Gary's profileGary's SpacePhotosBlogListsMore ![]() | Help |
|
|
September 08 ODM/OBM/OEM ODM,即Original design manufacture(原始设计商)的缩写。是一家厂商根据另一家厂商的规格和要求,设计和生产产品。受委托方拥有设计能力和技术水平,基于授权合同生产产品。
OBM,即Original Brand Manufacturer的缩写,是指专门接受其他企业定牌生产的要求进行生产,而从不创立自己的品牌。某制造商设计出一种产品后,在某些情况下可能会被另外一些品牌的制造商看中,要求配上后者的品牌名称来进行生产,又或者稍微修改一些设计(如按键位置)来生产。这样做的最大好处是其他厂商减少了自己研制的时间。
例如,计算机公司如HP公司可能会就其想推向市场的一款笔记本电脑作出具体规格。它们会具体地列明产品的外观要求,如屏幕的尺寸和技术要求、输入/输出端口、键盘的前倾度、电脑包的外形和颜色、扬声器的位置等。它们还通常会具体列明对产品的主要内部细节如CPU或视频控制器的规格要求。但是,它们并不设计图样,不具体列明电源用的交换晶体管的型号,也不对背光变流器频率加以选择。这些都是ODM的工作。
ODM根据计算机公司提出的规格要求来设计和生产笔记本电脑。有时候,ODM也可根据现有样品来生产。ODM方式往往更加注重合作,而在OEM的情形下,购买方对产品的具体规格基本不参与意见。
September 07 炒作周期 (Hype Cycle)著名IT咨询公司Gartner 1995年提出了“炒作周期”理论。Gartner通过“炒作周期”曲线将一项新技术从产生到成熟,直至被市场广泛接受的全过程浓缩为5个阶段。这5个阶段分别被定义如下: 1、“技术触发期(Technology Trigger)”:新技术产生之初,被业界和媒体广泛关注,曝光率直线上升; 2、“过热期(Peak of Inflated Expectations)”:概念炒做达到顶峰,媒体对新技术产生了大量不切实际的期望; 3、“幻灭期(Trough of Disillusionment)”:泡沫破灭,媒体态度骤变,从原先的新技术支持者变成声讨者,概念逐渐被人淡忘; 4、“复苏期(Slope of Enlightenment)”:虽然该技术已经很少被曝光,但在并未在业界完全消失,不少企业在慢慢推动该技术走向成熟,技术本身的优势和局限也逐渐为人所了解; 5、“生产力成熟期(Plateau of Productivity)”:已经达到成熟期的新技术找到了自己的市场定位,虽然不像原先媒体期望的那样具有颠覆性,但却实实在在地改变着人们的生活。 谷歌就是一个很典型的例子。由于在互联网泡沫破裂后没有推出显示广告服务,谷歌不被媒体和投资者看好;上市时公布财务业绩后,谷歌受到了媒体和投资者追捧,股价一度超过700美元大关。 不但是企业,企业家同样也难逃“炒作周期”的“魔爪”。马克·安德森(Marc Andreessen)曾被媒体誉为“互联网教父”,但当其第二家公司Loudcloud遭遇困难时,媒体开始对安德森“口诛笔伐”,而对惠普斥资16亿美元收购被“包装”为Opsware的Loudcloud一事视而不见。媒体谴责安德森夸大了自己对Mosaic浏览器的贡献。当然,安德森并没有因此而一蹶不振。目前,安德森又被媒体誉为Web 2.0最重要的导师和天使投资者之一。 人们通常会高估新技术未来一年内的潜力,但低估其未来10年内的潜力。这并非完全是个坏事:被低估是许多创业公司将大公司打得措手不及的原因所在。 博客让“炒作周期”更增添了几分狂躁。一个典型的例子是Cuil,问世之初,Cuil被誉为“谷歌杀手”,但很快被媒体冷落。MySpace、Facebook和Twitter也都有过相似的经历。 Facebook刚一问世,媒体就称MySpace已成“昨日黄花”,Facebook才是“王者”。Facebook的美国用户肯定将超过MySpace,但MySpace的营收更高,用户粘性在不断提高,而且仍然是最大的互联网网站之一。 Facebook也遭遇了“炒作周期”困扰,而且极其荒谬。Facebook仍然在迅速增长,用户数量已突破2亿大关。但最近有媒体称,Facebook及其创始人马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)“很失败”。分析师指出,运营一家公司非常困难,掌门人不可能不出现一点失误。吹毛求疵的博客就像在球场边观看棒球比赛的“超级胖子”,指责棒球明星没有在每次击球时都打出“本垒打”。 Facebook的身价已经低于150亿美元。150亿美元本来就不是Facebook的真实身价,甚至不是风险投资公司的估价,而是微软等战略投资者的估价,他们的目的是持有Facebook股份,不在意价格。Facebook自己也认为身价“不值”150亿美元,但其身价肯定在10亿美元以上。 还有更荒谬的:有博客甚至称Twitter已经过时。Twitter成立才数年时间,增长非常迅速,资金充足,有约30名员工。 好的创业公司能安然度过“炒作周期”,糟糕的创业公司则会“折戟沉沙”。如果一家公司从没有受到媒体关注,成功的几率也不会大。 July 10 佩服姜奇平 接连看到姜奇平这位神人的高论,佩服地大大滴。。。
特意在网上查了下这位高人的生平和其他的文字,总体来说是高的——评论家嘛,到底不能苛求有道士呼风唤雨、降妖除魔的本事。
“信息化是导向,工业化是基础”,难得在这个时代还有人在思考企业、生产、价值链的最基本的问题,高的!
July 01 效率极低人群之七大习惯(转贴)引用 (转自Lanhu的博客,谢谢)
