆地的變化,我們的市場份額和利潤將被蠶食。因此,董事會委托我們為公司打造在線業務。戰略只有三個字:“網絡化”。但我們失敗了。公司一蹶不振,后來被賣掉分崩離析。

那段經歷中我學到了很多東西,后來我在歐洲工商管理學院還專門為之寫了一篇案例研究。不過我學到最關鍵一點是,商業模式轉型是虛假的方法,只不過是一種迷信。轉型意味著整個價值鏈都要調整,根本無法做到,因為這意味著所有方面都要改。

2013年離開這家老牌旅游公司后,我加入了瑞士初創公司Everyglobe,公司目標是打造未來的旅行社。我們籌集到170萬瑞士法郎,在當時種子輪算得上一大筆錢,募集的資金主要用于加強技術實力,實現變革性的客戶體驗。產品非常簡單:一個搜索欄和四個旅行偏好滾動界面,如休閑或社交活動。該界面可針對去哪里和做什么實時提供旅行建議,可以立即預訂。這項技術讓人感覺很神奇。公司是真正數字化的旅行顧問。

實際上,預算只用掉了很小一部分,開發出的技術比之前旅行公司至少好10倍。公司還通過病毒式營銷在用戶增長方面大獲成功,有時目標群體中有高達10%的人使用平臺。問題是,盡管價格與其他在線平臺相同,但人們不愿意在此下訂單。原因很簡單:我們是名不見經傳的初創公司。一次旅行花費不菲,人們更喜歡在成熟公司下訂單。后來公司沒錢了,就這么黃了。

我學到的教訓:將兩個世界結合起來一定有可能。直到今天我還是確信,如果后面這家初創公司能擁有之前旅游公司的客戶群和品牌信任,肯定能成功。我也相信,如果之前公司能利用其諸多寶貴資產打造新業務,不至于倒閉。

就在那時我開始相信,將兩個世界結合起來可行,但必須采取明智方式克服大公司的局限性,而我同樣受制于相關局限。這就是我為何創立專注戰略增長咨詢和企業風險投資的Stryber。

結合兩個世界說來容易做起來難。若要實現,公司必須解決幾乎無法克服的內部問題,我在大公司架構中都遇到過。要克服典型的分析癱瘓癥并采取行動,要從首席執行官獲得強力的戰略授權,還要爭取股東支持。問題要解決,事情要去做,不要害怕失敗。避開噪音、最新趨勢還有救世承諾,在選擇影響力戰略以及信任誰去執行方面,要格外謹慎。

為解決諸多問題,各種路徑都有所嘗試。我們試了企業風險投資,開放式創新創業合作、內部創意競賽以及加速器和內部創業計劃。結論既簡單又發人深省:相關種種都不適合打造新業務。

自行建立還是收購

在Stryber,我們發現打造新業務只有兩種方法有效:要么自行建立,要么收購。就這么簡單。數據顯示,盡管價格高昂,但在開創新業務線時,收購具備規模公司或者至少在增長后期的公司是主流選擇。是的,我們敏銳地意識到并購的陷阱。不過并購戰略的風險并不在于合并后整合失敗,而是10次有9次根本找不到合適的收購目標。通常只剩下一個戰略可選:盡管存在各種內部陷阱,公司必須自行建立新業務模式。這就是我所說合理的“企業風險投資”,別無選擇。

多年來,我和公司代表大公司并與大公司合作建立了100多家新企業。以下是我們與大型銀行、零售商、保險公司、衛生組織、食品公司、私募股權公司和主權財富基金合作得出的經驗教訓。

成功和失敗的根本原因與創新或創業過程本身無關。成功第一個關鍵因素是在對市場狀況達成共識的基礎上,對母公司的未來規劃出清晰的愿景,而不是制定新的商業計劃。要支持這一愿景,必須有明確的財務目標。高管層與股東對未來看法保持一致是關鍵。此舉有助于講好股權故事,領導層要認同并做出承諾,股東則要注入現金或放棄分紅表達支持。

