Customizing Customization
The history of U.S. business during the past 100 years has been a story of mass production and mass distribution of standardized goods. Scholars and practitioners who examined the economic landscape have generally been drawn to large corporations that built their fortunes by transforming fragmented and heterogeneous markets into unified industries.1 At the heart of this transformation were strategies based on standardization: standardization of taste that allowed for standardized design, standardization of design that allowed for mechanized mass production, and a resulting standardization of products that allowed for mass distribution.
The history of U.S. business during the past 100 years has been a story of mass production and mass distribution of standardized goods.
Scholars and practitioners who examined the economic landscape have generally been drawn to large corporations that built their fortunes by transforming fragmented and heterogeneous markets into unified industries.
美國商界在過去的100年的歷史一直是標準化商品的大規模生產和分配的故事。
誰審查經濟格局的學者和從業者一般都被吸引到大型企業建立自己的財富分散和異構的市場轉化成統一的行業。
在這一轉型的核心戰略，以標準化為基礎：標準化的味道，讓標準化設計，標準化設計允許的機械化批量生產，並得到標準化的產品，允許質量分佈。
Recently, a growing number of economists and management scholars have declared that this era is over.2 Numerous books and articles have posited that we are witnessing the dawn of a new age of customization, an age in which new technologies, increased competition, and more assertive customers are leading firms toward customization of their products and services.3 Not surprisingly, firms that have adopted customization strategies have attracted considerable attention as models of what is expected to become commonplace in the near future.4
近日，越來越多的經濟學家和管理學者已經宣布，這個時代結束了。
許多書籍和文章都假定，我們正在目睹的定制，這個時代，新技術，競爭的加劇，更加自信的客戶定制他們的產品和服務的領先企業走向一個新時代的曙光。
令人驚訝的是，公司已經採取定制策略已經吸引了相當多的關注，因為在不久的將來有望成為司空見慣的模型。
We begin by describing these two logics. We then argue that this conceptual polarization, which took firm root in the theory and practice of management, led management thinkers to ignore strategies that combine these logics. Put simply, this view itself represents an inappropriate standardization of management theory — or, more exactly, continuation of the standardization mentality that has long pervaded such theory. Since the days of Frederick Taylor, the notion that managers should single-mindedly pursue the “one best way” has led management writers to seize on one solution or another (or, more often, one solution and then another) as the best practice. Indeed, the enthusiasm for customization today was paralleled by an even greater enthusiasm for standardization many years ago.
我們開始描述這兩個邏輯。
然後，我們認為，這個概念極化，管理的理論和實踐中深深紮根，帶動管理思想家忽視戰略，結合這些邏輯。
簡言之，這種觀點本身代表一個不適當的標準化管理理論 - 或者，更確切地說，繼續標準化心態早已瀰漫著這樣的理論。
由於天弗雷德里克·泰勒的概念，管理者應該一心一意地奉行“一個最好的方式”管理作家抓住一個解決方案或另一個（或者，更多時候，一個解決方案，然後再）作為最佳實踐。
事實上，今天熱情定制的是平行的一個更大的熱情標準化很多年前。
What has been ignored in all this is that customization and standardization do not define alternative models of strategic action but, rather, poles of a continuum of real-world strategies. By promoting customization as the answer to what ails many organizations, we may be replacing one extreme with another. Managers need to locate their strategies along the continuum, and the role of management writers is to provide the conceptual tools to make this easier.
什麼已被忽略，在這一切的是，不定義個性化和標準化戰略行動的的替代模式，但相反，一個連續的真實世界的策略極點。
促進定制的答案得了什麼病許多組織，我們可以更換一個極端與另一個。
管理者需要沿連續，定位自己的戰略和管理作家的作用是提供的概念工具，以使這更容易。
It is not an accident of history that customization is now promoted with the same enthusiasm with which standardization was promoted almost a century ago. Today’s customization movement is a reaction to significant economic and technological forces, much as the standardization movement was in its time. But these developments must be viewed with a clear perspective. Therefore, we begin by reviewing how the standardization and customization distinction emerged in the first place.
這不是歷史的偶然，現在同樣的熱情促進標準化促進了幾乎一個世紀前定制。
今天的定制運動是一個顯著的經濟和技術力量的反應，多為標準化運動是在其時間。
但是，這些發展必須被視為一個明確的觀點。
因此，我們開始通過審查的標準化和定制的區別是如何出現在首位。
Although most readers may be familiar with the reasons that standardization became dominant at the turn of the century, they may not sufficiently appreciate to what extent this was an act of cognition as well as a reflection of economic and technological forces. Product standardization, mass production, and mass distribution were seen as a conceptual whole, a configuration. Industries that were transformed by this process were contrasted with old-fashioned industries that continued to customize their products. As a result, two logics emerged, a logic of aggregation in contrast to a logic of individualization, that were mistakenly treated as conceptually distinct and mutually exclusive.