April 16 笔记:信息化企业与企业信息化在杂志中看到姜奇平的一篇新的文章《帮老板帮到钱眼上》(北大CIO班讲演稿),其中很重要的一个观点就是:企业信息化不等于信息化企业。
(1) 企业的核心问题说低点,就是如何赚钱,从“术”的层面看,可以有成千上万条路,但是“道”只有一个。企业所面临的工业化(和信息化对立)的基本矛盾,高度概括就是规模经济和范围经济两种赚钱路数的矛盾。
(2) 规模经济的经济性的根本来源是规模经济性,导向品种越少,成本越低。范围经济的经济性根本来源在于品种经济性,品种越多,成本越低
(3) 在信息技术出现前,规模经济是绝对规律,在当前变革时期,企业本质的最大转型(质变),就是异质性从不具有经济性变为越来越有经济性(长尾)
(4) 所谓“信息化企业”,一定是品种越多成本越低的企业
(5) 对靠规模经济取胜的企业来说,过于“高级”的信息化反而适得其反
(6) 在需求多变、市场多变、环境多变的情形下,企业几乎都要面对产品批量减少、品种多样化要求增加的前提下,如何开辟新的经济性来源,是需要面对的问题——从信息化企业,而不是企业信息化角度,才能与老板的核心想法合拍
(7) 管理品种多样化,应该是控制要素的多样化,而非管理的产品种类多样化。个性化、差异化、多样化、不确定性、信息、价值网络、流程、融合、集成、平台、模块、组件、以及复杂性、创新、灵活、变得本身不变。。。。。。都可以再品种这个异质性维度下统一起来、计量出来。
(8) 信息化处理这些对象的共通点,都在于对异质性单元的低成本把握,都是在围绕“异质要素越多,成本反而平摊得越低”这个“道”
(9) 来段更抽象的:货币空间是同质的,信息空间的是异质的,二者的关联需要转换规则,而不能混为一谈。信息化创新和定制引起的价格跃变,实质是维度转换的结果。通俗的说,是从价格战跃升到另一种异质竞争空间。
CIO到了这个境界,帮老板就可以帮到企业“原动力”这个钱眼上了。 March 04 sth. about MarketingMulti-level marketing (MLM), also known as Network Marketing, is a marketing strategy that compensates promoters of direct selling companies not only for product sales they personally generate, but also for the sales of others they introduced to the company. The products and company are usually marketed directly to consumers and potential business partners by means of relationship referrals and word of mouth marketing. Word-of-mouth marketing, which encompasses a variety of subcategories, including buzz, blog, viral, grassroots, cause influencers and social media marketing, as well as ambassador programs, work with consumer-generated media and more, can be highly valued by product marketers. Because of the personal nature of the communications between individuals, it is believed that product information communicated in this way has an added layer of credibility. Research points to individuals being more inclined to believe WOMM than more formal forms of promotion methods; the receiver of word-of-mouth referrals tends to believe that the communicator is speaking honestly and is unlikely to have an ulterior motive (i.e. they are not receiving an incentive for their referrals). Direct Selling is a retail channel for the distribution of goods and services. At a basic level it may be defined as marketing and selling products, direct to consumers away from a fixed retail location. Sales are typically made through party plan, one to one demonstrations, and other personal contact arrangements. A text book definition is: "The direct personal