同樣重要的是適當的治理。很多管理者嚴重低估了這一方面,因為在正常業務中,現有的公司治理運作良好。但如果與核心業務采取相同治理方式,新業務可能失去成功的機會。針對新業務,要給予更大自由度——而且往往完全獨立,這樣新企業才能找到成功之路。

另一個教訓是:創意不值錢。正如分析所示,即使進入市場后,最有前景的初創公司當中有89%也無法順利擴大規模。從漏斗最上方的系統性市場分析、創意篩選和交易尋找到規模化企業,我們發現最終失敗率高達97%。所以癡迷于創意并在發展早期超支,是非常可怕的做法。只有企業適應產品市場之后,才應該開始積極追加投資,推動新企業壯大規模。這時繼續發展會非常燒錢,也是為何剛開始需要股東大力授權,因為股東要在新業務增長階段提供資金直到發展成熟。

努力打造新業務的大公司其實只有一個選擇:在并購和風險投資方面采取系統和有計劃的行動。如果當初我能掌握現在的知識,相信老牌旅游公司和旅游初創公司都能順利活下來。(財富中文網)

揚·塞德拉切克是總部位于瑞士的戰略增長咨詢公司Stryber創始人和管理合伙人。

Fortune.com上評論文章中表達的觀點僅代表作者個人觀點,并不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。

譯者:梁宇

審校:夏林

我在職業生涯中曾多次失敗。當然,我努力從每次失敗中吸取教訓,但就像電子游戲一樣:隨著不斷進步,吸取的教訓也越來越難付諸實踐。后來,我在協助建立100多家新企業的過程中加以應用,避免其他領導者和公司落入同樣的陷阱。接下來我將分享一些經驗教訓。

20世紀90年代中期,我在瑞士上高中時創辦了第一家公司,業務是為小企業創建網站。之后,我加入了當時瑞士領先的網絡中介公司,嘗試了一些了不起的工作,比如為銀行創建第一個在線房地產平臺——我認為這是我人生第一個大項目。結果是徹底失敗。沒人想用房地產平臺。從中我學到了寶貴教訓:打造產品要從解決客戶實際問題出發,而不是從企業想提供的業務出發。

從圣加侖大學(University of St)畢業后,我加入了位于蘇黎世的戰略咨詢公司羅蘭貝格(Roland Berger),也是重要的學習經歷。然而,工作中構思的很多方案并沒真正執行,讓我這個年輕的顧問有點困惑。削減成本的命令很簡單也能取得成效,然而實際上我們只是建議應該解雇多少人。另一方面,我覺得有些奇怪的是,大多數增長戰略都沒什么效果。

商業模式轉型的神話

所以,我決定親自加入戰場,進入一家大公司當經理。我想學習如何把事情做好。碰巧我加入的當時瑞士最大也最負盛名的旅游公司Kuoni,是之前在咨詢公司的客戶,我們曾向其提供轉型建議。

我和管理層都很清楚,隨著在線旅行社出現以及酒店和航空公司直接預訂份額增加,旅游業面臨翻天覆地的變化,我們的市場份額和利潤將被蠶食。因此,董事會委托我們為公司打造在線業務。戰略只有三個字:“網絡化”。但我們失敗了。公司一蹶不振,后來被賣掉分崩離析。

那段經歷中我學到了很多東西,后來我在歐洲工商管理學院還專門為之寫了一篇案例研究。不過我學到最關鍵一點是,商業模式轉型是虛假的方法,只不過是一種迷信。轉型意味著整個價值鏈都要調整,根本無法做到,因為這意味著所有方面都要改。

2013年離開這家老牌旅游公司后,我加入了瑞士初創公司Everyglobe,公司目標是打造未來的旅行社。我們籌集到170萬瑞士法郎,在當時種子輪算得上一大筆錢,募集的資金主要用于加強技術實力,實現變革性的客戶體驗。產品非常簡單:一個搜索欄和四個旅行偏好滾動界面,如休閑或社交活動。該界面可針對去哪里和做什么實時提供旅行建議,可以立即預訂。這項技術讓人感覺很神奇。公司是真正數字化的旅行顧問。