雖然大多數讀者可能熟悉標準化的原因，在世紀之交成為佔主導地位，他們可能沒有足夠的欣賞到什麼程度，這是一種行為的認知以及經濟和技術力量的反映。
產品標準化，批量生產，質量分佈被看作是一個概念性的整體配置。
這個過程轉化產業與老式產業繼續來定制自己的產品進行對比。
其結果是，出現了兩種邏輯，聚集的個性化，即一個邏輯概念上不同的和互斥的被誤當作邏輯。
The history of U.S. business during the past 100 years has been a story of mass production and mass distribution of standardized goods.
Scholars and practitioners who examined the economic landscape have generally been drawn to large corporations that built their fortunes by transforming fragmented and heterogeneous markets into unified industries.
美國商界在過去的100年的歷史一直是標準化商品的大規模生產和分配的故事。
誰審查經濟格局的學者和從業者一般都被吸引到大型企業建立自己的財富分散和異構的市場轉化成統一的行業。
在這一轉型的核心戰略，以標準化為基礎：標準化的味道，讓標準化設計，標準化設計允許的機械化批量生產，並得到標準化的產品，允許質量分佈。
Recently, a growing number of economists and management scholars have declared that this era is over.2 Numerous books and articles have posited that we are witnessing the dawn of a new age of customization, an age in which new technologies, increased competition, and more assertive customers are leading firms toward customization of their products and services.3 Not surprisingly, firms that have adopted customization strategies have attracted considerable attention as models of what is expected to become commonplace in the near future.4
近日，越來越多的經濟學家和管理學者已經宣布，這個時代結束了。
許多書籍和文章都假定，我們正在目睹的定制，這個時代，新技術，競爭的加劇，更加自信的客戶定制他們的產品和服務的領先企業走向一個新時代的曙光。
令人驚訝的是，公司已經採取定制策略已經吸引了相當多的關注，因為在不久的將來有望成為司空見慣的模型。
We begin by describing these two logics. We then argue that this conceptual polarization, which took firm root in the theory and practice of management, led management thinkers to ignore strategies that combine these logics. Put simply, this view itself represents an inappropriate standardization of management theory — or, more exactly, continuation of the standardization mentality that has long pervaded such theory. Since the days of Frederick Taylor, the notion that managers should single-mindedly pursue the “one best way” has led management writers to seize on one solution or another (or, more often, one solution and then another) as the best practice. Indeed, the enthusiasm for customization today was paralleled by an even greater enthusiasm for standardization many years ago.
我們開始描述這兩個邏輯。
然後，我們認為，這個概念極化，管理的理論和實踐中深深紮根，帶動管理思想家忽視戰略，結合這些邏輯。
簡言之，這種觀點本身代表一個不適當的標準化管理理論 - 或者，更確切地說，繼續標準化心態早已瀰漫著這樣的理論。
由於天弗雷德里克·泰勒的概念，管理者應該一心一意地奉行“一個最好的方式”管理作家抓住一個解決方案或另一個（或者，更多時候，一個解決方案，然後再）作為最佳實踐。
事實上，今天熱情定制的是平行的一個更大的熱情標準化很多年前。
What has been ignored in all this is that customization and standardization do not define alternative models of strategic action but, rather, poles of a continuum of real-world strategies. By promoting customization as the answer to what ails many organizations, we may be replacing one extreme with another. Managers need to locate their strategies along the continuum, and the role of management writers is to provide the conceptual tools to make this easier.
什麼已被忽略，在這一切的是，不定義個性化和標準化戰略行動的的替代模式，但相反，一個連續的真實世界的策略極點。
促進定制的答案得了什麼病許多組織，我們可以更換一個極端與另一個。
管理者需要沿連續，定位自己的戰略和管理作家的作用是提供的概念工具，以使這更容易。
It is not an accident of history that customization is now promoted with the same enthusiasm with which standardization was promoted almost a century ago. Today’s customization movement is a reaction to significant economic and technological forces, much as the standardization movement was in its time. But these developments must be viewed with a clear perspective. Therefore, we begin by reviewing how the standardization and customization distinction emerged in the first place.
這不是歷史的偶然，現在同樣的熱情促進標準化促進了幾乎一個世紀前定制。
今天的定制運動是一個顯著的經濟和技術力量的反應，多為標準化運動是在其時間。
但是，這些發展必須被視為一個明確的觀點。
因此，我們開始通過審查的標準化和定制的區別是如何出現在首位。
Although most readers may be familiar with the reasons that standardization became dominant at the turn of the century, they may not sufficiently appreciate to what extent this was an act of cognition as well as a reflection of economic and technological forces. Product standardization, mass production, and mass distribution were seen as a conceptual whole, a configuration. Industries that were transformed by this process were contrasted with old-fashioned industries that continued to customize their products. As a result, two logics emerged, a logic of aggregation in contrast to a logic of individualization, that were mistakenly treated as conceptually distinct and mutually exclusive.
雖然大多數讀者可能熟悉標準化的原因，在世紀之交成為佔主導地位，他們可能沒有足夠的欣賞到什麼程度，這是一種行為的認知以及經濟和技術力量的反映。
產品標準化，批量生產，質量分佈被看作是一個概念性的整體配置。
這個過程轉化產業與老式產業繼續來定制自己的產品進行對比。
其結果是，出現了兩種邏輯，聚集的個性化，即一個邏輯概念上不同的和互斥的被誤當作邏輯。
沒有留言:
張貼留言