presentation, demonstration, and sale of products and services to consumers, usually in their homes or at their jobs." Internet marketing, also referred to as web marketing, online marketing, or eMarketing, is the marketing of products or services over the Internet. Internet marketing also refers to the placement of media along different stages of the customer engagement cycle through search engine marketing (SEM), search engine optimization (SEO), banner ads on specific websites, e-mail marketing, and Web 2.0 strategies. In 2008 The New York Times working with comScore published an initial estimate to quantify the user data collected by large Internet-based companies. Counting four types of interactions with company websites in addition to the hits from advertisements served from advertising networks, the authors found the potential for collecting data upward of 2,500 times on average per user per month. February 17 关于网络营销的话题看了本书,感觉不错,就把网上搜到的相关内容放上来,当做笔记。 营销学上,根据在消费者购买决策的过程中对商品信息的收集和介入程度,将商品分为高卷入性商品(High Involvement)和低卷入性商品(Low Involvement)。其中高卷入性商品通常是指价格相对比较昂贵,消费者需要支付较大一笔费用的商品,比如房子、汽车,还有诸如手表和价格较高的数码类产品这样的。反之,像普通的快速消费品,如饮料、洗发水这类的商品,价格相对较低,作用和功能一目了然,通常就归到低卷入商品一类。 对消费者而言,要购买高卷入商品,决策的过程相对会比较长,可能需要收集大量相关的商品信息,比较同类商品的不同品牌,并且向有过经验的人进行咨询,然后反复均衡,最终在可能的几个备选方案中找到一个最优的方案。商品的信息是消费者在这类商品购买决策过程中最需要获取的。信息的不对等,是影响高卷入商品销售最大的障碍,也是从事销售高卷入产品人士最需要处理好的问题。 而今的互联网时代,网络汇集了海量的各类商品信息和已有使用者的使用体验信息,这类信息分散在不同的网站和站点,并且是从不同的角度,多方面的和商品相关。在进行高卷入商品的购买决策时,越来越多的消费者开始从互联网上获得商品的相关信息。搜索引擎为消费者从海量信息中获取有效信息提供了可能性。正是借助像百度这类的搜索引擎工具,消费者可以获得甄别出自己所需要的信息,进行选择性分析,从而为自己的购物决策提供支持。 除了高卷入产品之外,一些价格敏感性较强的低卷入产品,比如像MP3、电脑耗件等,因为其价格变动较大,消费者通常出于省钱的原则和售后服务提供的方便性,也会借助搜索引擎工具,寻求不同市场的产品报价和服务评价,货比三家,寻找最合适的商家。 需要指出的是,就网络营销而言,出于成本的考虑,一些低卷入的商品比较适合通过无店铺的网络销售方式,进行在线销售。而高卷入商品,则不太适合这种方式。对高卷入商品进行网络营销,只能从信息提供方面寻找切入点,尽可能的消除消费者购物决策过程中的疑虑,尽可能的实现在线与消费者的信息互动,获取消费者反馈信息,并提供进一步的咨询服务,以带动线上沟通转化为线下交易。 September 28 有志于长期从事软件的人们,建议看看一篇好文Gary也知道,总在自己的Space中贴别人的文章,是一种懒惰和令人唾弃的行为,但是下面的文章确实值得推荐。如果看官有兴趣一直从事IT行业,花点时间来了解这些观点是非常值得的。
The Future of Software Development
Written by Alex Iskold / October 16, 2007 1:28 PM
In 1975, Frederick Brooks wrote a classic book on software project management called The Mythical Man-Month. In the book, he famously argued that adding more people to a development project will hinder rather than help to get things done faster. The reason is that having more people working on the project introduces a non-linear overhead in communication.