實際上,預算只用掉了很小一部分,開發出的技術比之前旅行公司至少好10倍。公司還通過病毒式營銷在用戶增長方面大獲成功,有時目標群體中有高達10%的人使用平臺。問題是,盡管價格與其他在線平臺相同,但人們不愿意在此下訂單。原因很簡單:我們是名不見經傳的初創公司。一次旅行花費不菲,人們更喜歡在成熟公司下訂單。后來公司沒錢了,就這么黃了。

我學到的教訓:將兩個世界結合起來一定有可能。直到今天我還是確信,如果后面這家初創公司能擁有之前旅游公司的客戶群和品牌信任,肯定能成功。我也相信,如果之前公司能利用其諸多寶貴資產打造新業務,不至于倒閉。

就在那時我開始相信,將兩個世界結合起來可行,但必須采取明智方式克服大公司的局限性,而我同樣受制于相關局限。這就是我為何創立專注戰略增長咨詢和企業風險投資的Stryber。

結合兩個世界說來容易做起來難。若要實現,公司必須解決幾乎無法克服的內部問題,我在大公司架構中都遇到過。要克服典型的分析癱瘓癥并采取行動,要從首席執行官獲得強力的戰略授權,還要爭取股東支持。問題要解決,事情要去做,不要害怕失敗。避開噪音、最新趨勢還有救世承諾,在選擇影響力戰略以及信任誰去執行方面,要格外謹慎。

為解決諸多問題,各種路徑都有所嘗試。我們試了企業風險投資,開放式創新創業合作、內部創意競賽以及加速器和內部創業計劃。結論既簡單又發人深省:相關種種都不適合打造新業務。

自行建立還是收購

在Stryber,我們發現打造新業務只有兩種方法有效:要么自行建立,要么收購。就這么簡單。數據顯示,盡管價格高昂,但在開創新業務線時,收購具備規模公司或者至少在增長后期的公司是主流選擇。是的,我們敏銳地意識到并購的陷阱。不過并購戰略的風險并不在于合并后整合失敗,而是10次有9次根本找不到合適的收購目標。通常只剩下一個戰略可選:盡管存在各種內部陷阱,公司必須自行建立新業務模式。這就是我所說合理的“企業風險投資”,別無選擇。

多年來,我和公司代表大公司并與大公司合作建立了100多家新企業。以下是我們與大型銀行、零售商、保險公司、衛生組織、食品公司、私募股權公司和主權財富基金合作得出的經驗教訓。

成功和失敗的根本原因與創新或創業過程本身無關。成功第一個關鍵因素是在對市場狀況達成共識的基礎上,對母公司的未來規劃出清晰的愿景,而不是制定新的商業計劃。要支持這一愿景,必須有明確的財務目標。高管層與股東對未來看法保持一致是關鍵。此舉有助于講好股權故事,領導層要認同并做出承諾,股東則要注入現金或放棄分紅表達支持。

同樣重要的是適當的治理。很多管理者嚴重低估了這一方面,因為在正常業務中,現有的公司治理運作良好。但如果與核心業務采取相同治理方式,新業務可能失去成功的機會。針對新業務,要給予更大自由度——而且往往完全獨立,這樣新企業才能找到成功之路。

另一個教訓是:創意不值錢。正如分析所示,即使進入市場后,最有前景的初創公司當中有89%也無法順利擴大規模。從漏斗最上方的系統性市場分析、創意篩選和交易尋找到規模化企業,我們發現最終失敗率高達97%。所以癡迷于創意并在發展早期超支,是非常可怕的做法。只有企業適應產品市場之后,才應該開始積極追加投資,推動新企業壯大規模。這時繼續發展會非常燒錢,也是為何剛開始需要股東大力授權,因為股東要在新業務增長階段提供資金直到發展成熟。