Five years before Brooks' book, a software development methodology called the Waterfall Model was coined. This approach applied the insights from mature engineering disciplines (mechanical, civil, etc.) to software. The idea was to construct systems by first gathering requirements, then doing the design, then implementing it, then testing, and finally getting it out the door in one linear sequence. We have come a long way since then and learned a lot about making software. The Waterfall Model is now considered a flawed method because it is so rigid and unrealistic. In the real world, software projects have ill-defined and constantly evolving requirements, making it impossible to think everything through at once. Instead, the best software today is created and evolved using agile methods. These techniques allow engineers to continuously re-align software with business and customer needs. With the advent of modern programming languages (Java, PHP, Python and Ruby), rich libraries, and unprecedented infrastructure services like those from Amazon, we are arriving at yet another evolutionary step. Digg, del.icio.us, YouTube and other poster children of the new web era were developed by just a handful of programmers. To build software today all you need is a few good men (or women!). In this post we trace how we got here and where we are heading next. Why The Waterfall Model FailedNon-technical people tend to think that software is soft or easily changeable. Since there are no visible nuts and bolts and no hood to open people think that software can be tweaked and re-wired on a whim. Of course, this is not the case. Software, like any mechanical system, has a design and the structure; it is not as soft as it seems. Yet the accelerating pace of business requires constant changes to software. Older development methods completely fail to address business needs. Using the Waterfall Model, these changes were impossible, the development cycle was too long, systems were over engineered and ended up costing a fortune, and often did not work right.
The problem was that the Waterfall Model was arrogant. The arrogance came from the fact that we believed that we could always engineer the perfect system on the first try. The second problem with it was that in nature, dynamic systems are not engineered, they evolve. It is the evolutionary idea that lead to the development of agile methods. Agile Methods - Evolving SoftwareIn the early nineties a number of agile software development methods emerged. While they differed in details, they agreed at large that software development needed a major rethinking. First, software has to embrace change. Today's assumptions and requirements may change tomorrow, and software needs to respond to changes quickly. To meet the challenge, agile approaches advocate focusing on simplicity. Make the simplest possible system that satisfies today's requirements and when tomorrow comes, be ready to adapt.
Two techniques pioneered by agile methods are worth particular attention - refactoring and developer testing. Refactoring, elegantly described by Martin Fowler in his classic book is the idea of improving the design of the existing code without changing how it works.
Refactoring is what allows agile systems to embrace change, while remaining elegant and free from rot. Like an interior decorator continuously changes and improves the layout of your furniture, agile developers move code around to improve the product as a whole. Code is constantly changed to make sure we end up with the simplest, and best possible system that reflects our current needs. To make sure that changes do not break the code, agile methods introduced unit tests. As each agile project unfolds, it grows the base of unit tests. Each test is focused on a single component of the system and acts as an insurance that the component works as expected. Typically, the tests are run continuously against the code and require immediate fixes in case of a failure.
The software systems created using agile methods are much more successful because they are evolved and adapted to the problem. Like living organisms, these systems are continuously reshaped to fit the dynamic landscape of changing requirements. Without a doubt, agile methods made a major impact on how we think about building software today - dynamically and continuously. It's The Libraries, Stupid!While we discovered better way of making software, we also discovered better programming languages. C was replaced with C++, then came Java. Perl was great, but PHP and Python took its lessons further. More recently came Ruby, which has become very popular because of its natural way of expressing code. Because of this evolution, today we have a number of excellent, and virtually equivalent programming languages. While the choice of programming language is typically a sensitive subject, the truth is that it is not the language, but the libraries that come with it that make a difference. C++ never had the standard libraries that Java has. Yes, Java is the simpler language, but people used C++ for a decade just fine. What gives Java the edge is its rich set of reusable libraries. The story is similar with PHP. It has been the language of choice for web developers precisely because it comes with such rich support for web and database processing.