努力打造新業務的大公司其實只有一個選擇:在并購和風險投資方面采取系統和有計劃的行動。如果當初我能掌握現在的知識,相信老牌旅游公司和旅游初創公司都能順利活下來。(財富中文網)

揚·塞德拉切克是總部位于瑞士的戰略增長咨詢公司Stryber創始人和管理合伙人。

Fortune.com上評論文章中表達的觀點僅代表作者個人觀點,并不代表《財富》雜志的觀點和立場。

譯者:梁宇

審校:夏林

I experienced failure first-hand multiple times throughout my career. Of course, I tried to learn from each failure, but it was like in a video game: As I progressed, the lessons became increasingly difficult and harder to put into practice. Ultimately, I applied them by helping to build more than 100 new business ventures, ensuring other leaders and their companies did not fall into the same traps. Allow me to share some of those lessons.

I started my first company while in high school in Switzerland in the mid-1990s, creating websites for small businesses. Afterwards, I joined the leading web agency in the nation at the time, and I could do some amazing things there, like creating the first online real estate platform for a bank—which I regard as my first big project. It failed miserably. No one wanted a real estate platform. I learned a valuable lesson there: You must build products that solve actual customer problems, as opposed to building what you want to offer as a business.

I joined a strategy consultancy, Roland Berger, in Zurich after graduating from the University of St. Gallen, and this was another big learning curve. What puzzled me as a young consultant, though, was how much of what we conceptualized never got executed properly. While cost-cutting mandates were straightforward and delivered results, all we really did was recommend how many people should get fired. But on the other side, and somewhat strangely to me at the time, most growth strategies failed to achieve impact.

The myth of business-model transformation

So, I decided to get into the trenches and become a manager at a large company. I wanted to learn how to get things done. I happened to join Kuoni, the largest and most prestigious travel company in Switzerland at the time—a client of my previous consulting firm, whom we had advised on a transformation program.

It was clear to me and the whole management that travel would change forever, with the emergence of online travel agencies and increasing shares of direct bookings at hotels and airlines eating away our market share and margins. Consequently, we were tasked by the board to create new online business for the company. The strategy consisted of two words: “Go online.” But we failed miserably. The company went down and eventually was sold off and ripped apart.

There was a plethora of learning in that experience, so much so that I wrote a case study on it with Insead. But the key point I learned was that business-model transformation is a falsified approach, nothing more than a myth. It would mean transforming a whole value chain. You simply cannot do that, as it would mean changing everything.

After leaving the established travel company in 2013, I joined Everyglobe, a Swiss startup that aimed to become the travel agency of the future. We raised 1.7 million CHF, a lot of money for a seed round back then, which we used to build the technology for a transformative customer experience. Our product was very simple: a search field and four sliders for travel preferences, such as relaxation or social activities. The interface would in real time customize travel recommendations on where to go and what to do, and you could immediately book the trip. The technology felt like magic. We were a truly digitized travel advisory.

On what effectively was a tiny budget, we built technology that was at least 10 times better than the kind used by my old travel company. We also achieved great traction in terms of user growth through viral marketing campaigns, at times having up to 10% of our whole target group engaging on our platform. The problem was that people were reluctant to book with us, even though we had the same prices as other online platforms. The reason was simple: We were an unknown startup. After all, a trip costs a lot of money, and people preferred to do the actual bookings with more established companies. We ran out of cash, and that was it.

What I took away: It must be possible to combine both worlds. To this day, I’m convinced that our travel startup would have taken off if it could have benefited from my old travel company’s customer reach and brand trust. I’m also convinced that my old company would still be around if it had managed to leverage its many valuable assets to create new business.

That’s when I came to believe that it’s in fact possible to combine both worlds, but it had to be done in a smart way to overcome large companies’ limitations, which I was subject to myself. That is why I founded Stryber, a strategic growth consultancy and a corporate venture builder.

Combining these two worlds is far easier said than done. An organization must overcome almost insurmountable internal problems, which I had encountered myself being part of the large corporate structure. You need to have a very strong strategic mandate, owned by the CEO and backed by the shareholders, to overcome the typical analysis paralysis and move to action. Problems need to be solved and things need to get done, without fear of failure. You need to cut through the noise, the latest trends, the promises of salvation, and be extremely careful with how you select your strategies for impact and whom you trust to execute on them.

To solve these problems, we have tried many different routes. We tried corporate venture capital, open innovation startup collaborations, internal ideation contests, and accelerator and intrapreneurship programs. My conclusion is as simple as it is sobering: None of this works for new business creation.

Build it or buy it

At Stryber, we have found only two effective ways to create new business: build it or buy it. It’s as simple as that. Our data suggests that a proper acquisition of a company at scale, or at least in a late growth stage, is the dominant option to create a new line of business, albeit at a hefty price. And yes, we are acutely aware of the pitfalls of M&A. But the risk of an M&A strategy is not the post-merger integration failures, which need to be considered, but that in 9 out of 10 cases there is simply not the right target to be acquired. This often leaves only one strategy available: Companies must build new business models themselves, despite all the internal pitfalls. That’s what I call proper “corporate venture building,” and it’s without alternative.

Over the years, my company and I have built well over 100 new business ventures on behalf of and in cooperation with large organizations. Below are the learnings we’ve uncovered through working with large banks, retailers, insurers, health groups, food companies, private equity firms, and sovereign wealth funds.

The root causes for both success and failure have nothing to do with innovation or the venturing process itself. The first key success factor is having a clear vision for the parent company’s future, not the new business initiative, based on a common understanding of the market dynamics at large. To support that vision, a clear financial ambition must exist. Building up a common view of the future among both senior management and the shareholders is key. This helps to create the equity story, which leadership must buy into and commit to, and shareholders literally must buy, by either injecting cash or forgoing dividends.

Equally important is setting up the proper governance. Many managers wildly underestimate this aspect, because in their normal business the existing corporate governance is working perfectly fine. But operating a new business in the same governance as your core business means stripping it of any chance of success. For new business, you must create many degrees of freedom—and often complete independence for the venture to find its way.

Another lesson: Ideas come a dime a dozen. Even after launching in the market, 89% of even the most promising startups never make it to scale, as our analysis has shown. From the earliest funnel stage of systematic market analysis, idea screening, and deal sourcing to a venture that scales, we see a total loss rate of 97% along the way. That’s why falling in love with your ideas, and overspending in early stages of development, is a terrible idea. Only after a venture has made it to product-market fit should you start to aggressively double down with follow-on investment, until the new business venture reaches scale. This is also when it gets really expensive and is why you need the strong shareholder mandate in the first place, because they will need to fund the new business through its growth stage, until it’s mature itself.

A large organization that seeks to create new business has only one choice: to act systematically and programmatically on both M&A and venture building. Had we known—and applied—what I know now, I am convinced that both the old travel company and my travel startup would still be around.

Jan Sedlacek is founder and managing partner of Stryber, a strategic growth consultancy headquartered in Switzerland.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

財富中文網所刊載內容之知識產權為財富媒體知識產權有限公司及/或相關權利人專屬所有或持有。未經許可,禁止進行轉載、摘編、復制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
0條Plus
精彩評論
評論

撰寫或查看更多評論

請打開財富Plus APP

前往打開

            主站蜘蛛池模板: 泰兴市| 尚志市| 双城市| 雷山县| 门源| 株洲市| 苏尼特左旗| 东海县| 长海县| 吉林省| 重庆市| 秀山| 仙桃市| 永丰县| 平泉县| 郯城县| 金堂县| 尼木县| 柯坪县| 五大连池市| 博乐市| 萨迦县| 仁怀市| 浏阳市| 长汀县| 南汇区| 汉阴县| 大足县| 丰镇市| 鹤壁市| 汽车| 瑞丽市| 武清区| 洛浦县| 寿阳县| 延吉市| 德格县| 临洮县| 思茅市| 上饶县| 绥芬河市|