In addition to the libraries that come with modern languages, the open source movement has also contributed a wealth of code towards global software infrastructure. Notably, just the Apache foundation on its own has created a huge amount of high quality reusable code. We have now arrived at an age where we have a strong foundation for building complex software systems. We know the methods and we have the tools, so what does that mean? The Future of Software Development: Just a Few Good MenSince early days of software development people struggled to build good systems. More and more people where thrown at the problem, making matters worse. But with the recent explosion of social web we've witnessed a new and interesting phenomenon: a handful of developers are now able to build systems that are used by millions of people. How can this be? The secret is that as with any good endeavor it only takes a few good men (and/or women!). With a bit of discipline and a ton of passion, high quality engineers are able to put together systems of great complexity on their own. Equipped with a modern programming language, great libraries, and agile methods, a couple of smart guys in the garage can get things done much better and faster than an army of mediocre developers.
We are likely to see a few changes over the coming years:
ConclusionIronically, we are coming full circle with the mythical man-month. What was true twenty years ago is true of course today, but for a whole new set of reasons. An awesome array of programming languages and infrastructure libraries combined with agile methods has allowed us to break free of old software development dogmas. Just a handful of great engineers can now successfully build systems of great complexity. Craftsmanship has finally come to software engineering!
What's the future for the software industry? Ask academia...By Tom Foremski - April 4, 2007
Carnegie Mellon University and the University of California, Berkeley have joined together for a one day conference on April 30th in Mountain View. Academics and industry leaders will discuss issues and trends for "the new software industry." They promise that there will be no product demos (how about no PowerPoints too...)
It seems clear to me where the software industry is headed:
Industry Leaders Look To Software's FutureBusiness-technology executives, vendors, and software developers give their 2 cents on everything from how users will pay for software in the future to what's next for Linux.
By Rick Whiting
On relationships with software vendors:
"The issue of software quality might begin to hit software vendors where it hurts--on the financial bottom line. In the future, vendors who are used to getting paid for their products up front, even if the software is buggy, may find payments from customers tied to how well their products perform." – Tony Scott, a chief technology officer at General Motors Corp.
The trend is toward simplifying the enterprise software architecture, and software as services offers a way to do that. Hence, customers will demand that more software be delivered this way. With software as services, software vendors are being drawn more intimately into the day-to-day operations of their customers. "Increasingly, the software vendor's fortunes are being tied more closely to the customer's." – Madhavan Rangaswami, co-founder of Sand Hill Group, a Silicon Valley venture-capital firm specializing in enterprise software
On hosted software services:
"Software as a service is an appropriate name. Service should be in bold block letters, because it's the service over time that will change. Software will become more of a commodity." – Bud Mathasiel, CIO of Solectron (NYSE: SLR) Corp.
"Getting true functionality to the end user will drive success or failure. Welcome to the services world. If they don't like it, you don't get paid." – Treb Ryan, CEO of OpSource Inc., a provider of infrastructure, systems and application management, and hosting to ASPs
On application development:
"There's been a lot of hand-wringing over the number of development jobs that have been outsourced to offshore companies. Won't increased automation of software development processes accelerate that trend? I'm not sure if that actually pans out. It's the basic programming jobs that have already been outsourced that are in danger of disappearing." – Patrick Hynds, chief technology officer of CriticalSites Inc., an IT development and integration services firm
On the next killer app:
"The punch line is that the next killer apps are going to be new ways of doing old things." – Dan'l Lewin, VP of .Net business development at Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)
On standards:
Don't underestimate the influence China will have on the software industry. With millions of businesses and hundreds of millions of users, China may be positioned to dictate software standards for the rest of the world. "I believe China will play a larger role in setting software trends." – Danny Sabbah, chief technology officer in IBM (NYSE: IBM)'s software group, pointing to Red Flag Linux, China's own version of the open-source operating system
On the next version of the Linux operating system:
"I absolutely hope that it will be fundamentally different some way. But in many ways I don't actually expect that to be the case. Operating systems have been around for decades, and the fact is, they don't tend to do surprising things. I suspect we'll be doing some things very differently internally, and there are bound to be new interfaces for new things people do, but in the end, an OS is an OS." – Linux creator Linus Torvalds
On the cost of software:
"Software is a human, intellectual activity. It is automating knowledge. I think there is a natural limit to how cheap enterprise software can become." – Gerald Cohen, CEO of business-intelligence software vendor Information Builders Inc.
On security:
"People who are building service-oriented architectures --which as far as I can tell is everyone, I haven't found a global 2000 who isn't --(have) a whole bunch of new concerns and new issues. Web services punch a hole in the firewall, so the firewall doesn't do me any good, and someone with an identity unknown to me is coming in and asking for service. And if that service is accepted, out goes information that's potentially my business-critical information. How do we deal with that? I think the answer is you need to consider (having) security on every single one of your computers, not just (around) the perimeter." – Jothy Rosenberg, founder and chief technology officer of Service Integrity Inc., a developer of Web services monitoring and analysis software, and author of Security Web Services With WS-Security.
On long-term predictions on the future of software:
August 27 关于 Saas、ASP、随需应用的思考(1) —— 最近看了很多关于Saas、ASP的文章和案例,有往狠里夸的,有往死里骂的,但更多的是旁观的心态,这恰恰说明了模式并未被市场理解和接受。
ASP是失败的,这个观点好像已经广泛被大家接受,因为不论是赞成Saas的,还是不看好Saas的,都基于此来进行阐述。
我们讨论模式能否成功,其实不应该从技术入手,而应该从市场需求入手,一个新的模式,一定依赖于新的需求。需求的产生可能有两种情况:
(1) 一直存在的需求,随着时间的推移,被比较清晰地发掘出来
(2) 本来不存在的需求,但是因为存在value-added的可能,被引导出来
ASP和Saas模式的提出,很大部分的初衷是降低企业的IT成本,尤其是硬件和人员成本,但是实际上,在企业决定是否实施IT系统,需求一定是第一位的。就像你在路上走,路边有降价衣服,你一定是先考虑衣服是否合身,第二才会因为价格便宜买下来。很难想象一个小伙子仅仅因为价格便宜,会卖一套童装回家。
ASP和Saas的推崇者,大部分是象SUN、IBM这样的企业,它们更多是服务于IT企业,而不是IT企业的客户(具体的行业客户),这样,也能理解为什么这些概念更多是在IT圈子中流转,最终企业用户感触并不深刻。
说了这么多,我其实只想表达一个意思:目前很多对于Saas的讨论,有点本末倒置,骂Saas也没有骂到点上,夸也没夸到点上。
那我对于Saas模式的态度到底如何呢?简单的说,我非常看好,不过。。。
改天有空再详细阐述我自己的想法 :)
August 26 IT是什么? 对于一个企业来说,规划和实施一套IT系统意味着什么? 这是一个很大的问题,从事了IT行业超过10年了,无数次的和客户沟通、展示、宣讲。。。很多说法已经耳熟能详了。
“软件是管理思想,能把企业的战略思路与组织架构和核心作业流程与日常工作规范相结合。。。”
“软件是提升效率,降低成本的工具,成功应用软件最直接的表现就是对人员依赖程度的减低,甚至包括人员数量的减少。。。”
“软件是。。。”
曾经有一段时间理解“软件是胶水”,胶水是一种很特别的工具,它自己不独立产生任何价值,但是它能帮助企业把内部的人员、外部的客户、合作伙伴更好地黏合在一起,从而比松散结构降低沟通成本,并产生出更大的价值。
感觉都对,但是好像都不太准确。
随着市场、管理理念和IT技术的发展,以前很多行业中对于软件的理解,更多的是一种被动的接受行为,是期望对于管理和运营现状的一种完善。但是到现在和可见的将来,不论软件的技术架构、实现手段和应用模式如何变化,在越来越多的行业中,软件及更多IT技术的应用,对于企业逐步变成一种主动行为,是企业在面临越来越丰富的新经济形式前的实现自身变革的基础支撑。
其实有一点始终没有变化,任何时候讨论“软件是什么”都不重要,重要的是每一位企业决策者都需要思考一下:我的企业利用新的技术做了些什么吗?
August 11 Talking about 供应链服务(一)
Quote 供应链服务(一) Talking about 供应链服务(二)
Quote 供应链服务(二) Talking about 解读复杂混乱的供应链
Quote 解读复杂混乱的供应链 |
|
|